Back to the Discussion
Scott Erb
>What I have proposed is starting with any constitutional democracy (e. g.
>the U.S.), then introducing amendments (perhaps one after the other):
Well, if you could get them passed, good for you.
Now, in order to convince people to change the constitution you need to:
1) explain the rationale
2) explain the practical advantages
3) explain what impact this will have on daily life, and why citizens
should want it and vote for it.
If it gets a lot of support, then the opposition will feel compelled to
find disadvantages you'll have to defend against.
(deletions)
The rest of what you write I've dealt with elsewhere, and really adds
nothing new. Your ideas still seem too distant from reality and too
ignorant, if I may use a strong word, of the practical realities of
political and social life. But hey -- good luck persuading people.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
Hans wrote:
>Actually, applying your own arguments I am inclined to think that there
>*MUST*NOT* be any such unequal treatment. Or maybe I misunderstood the
>status of "equal protection." How easy is it to violate this principle
>then?
Equal protection is an individual right, not an organizational right. How
organizations and businesses are treated is different. That deals with
much of your post.
>I think the relevant question would be whether this particular law is
>legitimate.
Of course, but your view on that isn't necessarily the right view. You
sometimes seem to forget that, or think that if only you can make a
persuasive case, then people should simply accept your view. That's not
how the real world works.
>> One has to stand for their moral beliefs. A
>
>And also accept that reality means you are persecuted for that? That that
>is legitimate?
That whole line of argument is insulting for reasons you know. None of us
want a system that allows persecution. We disagree on what kind of system
works best for this end. You seem to think that not accepting your moral
view means moral relativism. It does not. Sorry. That argument is
bogus.
>> constitutio
>And to repeat my question:
You repeat too much, and I have answered too many times. It's getting
boring.
>how do you escape the "might makes right"
I think a constitutional democracy is the best way to make such a result
least likely. No system is perfect. Your limitations are fine if you can
convince people that they are good. I, for one, am extremely skeptical.
A point of constructive criticism: your posts are too wordy and often
repetitive. I end up finding it not worth my while to go through them
carefully. If you would craft a tighter more direct argument, it would
help not only generate responses, but persuade (which is your goal). If
those involved in the debate find it too rambly, what do you think lurkers
have as a reaction?
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
says...
>So prohibiting some newspapers (the firms) would be okay then?
No, that would violate freedom of the press.
> The material
>foundations were not included in freedom of the press.
Huh?
>That doesn't mean I have to drop it. Or accept in any moral sense that
>when I acted legitimately "the system society has chosen to construct"
>throws me into jail.
You can do as you want. But you can't expect society will simply follow
your view if you don't make a convincing argument.
>And for none of us this is a reason to ignore the situation if it
>happens.
Right. No one wants to ignore persecution. Good. Got we got that
settled.
>Neither of us can exclude that a government takes illegitimate steps to
>persecute people. I make it clear that they have a right to defend
>themselves against this. Your position remains opaque on this point.
Governments aren't perfect. You seem to believe that you have found set
of principles that could yield a perfect government. I think you overlook
both a lot of practical problems (evidenced by how much you rely on
abstract analogies and theories instead of empirical evidence), and
different moral issues (such as the moral issues poised by social
democrats and others).
>> No system is perfect. Your limitations are fine if you can
>> convince people that they are good. I, for one, am extremely
skeptical.
>
>If you don't give reasons for this, I am skeptical that you have any.
That's irrelevant to me. What you think about my views doesn't really
make a difference. I've posted my views and reasons on many posts, on my
website (and you may want to look up my lectures during the year from my
website too, since I'll deal with comparative politics and ideologies).
>I was going to work through the rest of your replies in the last round.
>If you want to continue like this here, then I think I can save my time.
You don't have to reply if you don't want to.
I'll consider the posts unanswered, but may repost them just to show
people what's unanswered if the debate continues. Or you can reply, but I
again request a concise argument with evidence and logic, and fewer
accusations and impolite comments. Just a couple impolite and arrogant
comments gets me in a mood to zip through a post -- why take time if the
poster isn't being friendly and productive? If there is any specific
argument you think I didn't address enough, please repost it.
cheers, scott
Hansjoerg Walther
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote in article
<6qipki$1cvq$4...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>
> Hans wrote:
>
> >Actually, applying your own arguments I am inclined to think that there
> >*MUST*NOT* be any such unequal treatment. Or maybe I misunderstood the
> >status of "equal protection." How easy is it to violate this principle
> >then?
>
> Equal protection is an individual right, not an organizational right.
How
> organizations and businesses are treated is different. That deals with
> much of your post.
So prohibiting some newspapers (the firms) would be okay then? The material
foundations were not included in freedom of the press.
> >I think the relevant question would be whether this particular law is
> >legitimate.
>
> Of course, but your view on that isn't necessarily the right view. You
That doesn't mean I have to drop it. Or accept in any moral sense that when
I acted legitimately "the system society has chosen to construct" throws me
into jail.
> sometimes seem to forget that, or think that if only you can make a
> persuasive case, then people should simply accept your view.
No, I don't have to accept their views as legitimate, that's all.
> That's not how the real world works.
You mean when I think that using drugs is a consequence of owning my body,
and I can argue the case persuasively, then drug laws are still there, and
I might end up in jail. Shucks, I was so sure that would work.
I need these reminders from time to time (no, that's not an insult, that's
a big thank-you).
> >> One has to stand for their moral beliefs. A
> >
> >And also accept that reality means you are persecuted for that? That
that
> >is legitimate?
>
> That whole line of argument is insulting for reasons you know.
I have no idea what you mean. Do you want to define the possibility out
that anyone might be illegitimately persecuted in your system? How is it an
insult if I raise the question whether the one who is persecuted has the
right to defend himself (yes, and in reality also often has not the power
to do so, which is still an entirely different question).
> None of us want a system that allows persecution.
And for none of us this is a reason to ignore the situation if it happens.
> We disagree on what kind of system works best for this end.
Neither of us can exclude that a government takes illegitimate steps to
persecute people. I make it clear that they have a right to defend
themselves against this. Your position remains opaque on this point.
> You seem to think that not accepting your moral view means moral
relativism.
I have no idea why you think this. I don't think that the Grand Inquistor
was a moral relativist. Nonetheless, when he feels morally entitled to kill
me without any wrongdoing on my part, he is in my view acting
illegitimately and I am justified in defending me and others against this.
> It does not. Sorry. That argument is bogus.
You brought it up.
> >> constitutio
> >And to repeat my question:
>
> You repeat too much, and I have answered too many times.
Actually, I haven't seen your replies to my last posts. Perhaps you should
address points at least once, before you talk about having to repeat them.
> It's getting boring.
I simply insist that you haven't addressed my points.
> >how do you escape the "might makes right"
>
> I think a constitutional democracy is the best way to make such a result
> least likely.
How is this then not also an argument for my proposal of what I called a
limited constitutional government?
> No system is perfect. Your limitations are fine if you can
> convince people that they are good. I, for one, am extremely skeptical.
If you don't give reasons for this, I am skeptical that you have any.
> A point of constructive criticism: your posts are too wordy
Let me guess, when I explain things in short hand, you'd dismiss them as
slogans? I deal with reality here.
> and often repetitive.
I have to repeat questions and arguments which you have not addressed.
That's not an insult, that's an empirical fact that it takes some time
before you address them.
> I end up finding it not worth my while to go through them carefully.
Just say no to a debate.
> If you would craft a tighter more direct argument, it would
> help not only generate responses,
Actually, it would earn me the complaint that I am a sloganeer. We have
seen this before.
> but persuade (which is your goal).
Is it? I don't think I have to persuade anyone who simply drops out of a
debate at about the second round.
> If those involved in the debate find it too rambly, what do you think
lurkers
> have as a reaction?
I don't care. I know that there are plenty of people who enjoy reading my
posts. I am always astonished how many they are.
How about addressing the other 95 percent of my arguments? And then the
arguments.
Best regards,
Hansjoerg Walther.
P. S.
I was going to work through the rest of your replies in the last round. If
you want to continue like this here, then I think I can save my time.
Hansjoerg Walther.
Hansjoerg Walther
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote in article
<6qj1bv$f0o$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
> In article <01bdc339$75f53bc0$a268d6ce@mycomputer>, wal...@nineties.com
> says...
> >So prohibiting some newspapers (the firms) would be okay then?
>
> No, that would violate freedom of the press.
I messed this up, I meant to ask: restricting the operation of some
newspapers as firms would be okay then?
The question was whether equal protection applies here (if the question is
not shutting a newspaper as a firm down, but e. g. only giving some an edge
over others, or big ones over small ones, or the other way around). I have
two contradictory assertions from you:
"Equal protection should prevent you from selective taxes (against one
religion or newspaper), but if taxation was designed with an intent to take
away the freedom (in other words, not a fair tax but one designed to
eliminate that freedom), I would think there could be grounds to consider
it unfair."
and
"Equal protection is an individual right, not an organizational right. How
organizations and businesses are treated is different."
> > The material
> >foundations were not included in freedom of the press.
>
> Huh?
Scott Erb: "In general, the freedom [of the press and religion, HW] does
not apply to material property which supports it."
> >That doesn't mean I have to drop it. Or accept in any moral sense that
> >when I acted legitimately "the system society has chosen to construct"
> >throws me into jail.
>
> You can do as you want. But you can't expect society will simply follow
> your view if you don't make a convincing argument.
I'd even have rights if I were deaf and dumb and hadn't got the capability
to convince you. My having rights does not depend on convincing others (it
may help to protect them, but they don't depend on it).
> >And for none of us this is a reason to ignore the situation if it
> >happens.
>
> Right. No one wants to ignore persecution. Good. Got we got that
> settled.
Okay, now that we agree that persecution can happen under a government
(thanks for pointing me to the fact, because I only asked about it), let's
address the question:
Is it legitimate to resist such persecution?
My answer is in: yes, of course.
What is your answer?
[...]
Best regards,
Hansjoerg Walther.
Hansjoerg Walther
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote in article
<6qip2l$1cvq$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>
> >What I have proposed is starting with any constitutional democracy (e.
g.
> >the U.S.), then introducing amendments (perhaps one after the other):
>
> Well, if you could get them passed, good for you.
Thanks, I always tend to miss these things.
> Now, in order to convince people to change the constitution you need to:
>
> 1) explain the rationale
It is better to have limited than unlimited government. There should be
some sphere of society which is outside the domain of government. And
government is only legitimate when it relies on explicit consent.
> 2) explain the practical advantages
The government can't grow and usurp further fields, and thus become
unlimited. All extensions of the domain of the government have to rely on
the consent of those concernced. Such a system can only take steps which
lead to less tension between legality and legitimacy.
> 3) explain what impact this will have on daily life, and why citizens
> should want it and vote for it.
The common interest not to find oneself on the losing side of an extension
of the domain of the government. Any argument which can be raised against
limited constitutional government, is a forteriori an argument against
constitutional democracy without these safeguards.
> If it gets a lot of support, then the opposition will feel compelled to
> find disadvantages you'll have to defend against.
Good start that you can't come up with anything.
Scott Erb
says...
>I messed this up, I meant to ask: restricting the operation of some
>newspapers as firms would be okay then?
Again, I'm not too clear...I would say that the Courts would have to do
decide if such actions had the result of limiting freedom of the press.
If so, then I would, if I were on the Supreme Court, rule such laws
unconstitutional.
(deletions -- I think that clears it up, I don't think equal protection is
the main point here).
>I'd even have rights if I were deaf and dumb and hadn't got the
>capability to convince you. My having rights does not depend on
>convincing others (it may help to protect them, but they don't depend on
>it).
Rights are difficult to win and protect. You can argue that humans
naturally have rights. I'd say humans naturally choose and deal with the
consequences of their choices. Political rights and the like are our own
inventions, but can be based on fundamental goals and desires of people.
>Is it legitimate to resist such persecution?
I can't really stick with the terms you provide because "legtimate" is too
unclear. Should a person resist if they think they are being persecuted?
I'll say yes. Does that mean that a person's resistance is always right
(the means they use). The answer to that is no. Does that also mean that
the person's perception of being persecuted is always right? The answer
to that is no as well. I'd support actions where I believe that the
person's means of resistance are appropriate, and if I agree that the
person is being persecuted.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
says...
>
>Hello Scott,
>> 1) explain the rationale
>
>It is better to have limited than unlimited government. There should be
>some sphere of society which is outside the domain of government. And
>government is only legitimate when it relies on explicit consent.
The last part goes against most social theory which also posits implicit
consent, and focuses on consent for the entire system by a vast majority
rather than consent on each action. I think almost everyone here agrees
government should be limited.
>> 2) explain the practical advantages
>
>The government can't grow and usurp further fields, and thus become
>unlimited. All extensions of the domain of the government have to rely on
>the consent of those concernced. Such a system can only take steps which
>lead to less tension between legality and legitimacy.
I think that's pretty unclear, and not really focusing on practical
advantages. How will that affect Joe Schmoe's daily life? Why should
someone see this has being worthwhile? How much will the transition cost?
Would people still enjoy the legal protections and the government programs
they have chosen via their representatives? If not, why should they
support a change like this?
>> 3) explain what impact this will have on daily life, and why citizens
>> should want it and vote for it.
>
>The common interest not to find oneself on the losing side of an
>extension
>of the domain of the government. Any argument which can be raised against
>limited constitutional government, is a forteriori an argument against
>constitutional democracy without these safeguards.
The last part is not true unless you simply look at possibilities rather
than probabilities. The likelihood that Americans would amend their
constitution to eliminate basic freedoms is next to nil. I don't even
consider that a real possibility. In a system where the vast majority
were ready to do that anyway, I don't think your limitations would hold.
So that argument really goes back against your system as well. Also, you
are again very theoretical and abstract. Phrases like "extension of
government domain" are essentially meaningless without knowing what that
means in context.
And the questions would be: how much would the transition cost? What will
I gain or lose? How can I *know* that this will work in a way you
theorize, what kind of *empirical* evidence is there. The evidence is
overwhelming that the current system is working very well. You need a lot
before people will change it -- and much more than a theory based on
speculation and abstract concepts.
cheers, scott
Victor Levis
> In article <01bdc34d$0f262c60$a268d6ce@mycomputer>, wal...@nineties.com
> says...
>
> >I'd even have rights if I were deaf and dumb and hadn't got the
> >capability to convince you. My having rights does not depend on
> >convincing others (it may help to protect them, but they don't depend on
> >it).
>
> Rights are difficult to win and protect. You can argue that humans
> naturally have rights. I'd say humans naturally choose and deal with the
> consequences of their choices. Political rights and the like are our own
> inventions, but can be based on fundamental goals and desires of people.
>
> >Is it legitimate to resist such persecution?
>
> I can't really stick with the terms you provide because "legtimate" is too
> unclear. Should a person resist if they think they are being persecuted?
> I'll say yes. Does that mean that a person's resistance is always right
> (the means they use). The answer to that is no. Does that also mean that
> the person's perception of being persecuted is always right? The answer
> to that is no as well. I'd support actions where I believe that the
> person's means of resistance are appropriate, and if I agree that the
> person is being persecuted.
This answer isn't quite what I expected, and it may be more in line with
my own views than I thought it would be, but there are still some vague
words I would appreciate clarification on.
Let's take the case of someone who is forced by law to disconnect a
private well and connect to municipal water mains.
What method of resistance, if any, do you support for him?
For example, would you condemn him for refusing to obey the order?
For surreptitiously reconnecting the old system when no one is looking?
For disconnecting the water at the home of the mayor?
For placing a guard dog on the property in case a bailiff comes by
to seize the home?
How about the other way around, now.
Seeing as there is a dispute between the town council and the landowner,
would you support any of the following actions by the town officials:
Sending a crew to disconnect his old water supply.
Sending a bill for the disconnection.
Sending another crew to reconnect to the main.
Sending him another bill for the reconnection, and yet another bill for
annual usage fees.
Sending a bailiff to evict him, if and when he doesn't pay the bills.
Sending in the anti-terrorist squad, if and when he takes up arms to
defend himself from eviction.
If you do not support any of the above actions by the town, please
outline what forms your non-support might take.
Thank you in advance for clarifying.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Scott Erb
says...
>Let's take the case of someone who is forced by law to disconnect a
>private well and connect to municipal water mains.
>
>What method of resistance, if any, do you support for him?
That depends on the circumstances. I'd need to read up on the issue and
hear both sides, and contemplate the issues involved. Too often in this
debate very vague dichotomous examples are given, with then a request to
take a stance. The real world usually involves multiple variables and
concerns that should be taken into account. Still, I'll give an initial
reaction
>For example, would you condemn him for refusing to obey the order?
No, probably not.
>For surreptitiously reconnecting the old system when no one is looking?
No, probably not.
>For disconnecting the water at the home of the mayor?
i'd probably think he was wrong. Condemn would be too strong.
>For placing a guard dog on the property in case a bailiff comes by
>to seize the home?
No probably not.
>How about the other way around, now.
>
>Seeing as there is a dispute between the town council and the landowner,
>would you support any of the following actions by the town officials:
OK, note you changed the word from condemn to support. That isn't really
changing it around since by not condemning the home owner above, that
doesn't mean I was always support them. Let me answer the same question
you posed above: Would I condemn the town council if they:
>Sending a crew to disconnect his old water supply.
No, probably not.
>Sending a bill for the disconnection.
No, probably not.
>Sending another crew to reconnect to the main.
No, probably not.
>Sending him another bill for the reconnection, and yet another bill for
> annual usage fees.
>Sending a bailiff to evict him, if and when he doesn't pay the bills.
>Sending in the anti-terrorist squad, if and when he takes up arms to
>defend himself from eviction.
No, i wouldn't condemn the town for any of these actions.
>If you do not support any of the above actions by the town, please
>outline what forms your non-support might take.
>
>Thank you in advance for clarifying.
As for specifics on support, I would need more information. I suspect
that in most cases I'd support the town in principle, disagree with some
of their practices, and think the person with the well should work within
the system rather than take actions which seem ultimately self-defeating.
cheers, scott
do...@stone-soup.com
wrote:
<snip>
>
>>Neither of us can exclude that a government takes illegitimate steps to
>>persecute people. I make it clear that they have a right to defend
>>themselves against this. Your position remains opaque on this point.
>
>Governments aren't perfect. You seem to believe that you have found set
>of principles that could yield a perfect government. I think you overlook
>both a lot of practical problems (evidenced by how much you rely on
>abstract analogies and theories instead of empirical evidence), and
>different moral issues (such as the moral issues poised by social
>democrats and others).
>
This doesn't seem to be an answer to Hans' question. Do people have a
right to defend themselves (either sucessfully or unsucessfully)
against illegitimate steps by government to persecute people?
<snip>
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
"liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
William Allen White
Scott Erb
says...
>That depends on the circumstances.
For example:
water below the ground affects property outside one's own
there may health concerns
there may be other types of enivironmental concerns
below land water reserves may be considered collective property
etc.
Pistol
wrote:
>In article <01bdc339$75f53bc0$a268d6ce@mycomputer>, wal...@nineties.com
>says...
[snips]
>>Neither of us can exclude that a government takes illegitimate steps to
>>persecute people. I make it clear that they have a right to defend
>>themselves against this. Your position remains opaque on this point.
>
>Governments aren't perfect. You seem to believe that you have found set
>of principles that could yield a perfect government. I think you overlook
>both a lot of practical problems (evidenced by how much you rely on
>abstract analogies and theories instead of empirical evidence), and
>different moral issues (such as the moral issues poised by social
>democrats and others).
A potentially fatal unstated and contradictory presumption in your
arguments here just occurred to me. You imply above that when making
judgements about legitimate government systems and government actions,
we should "rely on ... empirical evidence". IOW, per your view, FACTS
should dictate what the design of a government SHOULD be and what that
government SHOULD do. IOW, we should derive our OUGHT from what IS.
This puts you in quite a pickle. For one thing, the minute you create
such a derivation, you are engaging in the creation of the
abstractions and theories that you criticize Hans for above. Second,
this would be the very thing you so criticize objectivists for -
attemtping to form normative arguments from objective facts.
Empirical evidence, by itself, tells us almost nothing about the rest
of the physical world, and ABSOLUTELY nothing about the normative
world. You might point to a mother crying over her murdered daughter,
and then proclaim that murder is wrong, but that is not much of an
argument, as the gunphobes have found. An argument is necessarily, in
part, abstractions and theories. There are no two ways about it.
And BTW, Doug is right. You attacked Hans above, but never answered
his question.
John Kennedy
wrote:
>In article <01bdc34d$0f262c60$a268d6ce@mycomputer>, wal...@nineties.com
>says...
>
>>I messed this up, I meant to ask: restricting the operation of some
>>newspapers as firms would be okay then?
>
>Again, I'm not too clear...I would say that the Courts would have to do
>decide if such actions had the result of limiting freedom of the press.
>If so, then I would, if I were on the Supreme Court, rule such laws
>unconstitutional.
>
>(deletions -- I think that clears it up, I don't think equal protection is
>the main point here).
>
>>I'd even have rights if I were deaf and dumb and hadn't got the
>>capability to convince you. My having rights does not depend on
>>convincing others (it may help to protect them, but they don't depend on
>>it).
>
>Rights are difficult to win and protect. You can argue that humans
>naturally have rights. I'd say humans naturally choose and deal with the
>consequences of their choices. Political rights and the like are our own
>inventions, but can be based on fundamental goals and desires of people.
>
>>Is it legitimate to resist such persecution?
>
>I can't really stick with the terms you provide because "legtimate" is too
>unclear. Should a person resist if they think they are being persecuted?
> I'll say yes. Does that mean that a person's resistance is always right
>(the means they use). The answer to that is no. Does that also mean that
>the person's perception of being persecuted is always right? The answer
>to that is no as well.
This implies that there is a right answer to the question of whether
or not the person is being persecuted.
Victor did not ask whether it was legitimate to resist perceived
persecution, he asked whether it was legitimate to resist persecution.
Actual persecution.
>> I'd support actions where I believe that the
>person's means of resistance are appropriate, and if I agree that the
>person is being persecuted.
>cheers, scott
>
John Kennedy
Hansjoerg Walther
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote in article
<6qk3bn$h7g$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
> In article <01bdc352$f8675ca0$a268d6ce@mycomputer>, wal...@nineties.com
> says...
[...]
> I think almost everyone here agrees government should be limited.
That kind of rhetoric makes me hopeful: you couldn't escape step one of
what I have proposed. This would be: enumerating the powers of the
government and explicitly limiting the domain of the government in the
constitution, reinforcing the right of the people to ignore, break, and
resist any laws which are in breach of the constitution.
Do you have any objections to this?
And you'd have a hard time arguing against step two without coming out as a
fan of potentially unlimited government. Step two was: only further
limitations of the domain of the government are constitutional (and
otherwise by step one: the population has the right to resist this with the
sanction of the government), whereas extensions are only possible with the
explicit consent of those concerned.
Do you have any objections to this?
> >> 2) explain the practical advantages
> >
> >The government can't grow and usurp further fields, and thus become
> >unlimited. All extensions of the domain of the government have to rely
on
> >the consent of those concernced. Such a system can only take steps which
> >lead to less tension between legality and legitimacy.
>
> I think that's pretty unclear, and not really focusing on practical
> advantages. How will that affect Joe Schmoe's daily life?
Amendment: the government may only appropriate X percent of all earnings
and the tax burden must not exceed Y percent of GNP.
> Why should someone see this has being worthwhile?
Because he doesn't want to pay more than X percent taxes on earnings
perhaps? And would like the idea that any further steps can only mean
lowering X?
> How much will the transition cost?
Nothing (except perhaps a few more pages in copies of the constitution).
Don't forget, we start with the current system. Nothing changes, if noone
changes the constitution. But if they do, they can only either limit the
domain of the government even further, or extend it only for those who have
explicitly consented.
Since the domain of the government can only be limited further, the
government needs less and less money. These are the only "costs" in sight.
> Would people still enjoy the legal protections
You mean things like double jeopardy, etc.? Yes, we start with the current
system. And after step two any extensions of the domain of the government
are unconstitutional: introducing the possibilty to prosecute twice would
mean more acts of the government were legal according to constitutional
laws. That's an extension of the domain of the government which is
therefore unconstitutional.
> and the government programs they have chosen via their representatives?
We start with the current system. When some program is abolished, it would
be a good idea to give the respective field back to the people in general.
Amendment: pension systems are not the domain of the government.
> If not, why should they support a change like this?
You mean like a cap on taxes and the prospect that this can only decrease?
I have no idea why people would like this.
> >> 3) explain what impact this will have on daily life, and why citizens
> >> should want it and vote for it.
> >
> >The common interest not to find oneself on the losing side of an
> >extension
> >of the domain of the government. Any argument which can be raised
against
> >limited constitutional government, is a forteriori an argument against
> >constitutional democracy without these safeguards.
>
> The last part is not true unless you simply look at possibilities rather
> than probabilities.
No, that's not the point. But I see the argument starts to sink in.
> The likelihood that Americans would amend their
> constitution to eliminate basic freedoms is next to nil.
Great, so it won't happen in my system either. Where's the complaint?
> I don't even
> consider that a real possibility. In a system where the vast majority
> were ready to do that anyway, I don't think your limitations would hold.
That's not worse than in your system. In my system (first two steps only),
it would be in addition unconstitutional, and by the government's own
admission justify resistance. Looks like this makes this even less
probable. (Throwing in probabilities is a bad idea, because the
probabilities look better for my system.)
> So that argument really goes back against your system as well. Also, you
My point is only: that's not worse than in your proposal, and actually I
have reason to believe it is harder to do this: it would imply breaking the
constitution and inviting resistance that the government has explicitly
sanctioned in the constitution, which many people would not want to do,
even if they were in favor of this specific measure.
> are again very theoretical and abstract.
You would hate it for its concreteness.
Amendment: Provision of healthcare and health insurance is not in the
domain of the government. (*)
Try to wiggle around this.
> Phrases like "extension of government domain" are essentially meaningless
without knowing what that
> means in context.
That's very simple: take the set of all laws that would be constitutional,
take then all the acts of the government that would be legal according to
these laws, then compare this with what would be the case with a certain
amendment in force. If the set of legal acts of the government according to
constitutional laws is included in that without the amendment, then the
amendment is okay, otherwise it is not.
Example: without the healthcare amendment (*), it is constitutional for the
government to establish a national healthcare service (and many similar
projects). With this amendment (*), it is clearly unconstitutional, which
means that fewer acts of the government are legal according to
constitutional laws. You can't name me any additional acts which became now
legal because of the amendment (stating that the government must not do
something, cannot lead to a permission to do other things).
Therefore this amendment is okay.
Example for the other direction:
Amendment 1 (changed): Congress shall make no laws which prohibit the
exercise of free speech on Sundays, or which shut down any of the following
newspapers: Human Events, Mother Jones, or Playboy.
Let's see what that means: the government may now make laws prohibiting
National Review, The Nation, or Penthouse, and may prohibit e. g. any
political speeches on Mondays. So this allows more acts of the government
according to constitutional laws. It is an extension of the domain of the
government, and must therefore not take place.
Looks like a pretty manageable criterion, far from being "meaningless."
> And the questions would be: how much would the transition cost?
Nothing (except perhaps printing longer constitutions), we start with the
current system.
> What will I gain or lose?
We start with the current system. Any further steps are just what could
happen also in your system. It is only that certain of them are excluded
from step two on (extensions of the domain of the government only with the
consent of those concerned).
If you think you have an edge over this, you'd have to explain what is so
good about amendments which EXTEND the domain of the government and which
would now only be possible with the consent of all those concerned. The
only conceivable reason for thinking this is a drawback, is that you are
interested in potentially unlimited government, easy extension of the
domain of the government, etc.
I don't think you have the guts to advocate that openly. So my argument
goes through.
> How can I *know* that this will work in a way you theorize,
We start with the current system. Talk about "in touch with reality."
> what kind of *empirical* evidence is there.
It works currently. Any empirical evidence you can come up with for
constitutional government in general, supports also my case.
> The evidence is
> overwhelming that the current system is working very well.
I think you are getting the point: we start with it.
> You need a lot before people will change it
Thanks for some advice from your fringe.
> -- and much more than a theory based on speculation and abstract
concepts.
Correct, we start with the current system. Any further steps are what can
also happen in your system, only that after step two some changes are
excluded.
Nothing to worry about: that means we stay closer to the current system
because extensions of the domain of the government don't get through (or
only for those who consent explicitly). And any limitations of the domain
of the government will most probably happen in fields which were not the
domain of the government before this century. So the worst we would have to
brace ourselves for would be that we move in the direction of the founding
fathers. No signs of instability there either.
And then as always: any problems you may want to paint on the wall, are
problems which a forteriori can turn up in your more general system. It's
amazing that you still don't seem to realize, that this eliminates *ALL*
the arguments you would want to target _only_ at my proposal.
Best regards,
Hansjoerg Walther.
Hansjoerg Walther
John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in article
<35cdb819...@news.ntplx.net>...
> On Sun, 09 Aug 98 08:02:06 PST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
> wrote:
> >In article <01bdc34d$0f262c60$a268d6ce@mycomputer>, wal...@nineties.com
> >says...
[...]
> >>Is it legitimate to resist such persecution?
As someone who is so sensitive to the context, Scott has, of course,
radically snipped the context here. I was asking about pretty obvious cases
like persecution for religious or political reasons. Because someone has a
certain religion or political opinion, he is persecuted. That is
illegitimate (morally wrong and justifying an adequate response in
self-defense), something Scott would have to challenge to make such
comments:
> >I can't really stick with the terms you provide because "legtimate" is
too
> >unclear. Should a person resist if they think they are being
persecuted?
> > I'll say yes. Does that mean that a person's resistance is always
right
> >(the means they use). The answer to that is no. Does that also mean
that
> >the person's perception of being persecuted is always right? The answer
> >to that is no as well.
>
> This implies that there is a right answer to the question of whether
> or not the person is being persecuted.
Very good point.
He has a problem with answering a straightforward question: Is it
legitimate (morally right, if Scott prefers the term) to resist persecution
with means which are adequate? Yes or no?
> Victor
Actually, I asked.
> did not ask whether it was legitimate to resist perceived
> persecution, he asked whether it was legitimate to resist persecution.
>
> Actual persecution.
Scott has a hard time creating a confusion here. The stuff on perception is
meant to show that the issue is "complicated." It is complicated by Scott,
not because it is that way.
Basically, this is a situation of self-defense. The government
illegitimately wants to use force against you, just as any person or
organization might want to do. Self-defense is legitimate, something which
Scott has admitted in another post (with the general caveat: that it may
always mean something quite different when the consequences of this are not
to Scott's liking).
The question whether someone may misunderstand the situation is a red
herring. There are two possibilities:
person has the perception he defends himself, and this is really the case
==> legitimate use of force
person has the perception he defends himself, and this is really not the
case ==> illegitimate use of force
That people can err in such a situation, does not change it a iota, that if
they DON'T they act legitimately.
Scott Erb
says...
>That kind of rhetoric makes me hopeful: you couldn't escape step one of
>what I have proposed. This would be: enumerating the powers of the
>government and explicitly limiting the domain of the government in the
>constitution, reinforcing the right of the people to ignore, break, and
>resist any laws which are in breach of the constitution.
>
>Do you have any objections to this?
>
>And you'd have a hard time arguing against step two without coming out as
>
>fan of potentially unlimited government. Step two was: only further
>limitations of the domain of the government are constitutional (and
>otherwise by step one: the population has the right to resist this with
>the sanction of the government), whereas extensions are only possible
>with the explicit consent of those concerned.
My view is that constitutional limitations should be strictly enforced,
though constitutions may be amended following the legal process in
whatever way the population chooses. If they make amendments which gut
the system and create what I consider an immoral system, I will actively
oppose it.
The reason is clear: allowing amendments, even ones that might take away
protections, STRENGTHENS safeguards. If you can't amend a constitution,
the moment the public strongly goes against a provision (let's say the
constitution says you have to limit government and can't expand its
powers, but people strongly agree you need government regulations in some
new area), then people will ditch the whole constitution, and all other
guarantees that might come within it.
That's why the amendment process is as it is: if it were more easy, then
the limitations would be less intense. If it were difficult, the
constitution would be more likely rejected down the line, endangering all
other protections and even the nature of the system.
I'll respond to the rest in another post, since I want to make this
argument clear and focus on it specifically if you have a reaction.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
says...
>Amendment: the government may only appropriate X percent of all earnings
>and the tax burden must not exceed Y percent of GNP.
I might support such an amendment, depending on X and Y. But probably not
-- the size of the budget depends on what representatives choose, and
there may be reasons to spend more in a disaster, and losing that
flexibility would be dangerous. Right now we can vote in people who will
spend less if we want. Since amendments are hard to pass, then it would
be easier to vote people in who would cut the budget than to get a major
amendment through.
>Amendment: pension systems are not the domain of the government.
I doubt I'd support such a thing as an amendment -- amending the
constitution deals with big issues, and if you had the support to make
this an amendment, then you'd also have the support to simply vote
government out of the pension system business via your representatives.
Passing laws is easier than passing amendments, after all.
(deletions)
>> The likelihood that Americans would amend their
>> constitution to eliminate basic freedoms is next to nil.
>
>Great, so it won't happen in my system either. Where's the complaint?
The point is that the safeguards are intense in the current system.
>Amendment: Provision of healthcare and health insurance is not in the
>domain of the government. (*)
Same as above -- if the people don't want that, then they can avoid it
through normal representative democracy. If that view had the popularity
to become an amendment, then certainly representatives would be reflecting
it as well. I suspect that, given the debate on medicare and medicaid,
such an amendment would go absolutely nowhere.
The rest is basically a restatement of wanting to limit amending power. I
would oppose such an amendment based on the logic in the last post, and in
this one. I think amendments are a major thing, and I certainly wouldn't
want the policy-specific amendments you propose. They can be dealt with
by constitutional democracy.
But the beauty is -- you are free to propose such amendments and try to
convince people. If you do, I'll go along with it and congratulate you on
your persuasive power (though I doubt that those amendments, or your big
one on limiting amendments, have much chance to get public support in this
country).
cheers, scott
John Kennedy
wrote:
He will now back away from the implications of his assertions> He'll
fall back to something like: it's only his opinion that the person is
right or wrong.
But of course if there were no actual right or wrong to measue one's
opinions against, what would be the point of having such opinions?
Opinion about what? Opinions about opinions about opinions apparently.
(Of course it's only an opinion that opinions exist.)
>
>> Victor
>
>Actually, I asked.
Sorry for the confusion. It might has well have been Victor, but you
deserve the credit.
>
>> did not ask whether it was legitimate to resist perceived
>> persecution, he asked whether it was legitimate to resist persecution.
>>
>> Actual persecution.
>
>Scott has a hard time creating a confusion here. The stuff on perception is
>meant to show that the issue is "complicated." It is complicated by Scott,
>not because it is that way.
The problem is, despite his protestations to the contrary, Erb is a
relativist. That is why you will find no rational purchase here. There
is no fact he will not back away from.
>Basically, this is a situation of self-defense. The government
>illegitimately wants to use force against you, just as any person or
>organization might want to do. Self-defense is legitimate, something which
>Scott has admitted in another post (with the general caveat: that it may
>always mean something quite different when the consequences of this are not
>to Scott's liking).
Don't fall into the trap of assuming Scott means what he says.
When Scott says something is legitimate he only means it is his
opinion that it is legitimate, it emphatically does not mean he thinks
it is possible to _know_ if it is legitimate.
Thus the legitimacy of self defense is only an opinion.
>
>The question whether someone may misunderstand the situation is a red
>herring. There are two possibilities:
>
>person has the perception he defends himself, and this is really the case
>==> legitimate use of force
>person has the perception he defends himself, and this is really not the
>case ==> illegitimate use of force
>
>That people can err in such a situation, does not change it a iota, that if
>they DON'T they act legitimately.
The relativist will not accept the premise that knowledge of what the
actual situation is can exist, there are only opinions of the
situation. The beauty of relativism is that since it is
self-contradictory, one can derive _any_ conclusion from it, as the
need arises.
>
>[...]
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Hansjoerg Walther.
John Kennedy
Scott Erb
says...
>This doesn't seem to be an answer to Hans' question. Do people have a
>right to defend themselves (either sucessfully or unsucessfully)
>against illegitimate steps by government to persecute people?
Each person choses for themselves what acts to take. If you decide you
are being persecuted, do what you feel you must. If I disagree that such
act is a persecutation, I will not support you. If I agree, I will.
That's a clear an answer as you'll get, absent complete agreement on what
the terms "legitimate" and "persecution" mean in context.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
says...
>But of course if there were no actual right or wrong to measue one's
>opinions against, what would be the point of having such opinions?
Your opinion, John, is not the right or wrong for other people to measure
their opinions against.
I know that comes as a shock to you....
Ron
>Basically, this is a situation of self-defense. The government
>illegitimately wants to use force against you, just as any person or
>organization might want to do. Self-defense is legitimate, something which
>Scott has admitted in another post (with the general caveat: that it may
>always mean something quite different when the consequences of this are not
>to Scott's liking).
>
>The question whether someone may misunderstand the situation is a red
>herring. There are two possibilities:
>
>person has the perception he defends himself, and this is really the case
>==> legitimate use of force
>person has the perception he defends himself, and this is really not the
>case ==> illegitimate use of force
>
>That people can err in such a situation, does not change it a iota, that if
>they DON'T they act legitimately.
Further...the person instigating the aggression/persecution does not
properly get to dictate the limits of or the appropriate method of response
by, for instance, saying *yes, I was wrong--but you over-reacted or used
illegitimate means of self-defence--or, more likely--you _can't_ use X method
as defence*
This has implications when the State is the aggressor. My thinking is when the
State is the aggressor, they morally _forfeit_ their right to decide what
means of self-defence are appropriate. Else, they may decide to aggress
thinking that the penalty does not outweigh the benefits to them.
Comments?
Ron
John Kennedy
wrote:
>In article <35cdcfd6...@news.ntplx.net>, kenne...@my-dejanews.com
Is that a fact Scott? Or just your opinion?
(This is like dynamiting fish in a barrel.)
John Kennedy
Hansjoerg Walther
John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in article
<35cdcfd6...@news.ntplx.net>...
> On 9 Aug 1998 16:14:25 GMT, "Hansjoerg Walther" <wal...@nineties.com>
> wrote:
> >John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in article
> ><35cdb819...@news.ntplx.net>...
> >> On Sun, 09 Aug 98 08:02:06 PST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
> >> wrote:
> >> >In article <01bdc34d$0f262c60$a268d6ce@mycomputer>,
wal...@nineties.com
> >> >says...
[...]
> >He has a problem with answering a straightforward question: Is it
> >legitimate (morally right, if Scott prefers the term) to resist
persecution
> >with means which are adequate? Yes or no?
>
> He will now back away from the implications of his assertions>
That's really funny. I mean he started out with strong assertions about
religious freedom, freedom of the press, and free speech, that he would
strongly reject any system which does not value them. But when you ask him
whether this implies that people are morally right to defend against the
government when it happens, and with adequate means (a big escape clause,
BTW), then he can't tell you what it is.
I guess next thing he will do is call it a particularly heroic pragmatism.
> He'll
> fall back to something like: it's only his opinion that the person is
> right or wrong.
Exactly. Where he wants to make it look as if he were not speaking about a
moral issue, but just about a fact. However, that's not true, he'd
certainly reject the idea that because someone feels something and has an
opinion, he is justified in acting on it. What he says is: I _approve_ of
this _moral_ decision. The rest is only doubletalk to leave the way open
that he only wanted to recount some psychological facts to us.
> But of course if there were no actual right or wrong to measue one's
> opinions against, what would be the point of having such opinions?
And how can he complain that others might have an opinion which is WRONG?
> Opinion about what? Opinions about opinions about opinions apparently.
> (Of course it's only an opinion that opinions exist.)
The only thing we can predict for sure, is that he will pride himself in
being so much more subtle than stupid libertarians who can't live with
outright contradictions in their views.
> >> Victor
> >
> >Actually, I asked.
>
> Sorry for the confusion. It might has well have been Victor, but you
> deserve the credit.
No problem.
> >> did not ask whether it was legitimate to resist perceived
> >> persecution, he asked whether it was legitimate to resist persecution.
> >>
> >> Actual persecution.
> >
> >Scott has a hard time creating a confusion here. The stuff on perception
is
> >meant to show that the issue is "complicated." It is complicated by
Scott,
> >not because it is that way.
>
> The problem is, despite his protestations to the contrary, Erb is a
> relativist.
I think you're right, although he confused me for some time. (Scott, that's
only an opinion, and you have a different opinion. So who gets to decide
this? We need some method to mediate such conflicts, and constitutional
democracy blablabla ...).
What he doesn't seem to realize is that it looks extremely out of touch
with reality when you try to create a confusion about a commonsensical
issue. Something like: "But I might have the opinion that my car has
123,456 wheels and not just 4 as you claim. Who gets to decide such
disagreements? The best way we know sofar for this is ..."
> That is why you will find no rational purchase here. There
> is no fact he will not back away from.
Sometimes he can even say two contradictory things at almost the same time:
e. g. when he invoked "equal protection" as a safeguard against selective
harrassment of newspapers, and some posts later claimed to my amusement
that "equal protection" does not apply to organizations.
> >Basically, this is a situation of self-defense. The government
> >illegitimately wants to use force against you, just as any person or
> >organization might want to do. Self-defense is legitimate, something
which
> >Scott has admitted in another post (with the general caveat: that it may
> >always mean something quite different when the consequences of this are
not
> >to Scott's liking).
>
> Don't fall into the trap of assuming Scott means what he says.
He means exactly what he says and he would stand up for his views, except
in practically any conceivable context and when he doesn't agree with the
consequences. Hey, Scott is for small government and he is an outspoken
anti-statist, except perhaps for a few big programs for, let me guess,
healthcare, higher education, equal oppotunities, and undoing any evil in
the past, plus leaving the status quo to itself and growing at the usual
rate.
I am afraid I am not subtle enough to see this not as void sloganeering.
> When Scott says something is legitimate he only means it is his
> opinion that it is legitimate, it emphatically does not mean he thinks
> it is possible to _know_ if it is legitimate.
And even if you could nail him down, there is always a wide "contexts and
consequences" escape clause.
> Thus the legitimacy of self defense is only an opinion.
He can't even tell us what his opinion is. After all, my question could be
rephrased as:
Scott, what is your opinion? Is resistance against persecution with no
excessive means legitimate/morally justified or is it not?
Check your choice, Scott:
[ ] I have my opinion about this and I feel very strongly about the issue,
but others have other opinions.
[ ] If someone uses clearly excessive means, then I think I don't agree
with it.
[ ] That all depends on what "resistance" means, I might call my car
"resistance." And no, I don't think my car is legitimate.
[ ] I believe there are situations where I might agree with one side or the
other. But I'd try hard not to kill anyone.
[ ] This is only an abstract question. I prefer to deal with reality. Let's
discuss decentralization in general.
> >The question whether someone may misunderstand the situation is a red
> >herring. There are two possibilities:
> >
> >person has the perception he defends himself, and this is really the
case
> >==> legitimate use of force
> >person has the perception he defends himself, and this is really not the
> >case ==> illegitimate use of force
> >
> >That people can err in such a situation, does not change it a iota, that
if
> >they DON'T they act legitimately.
>
> The relativist will not accept the premise that knowledge of what the
> actual situation is can exist, there are only opinions of the
> situation.
But I guess Scott is even a relativist with regard to his epistemological
stance. He might voice his indignation like that: "My opinion of me is that
I am not a relativist. You have a different opinion. Who gets to decide
this? The best way ... I find it insulting that you have any opinions about
me which are not enthusiastic."
> The beauty of relativism is that since it is
> self-contradictory, one can derive _any_ conclusion from it, as the
> need arises.
Somewhat like following the party line.
Best regards,
Hansjoerg Walther.
Hansjoerg Walther
Ron <rdgood...@bigfootnospamm.com> wrote in article
<6qld56$19r$1...@supernews.com>...
> In article <01bdc3af$821d66e0$a268d6ce@mycomputer>, "Hansjoerg Walther"
<wal...@nineties.com> wrote:
[...]
> Further...the person instigating the aggression/persecution does not
> properly get to dictate the limits of or the appropriate method of
response
> by, for instance, saying *yes, I was wrong--but you over-reacted or used
> illegitimate means of self-defence--or, more likely--you _can't_ use X
method
> as defence*
I think I agree with you. It can't decide this because noone should be a
judge in his own case. Nonetheless, there could still be excessive force.
We had e. g. the example of Christmas being a state holiday, which may be
unconstitutional, but certainly is an infringement of individual liberty.
While I think there are several appropriate ways to react to it: to ignore
it, to not enforce it, to lobby for a change with representatives, or
actions before the courts up to the supreme court, I'd say there this does
not justify the use of violence.
> This has implications when the State is the aggressor. My thinking is
when the
> State is the aggressor, they morally _forfeit_ their right to decide what
> means of self-defence are appropriate.
Which is different than that there can't be excessive force. You should try
to use a way which uses as little force as possible (as balanced with the
violation of your rights, and endangering yourself by a weak stance, etc.).
Then there are also other questions: e. g. the government is a group of
people who have different responsibilty for what happens. I don't think you
can use force against postal workers for what e. g. happens in drug
enforcement. Then there are questions of factual an moral error (the people
representing the government might err about what is the case, and what is
moral (and in both cases have some right to leniency)).
> Else, they may decide to aggress
> thinking that the penalty does not outweigh the benefits to them.
If you can use force at the level that is initiated against you (and even
somewhat above this, e. g. in case you have to deal with a situation where
too little force might conceivably endanger you, etc.), then the costs
should outweigh the benefits I hope
Best regards,
Hansjoerg Walther.
Pistol
<wal...@nineties.com> wrote:
[snips]
>I think you're right, although he confused me for some time. (Scott, that's
>only an opinion, and you have a different opinion. So who gets to decide
>this? We need some method to mediate such conflicts, and constitutional
>democracy blablabla ...).
>
>What he doesn't seem to realize is that it looks extremely out of touch
>with reality when you try to create a confusion about a commonsensical
>issue. Something like: "But I might have the opinion that my car has
>123,456 wheels and not just 4 as you claim. Who gets to decide such
>disagreements? The best way we know sofar for this is ..."
I once refused to respond to any of Erb's assertions/conclusions with
anything but something like "That is just your intersubjective
judgement based on flawed sensory perception. Others disagree. Who
decides?"
This, er, really pissed him off. Likewise, we see in his exchange
with Vic Levis that when Vic responds to Erb with quotes from Erb,
this is interpreted by Erb as an insult. And of course, as you expose
further down this thread (which I acidentally snipped), the truth of
everything is up for grabs in ERb's world, except for his own
declarations.
John Kennedy
<wal...@nineties.com> wrote:
He'll say he sees no way to impse his views on others. However his
hirelings will still show up at your house with a bill, demanding
payment by force.
>
>> He'll
>> fall back to something like: it's only his opinion that the person is
>> right or wrong.
>
>Exactly. Where he wants to make it look as if he were not speaking about a
>moral issue, but just about a fact. However, that's not true, he'd
>certainly reject the idea that because someone feels something and has an
>opinion, he is justified in acting on it. What he says is: I _approve_ of
>this _moral_ decision. The rest is only doubletalk to leave the way open
>that he only wanted to recount some psychological facts to us.
>
>> But of course if there were no actual right or wrong to measue one's
>> opinions against, what would be the point of having such opinions?
>
>And how can he complain that others might have an opinion which is WRONG?
He'll back off from the idea that they are wrong, to the hedge that he
disagrees with them.
Mediation is clearly in order.
John Kennedy
John Kennedy
<wal...@nineties.com> wrote:
>Hello Ron,
>
>
>Ron <rdgood...@bigfootnospamm.com> wrote in article
><6qld56$19r$1...@supernews.com>...
>> In article <01bdc3af$821d66e0$a268d6ce@mycomputer>, "Hansjoerg Walther"
><wal...@nineties.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Further...the person instigating the aggression/persecution does not
>> properly get to dictate the limits of or the appropriate method of
>response
>> by, for instance, saying *yes, I was wrong--but you over-reacted or used
>> illegitimate means of self-defence--or, more likely--you _can't_ use X
>method
>> as defence*
>
>I think I agree with you. It can't decide this because noone should be a
>judge in his own case. Nonetheless, there could still be excessive force.
>We had e. g. the example of Christmas being a state holiday, which may be
>unconstitutional, but certainly is an infringement of individual liberty.
Huh? I don't follow. What is the particualar infingment of liberty
here?
>While I think there are several appropriate ways to react to it: to ignore
>it, to not enforce it, to lobby for a change with representatives, or
>actions before the courts up to the supreme court, I'd say there this does
>not justify the use of violence.
>
>> This has implications when the State is the aggressor. My thinking is
>when the
>> State is the aggressor, they morally _forfeit_ their right to decide what
>
>> means of self-defence are appropriate.
>
>Which is different than that there can't be excessive force. You should try
>to use a way which uses as little force as possible (as balanced with the
>violation of your rights, and endangering yourself by a weak stance, etc.).
>Then there are also other questions: e. g. the government is a group of
>people who have different responsibilty for what happens. I don't think you
>can use force against postal workers for what e. g. happens in drug
>enforcement. Then there are questions of factual an moral error (the people
>representing the government might err about what is the case, and what is
>moral (and in both cases have some right to leniency)).
>
>> Else, they may decide to aggress
>> thinking that the penalty does not outweigh the benefits to them.
>
>If you can use force at the level that is initiated against you (and even
>somewhat above this, e. g. in case you have to deal with a situation where
>too little force might conceivably endanger you, etc.), then the costs
>should outweigh the benefits I hope
>
>
Scott Erb
says...
>>Governments aren't perfect. You seem to believe that you have found set
>>of principles that could yield a perfect government. I think you
overlook
>>both a lot of practical problems (evidenced by how much you rely on
>>abstract analogies and theories instead of empirical evidence), and
>>different moral issues (such as the moral issues poised by social
>>democrats and others).
>
>A potentially fatal unstated and contradictory presumption in your
>arguments here just occurred to me. You imply above that when making
>judgements about legitimate government systems and government actions,
>we should "rely on ... empirical evidence".
Here's an example of an obvious attempt to misstate my position -- an
attempt by Pistol, to be sure, who never really claimed to be a serious
debator of the issues.
But note that in the paragraph I criticize how the libertarian system
being offered over looks practical problems and moral issues. My mention
of empirical evidence is specifically focused on those practical issues.
Nowhere do I say that empirical evidence is the sole thing to take into
account, and more obviously dishonest is how he claims I say "we should
'rely on...empirical evidence," when the quote obviously was "evidenced by
how much you rely on abstract analogies and theories instead of empirical
evidence." That's the sort of obvious rhetorical game and dishonest
tactic that got me irritated.
I suspect that I let such blatant dishonesty from Pistol poison my
attitude towards Victor a bit, which was most likely Pistol's intention
since he's been hammering ad hominems since this debate began. By letting
it get to me I played into his hands, giving Pistol what he wanted. So, I
suspect I was unfair in my flame of Victor and overreacted to what were
most likely problems of miscommunication. So again, Victor, I'll
apologize and hope we can get going on the substantive issues again.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
says...
>Victor did not ask whether it was legitimate to resist perceived
>persecution, he asked whether it was legitimate to resist persecution.
>
>Actual persecution.
Ah, but that's the rub -- a lot of people feel victimized and persecuted.
Who decides what entails "actual persecution?"
In the US you do have a right to resist real, actual, persecution.
Victor Levis
I am editing out the person's name to get to the heart of the issue.
> I suspect that I let such blatant dishonesty from [not-Victor] poison my
> attitude towards Victor a bit, which was most likely [not-Victor's]
intention
> since he's been hammering ad hominems since this debate began. By letting
> it get to me I played into his hands, giving [not-Victor] what he wanted.
So, I
> suspect I was unfair in my flame of Victor and overreacted to what were
> most likely problems of miscommunication. So again, Victor, I'll
> apologize and hope we can get going on the substantive issues again.
Your apology noted and accepted.
I have found from experience that it's best to treat each person as
a separate moral actor, and to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Even in this particular case, you might want to consider the possibility
that the individual to whom you say you reacted isn't as bad a guy as
you now think.
Pistol
wrote:
>In article <35cda826...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
>says...
>>>Governments aren't perfect. You seem to believe that you have found set
>>>of principles that could yield a perfect government. I think you
>overlook
>>>both a lot of practical problems (evidenced by how much you rely on
>>>abstract analogies and theories instead of empirical evidence), and
>>>different moral issues (such as the moral issues poised by social
>>>democrats and others).
>>
>>A potentially fatal unstated and contradictory presumption in your
>>arguments here just occurred to me. You imply above that when making
>>judgements about legitimate government systems and government actions,
>>we should "rely on ... empirical evidence".
>
>Here's an example of an obvious attempt to misstate my position
Obvious to who? I interpreted your words to the best of my ability.
If you take this as an attempt at misstatement, it refelcts and
interesting bias to be sure, since your conclusion implies that the
only way I could mistate your position would be to do so on purpose.
The possibility that I made a mistake seems to be ignored by you. Do
you really think I'm that perfect?
I eagerly await, however, an explanation of what exactly I misstated.
>-- an
>attempt by Pistol, to be sure, who never really claimed to be a serious
>debator of the issues.
I always claim to be a serious debator. You of course know that. Why
you'd post otherwise is known only to you.
>But note that in the paragraph I criticize how the libertarian system
>being offered over looks practical problems and moral issues.
..by not relying on empirical evidence. Right.
>My mention
>of empirical evidence is specifically focused on those practical issues.
It focuses on what the decisionmaking should be focused on, IYO,
empirical evidence.
>Nowhere do I say that empirical evidence is the sole thing to take into
>account,
Nor did I ever claim that you did. My claim, and it still stands, is
that you implied that the thing to be relied on when solving practical
problems is empirical evidence.
>and more obviously dishonest is how he claims I say "we should
>'rely on...empirical evidence," when the quote obviously was "evidenced by
>how much you rely on abstract analogies and theories instead of empirical
>evidence."
If you say "your position is flawed because you rely on A instead of
B", you are CLEARLY implying that the thing to do is rely on B. There
is no other reason to write "instead of B", except to claim that THAT
is what is to be relied on. So when you write that Victor's proposal
is flawed because it "relies on abstract analogies and theories
instead of empirical evidence" when dealing with "practical problems",
the clear implication is that you think he SHOULD rely on empirical
evidence when resolving practical problems.
This then, would leave you with the problems I outlined and you
snipped - you have now to explain how one is to derive a solution to
these "practical problems" relying on empirical evidence, and NOT on
"abstract analogies and theories".
>That's the sort of obvious rhetorical game and dishonest
>tactic that got me irritated.
No games here - no insults - just straight up arguments. Let's see
you deal with them in like manner.
>I suspect that I let such blatant dishonesty from Pistol poison my
>attitude towards Victor a bit, which was most likely Pistol's intention
>since he's been hammering ad hominems since this debate began.
I also hammer substative comments and criticisms as well, such as this
one here. I design my posts to be clear whether I am positing an
insult or a seriouis argument. It would be a mistake to treat EVERY
post of mine as some sort of personal attack merely because SOME of
them are.
Indeed, were everyone here to treat YOUR posts by that same criterion,
you'd find all your arguments dismissed as personal atacks, since you
almost never post something that is purely argumentative, as these two
previous post of mine were.
>By letting
>it get to me I played into his hands, giving Pistol what he wanted.
What I want, and what I've always wanted, is flame-free, substative
debates of the issues. But I've pretty much given up on that with you
Erb, and Victor's experience with you is perfect evidence why. He
never flamed you, called you names, or hurled ONE insult your way, and
yet you hammered him with as impressive a display of ad homenims as
you or I have EVER hurled towards each other. And for what? His
crime, AFAICS, was simply to take what you had to say seriously, which
had the unfortunate (IYO) side-effect of revealing weaknesses in your
theories.
And then thre is Hans, who had the audacity to spell out his opinions
clearly and in detail, only to have you snip his arguments and call im
names.
And after watching you do this, you expect me or anyone else to
approach you like you were the Ghandi of debate?
>So, I
>suspect I was unfair in my flame of Victor and overreacted to what were
>most likely problems of miscommunication. So again, Victor, I'll
>apologize and hope we can get going on the substantive issues again.
>cheers, scott
Damn. There is hope. An apology from Erb. GRante, you give me part
of the blame for your treatment of Victor, but I guess iots a step in
the right direction. Responding to my substative arguments with some
of your own would be another.
Scott Erb
pis...@cyberramp.net says...
>>and more obviously dishonest is how he claims I say "we should
>>'rely on...empirical evidence," when the quote obviously was "evidenced
by
>>how much you rely on abstract analogies and theories instead of
empirical
>>evidence."
>
> If you say "your position is flawed because you rely on A instead of
>B", you are CLEARLY implying that the thing to do is rely on B. There
>is no other reason to write "instead of B", except to claim that THAT
>is what is to be relied on.
yada, yada, yada
With such arm waving Pistol, you discredit yourself.
Admit that you twisted the quote around. If you say you did it
inadvertantly and apologize, I may even believe you. But you did it, and
only to try to attack.
Your own response makes it clear. Thank you.
Pistol
wrote:
>In article <35d07944...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>pis...@cyberramp.net says...
>>>and more obviously dishonest is how he claims I say "we should
>>>'rely on...empirical evidence," when the quote obviously was "evidenced
>>>by how much you rely on abstract analogies and theories instead of
>>>empirical evidence."
>>
>> If you say "your position is flawed because you rely on A instead of
>>B", you are CLEARLY implying that the thing to do is rely on B. There
>>is no other reason to write "instead of B", except to claim that THAT
>>is what is to be relied on.
>
>yada, yada, yada
>
>With such arm waving Pistol, you discredit yourself.
Its called an "argument". Perhaps it appears strange to you, having
addressed them so seldom.
Now kindly explain what is wrong with it. Or better yet, explain what
the purpose of the phrase "instead of empirical evidence" meant in
your original, since you are so adament about my interpretation being
incorrect.
[And BTW, if you wish to engage me in a flame war, you might try to
lift yourself above the playground antics of repeating what I say back
to me like a tape recorder. You know, I make a thread entitled "Erb
taken to task", and you respond with one entitled "Pistol taken to
task". I tell you that you are discrediting yourself, and you then
start telling me that I am discrediting myself. etc. I'd expect a
man of such an education as yourself to have a bit more creativity
than that.]
>Admit that you twisted the quote around.
I twisted nothing. Here is the original quote, with you speaking to
Victor Levis:
"I think you overlook both a lot of practical problems (evidenced by
how much you rely on abstract analogies and theories instead of
empirical evidence), and different moral issues (such as the moral
issues poised by social democrats and others)."
I maintain that the most accurate interpretation of the first clause
is:
"one should NOT rely on abstract analogies and theories, but instead
SHOULD rely on empirical evidence"
I see no other reasonable interpretation of the "instead of empirical
evidence" part.
Now I may have made a mistake, but I see no evidence to date that I
did so. Please provide such evidence. Calling my argment
"handwaving" does not qualify.
>If you say you did it inadvertantly and apologize, I may even believe you.
>But you did it, and only to try to attack.
>Your own response makes it clear. Thank you.
What I meant should have clear from the beginning, but I state it now
openly and expicitly, so there is no misunderstanding. I maintain
that my interpretation of your words is correct, and that the
implications of this are very problematic for other positions that you
hold. Specifically:
1) I see no way to make such determinations relying on empirical
evidence without abstractions and theories. Facts, ALL BY THEMSELVES,
tell us next to nothing. We require a framework of an underlying
philosophy (a "context", if you will), with which to draw conclusions,
especially the normative kind that is involved here.
2) Once you do so, I fail to discern any difference in modus operandi
between you and objectivists and others whom you have so strongly
criticized for their claims of deriving an "ought" from an "is".
Relying on empirical evidence, as you claim, would seem to be
precisely the same thing, once you progress with the (IMO) necessary
theories that must follow.
Is this an attack? Most certainly. I am attacking views which you
have expressed which appear to be contradictory. That is what debate
is all about - attacking your opponent's position, and defending yours
from his attacks. Armwaving about "pressing" does not eliminate these
apparent contradictions. A well-thought-out response might. I await
such a response.
Scott Erb
pis...@cyberramp.net says...
>Is this an attack? Most certainly.
And yet all the words you through out -- paragraphs of rationalizations --
do not take away the fact that criticizing someone for relying too litte
on empirical evidence is not a claim that moral judgements must rely on
empirical evidence. I suspect that empirical evidence is necessary, we
could debate how to make moral judgements. But simply, you twisted the
quote around and you know it.
cheers, scott
Pistol
wrote:
>In article <35d0aba7...@newshost.cyberramp.net>,
>pis...@cyberramp.net says...
>
>>Is this an attack? Most certainly.
Unbelieveable. Here you have been screeching like a Banshee that no
one will engage you in substative debate, and then when I do so, with
a detailed explanation of my criticsms of your position, you snip ALL
of it except for this one line?
How exactly do you expect people to respond to such evasiveness?
>And yet all the words you through out -- paragraphs of rationalizations --
>do not take away the fact that criticizing someone for relying too litte
>on empirical evidence is not a claim that moral judgements must rely on
>empirical evidence.
Uh...yes it is. Implicit in the claim that he relied TOO LITTLE on
empirical evidence is the assumption that he MUST, to some degree, do
so. He relied on EE to extent X. You claim he should have relied on
EE to extent Y, Y being greater than X. Well, unless you are prepared
to explain how X could be negative, you must concede that such an
argument implies a positive Y - meaning one must rely on empirical
evidence.
>I suspect that empirical evidence is necessary, we
>could debate how to make moral judgements. But simply, you twisted the
>quote around and you know it.
I twisted nothing. I merely expressed what I thought were the
implications of what you said, and gave my reasons. Instead of
snipping my explanations, and answering with a "no its not", and this
silly "twisting" claim, why not deal honestly with my arguments? If
they are so wrong, surely you could point out where.
Scott Erb
says...
>Unbelieveable. Here you have been screeching like a Banshee that no
>one will engage you in substative debate, and then when I do so,
I snip your post because you engage in no real substantive discussion and
your style with Mike and I both suggests to me you are hardly worth even
reading. If you make a post that doesn't have an attack, doesn't embed
little mini-arguments (which are usually just assertions, often based on
issues of debate tactics and personalities not politics) within a bunch of
personal attacks, and do so in an honest, friendly, manner, than perhaps
you'll warrant my attention. I suggest you check out the threads
"Politics and Morals" if you want to see how a real honest discussion
about issues is conducted. As it is I'm not going to wade through insults
and ignore them just to get to what you consider substance - something
which doesn't seem to me to be substance.
John Kennedy
wrote:
>In article <35cdb819...@news.ntplx.net>, kenne...@my-dejanews.com
>says...
>>Victor did not ask whether it was legitimate to resist perceived
>>persecution, he asked whether it was legitimate to resist persecution.
>>
>>Actual persecution.
>
>Ah, but that's the rub -- a lot of people feel victimized and persecuted.
> Who decides what entails "actual persecution?"
The same person who gets to decide that the world is not flat.
Now before you respond to my answer, what is yours? Who decides what
entails actual persecution?
>
>In the US you do have a right to resist real, actual, persecution.
And what is real, actual, persecution?
John Kennedy
johnz
(Scott Erb) wrote:
Unfortunately for you, Mr. Pistol's post
is readily available on this thread and
bears no relation to your snippy little
characterization of it. However you do
manage to neatly avoid answering any
of his points.
JS
Pistol
Indeed. Apparently, when faced with a substative argument beyond his
ability to refute, Erb launches into the kind of familiar diatribe we
see above. As can be seen clearly from my latest post on this issue,
which I reproduce below, there is nothing of the "personal attacks" or
"issues of debate tactics and personalities" that he describes. There
is merely a rational discussion of the issue.
Oh well, [grin], all I can do is stick with the arguments, until Erb
stops insulting me long enough to deal with them.
THE ARGUMENT:
Erb:
>And yet all the words you through out -- paragraphs of rationalizations --
>do not take away the fact that criticizing someone for relying too litte
>on empirical evidence is not a claim that moral judgements must rely on
>empirical evidence.
Pistol:
Uh...yes it is. Implicit in the claim that he relied TOO LITTLE on
empirical evidence is the assumption that he MUST, to some degree, do
so. He relied on EE to extent X. You claim he should have relied on
EE to extent Y, Y being greater than X. Well, unless you are prepared
to explain how X could be negative, you must concede that such an
argument implies a positive Y - meaning one must rely on empirical
evidence.
Erb:
>I suspect that empirical evidence is necessary, we
>could debate how to make moral judgements. But simply, you twisted the
>quote around and you know it.
Pistol:
Scott Erb
says...
>>Ah, but that's the rub -- a lot of people feel victimized and
persecuted.
>> Who decides what entails "actual persecution?"
>
>The same person who gets to decide that the world is not flat.
Wrong answer. Again: you have a situation where people disagree on what
is persecution. Who decides which person is right? How do you decide.
The world not being flat was decided via scientific method -- how can you
apply it in this case? My answer to the question, by the way, isn't
simple, it's pretty much contained in the threads "Politics and Morality
and Politics and Morality PII."
Mike Curtis
What I see is all this talk about morals. Morals do not exist in
nature. They cannot be discovered. Morals become morals because
someone judges them as such. That was what I was trying to get across
with the red rock/blue rock thing. Morality is a human creation and is
subject to all kinds of cultural influences. Since everyone in certain
groups can proudly contend that they know what is right and what is
wrong in human action and all these moralities differ in various
degrees then reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct.
There is no absolute right type of human music so there isn't an
absolute right type of human action.
So I'm serious when I asked, "Whose morals?" Guess what, Scott? I've
yet to receive and answer to that question.
Mike Curtis
Scott Erb
>
>What I see is all this talk about morals. Morals do not exist in
>nature. They cannot be discovered. Morals become morals because
>someone judges them as such. That was what I was trying to get across
>with the red rock/blue rock thing. Morality is a human creation and is
>subject to all kinds of cultural influences. Since everyone in certain
>groups can proudly contend that they know what is right and what is
>wrong in human action and all these moralities differ in various
>degrees then reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct.
>There is no absolute right type of human music so there isn't an
>absolute right type of human action.
I agree completely. Very well said.
Scott Erb
says...
>
>Indeed. Apparently, when faced with a substative argument beyond his
>ability to refute, Erb launches into the kind of familiar diatribe we
>see above.
As anyone can see looking at the posts where you insult Mike, call him a
toadie, then insult me, attack, etc., they will see that I tend not to
answer those posts with more than a line or two, no matter how much you
write. I am simply putting a fence up saying: if a post is full of
debate-poisoning insults and innuendo, I will not cross into that
territory, no matter how much substance is behind those insults. However,
when you post something that does not have insults and the like, I respond
in kind, like my 400+ response in the Politics and Morality thread.
So, despite calling my post a "diatribe" (which it wasn't), this post of
yours was basically polite and fair, so I'll reply.
>Uh...yes it is. Implicit in the claim that he relied TOO LITTLE on
>empirical evidence is the assumption that he MUST, to some degree, do
>so. He relied on EE to extent X.
> You claim he should have relied on
>EE to extent Y, Y being greater than X.
Y in that case being able to make a solid case that his system would work
in the world, would bring about advantages that would not be outweighed by
disadvantages, and that implementation of such a system was practically
feasible. I found him offering very little such evidence.
>Well, unless you are prepared
>to explain how X could be negative, you must concede that such an
>argument implies a positive Y - meaning one must rely on empirical
>evidence.
Note two things: One, I was looking for empirical evidence for pragmatic
issues of whether the "plan" achieves the goals -- if it can work, etc.
You twisted that to say I was making the case that moral claims rely on
empirical evidence. That's a different issue. I think I made that clear,
and your explanation doens't deny it. Two, on moral arguments I think
that consideration of what the act means in the world is an important
empirical fact. But because moral issues cannot be scientifically tested
the way practical issues can, the type of "reliance" on empirical evidence
is qualitatively different. Moral issues do not rely on empirical
evidence to test whether they are right or wrong because I don't see how
you can perform a material test on moral statements (except, perhaps, to
assure that they are internally consistent). Thus, given the meaning of
rely to make it fundamental, I would say moral statements rely less on
empirical evidence and more on one's beliefs about reality.
cheers, scott
maff91
wrote:
>In article <35d2e6ff....@news.sig.net>, mi...@aimetering.com says...
Try
Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans
and Other Animals, 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; ISBN
0-674-35660-8.
Frans de Waal, Peacemaking among primates (Harvard
University Press, 1989).
Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among
Apes. Harper and Row, New York (1983).
Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
American 272(4):82- 88 (March 1995)
Pistol
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Aug 98 09:31:41 PST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <35d2e6ff....@news.sig.net>, mi...@aimetering.com says...
>>>
>>>What I see is all this talk about morals. Morals do not exist in
>>>nature. They cannot be discovered. Morals become morals because
>>>someone judges them as such. That was what I was trying to get across
>>>with the red rock/blue rock thing. Morality is a human creation and is
>>>subject to all kinds of cultural influences. Since everyone in certain
>>>groups can proudly contend that they know what is right and what is
>>>wrong in human action and all these moralities differ in various
>>>degrees then reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct.
True. But reason does NOT tell us that NONE of them are correct.
Mike Curtis
Isn't that another way of saying what I said? I said, " . . .then
reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct." They can't
_all_ be correct. That means some of them might be.
We don't know what the some of them are do we? We only know that in
the world of different moral cultures we would accept some and reject
others. We would do that based on our cultural experiences and our
human interactions.
Mike Curtis
Scott Erb
>Isn't that another way of saying what I said? I said, " . . .then
>reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct." They can't
>_all_ be correct. That means some of them might be.
Yes. And that *some* should be underlined since I think it has to be
clear that even if there can be morally correct systems, there may be many
of them, and two people with different systems may have equally correct
systems. That possibility is not precluded by reason.
John Kennedy
wrote:
>pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:18:10 GMT, maf...@dial.pipex.com (maff91)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Aug 98 09:31:41 PST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <35d2e6ff....@news.sig.net>, mi...@aimetering.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>What I see is all this talk about morals. Morals do not exist in
>>>>>nature. They cannot be discovered. Morals become morals because
>>>>>someone judges them as such. That was what I was trying to get across
>>>>>with the red rock/blue rock thing. Morality is a human creation and is
>>>>>subject to all kinds of cultural influences. Since everyone in certain
>>>>>groups can proudly contend that they know what is right and what is
>>>>>wrong in human action and all these moralities differ in various
>>>>>degrees then reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct.
>>
>>True. But reason does NOT tell us that NONE of them are correct.
>
>Isn't that another way of saying what I said? I said, " . . .then
>reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct." They can't
>_all_ be correct. That means some of them might be.
>
>We don't know what the some of them are do we? We only know that in
>the world of different moral cultures we would accept some and reject
>others. We would do that based on our cultural experiences and our
>human interactions.
If there is no valid way to decide what is morally correct, why should
a rational person prefer one moral position to another?
On whim?
John Kennedy
maff91
Self interest.
>
>John Kennedy
"Prisoner's Dilemma/John Von Neumann, Game Theory and the Puzzle of
the Bomb" by William Poundstone
John Kennedy
wrote:
Why isn't that valid?
John Kennedy
Pistol
wrote:
>pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:18:10 GMT, maf...@dial.pipex.com (maff91)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Aug 98 09:31:41 PST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <35d2e6ff....@news.sig.net>, mi...@aimetering.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>What I see is all this talk about morals. Morals do not exist in
>>>>>nature. They cannot be discovered. Morals become morals because
>>>>>someone judges them as such. That was what I was trying to get across
>>>>>with the red rock/blue rock thing. Morality is a human creation and is
>>>>>subject to all kinds of cultural influences. Since everyone in certain
>>>>>groups can proudly contend that they know what is right and what is
>>>>>wrong in human action and all these moralities differ in various
>>>>>degrees then reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct.
>>
>>True. But reason does NOT tell us that NONE of them are correct.
>
>Isn't that another way of saying what I said?
No. The two statements are not inconsistent, but they they do
emphasize different aspects of the issue. You emphasized what we
don't know. I emphasized what we might know.
>I said, " . . .then
>reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct." They can't
>_all_ be correct. That means some of them might be.
It was that last part I chose to emphasize.
>We don't know what the some of them are do we?
Speak for yourself. I do, and so do many other people.
>We only know that in
>the world of different moral cultures we would accept some and reject
>others.
Some of us know a great deal more than that.
>We would do that based on our cultural experiences and our
>human interactions.
Again, speak for yourself. Some of us emphasize reason over
subjective personal ditties.
maff91
>On Sat, 08 Aug 98 22:28:13 PST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>>Neither of us can exclude that a government takes illegitimate steps to
>>>persecute people. I make it clear that they have a right to defend
>>>themselves against this. Your position remains opaque on this point.
>>
>>Governments aren't perfect. You seem to believe that you have found set
>>of principles that could yield a perfect government. I think you overlook
>>both a lot of practical problems (evidenced by how much you rely on
>>abstract analogies and theories instead of empirical evidence), and
>>different moral issues (such as the moral issues poised by social
>>democrats and others).
>>
>This doesn't seem to be an answer to Hans' question. Do people have a
>right to defend themselves (either sucessfully or unsucessfully)
>against illegitimate steps by government to persecute people?
What type of illegitimate steps are you thinking of? What type of
persecution?
>
><snip>
>S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
>
>
>It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
>
>"liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
>
>William Allen White
Scott Erb
says...
>>>If there is no valid way to decide what is morally correct, why should
>>>a rational person prefer one moral position to another?
>>>
>>>On whim?
>>
>>Self interest.
>
>Why isn't that valid?
Hmmm
Rationality is being able to figure out the best means to achieve your
goals. So a rational person is by definition self-interested. So yes,
self-interest is a way people choose their morality, if they are rational.
But rationality also requires you assess reality and try to understand
the nature of the world you are in. Rational people can disagree on that
assessment and have different beliefs about the world.
cheers, scott
John Kennedy
wrote:
>In article <35d369b7...@news.ntplx.net>, kenne...@my-dejanews.com
If there are no objective criteria by which to evaluate beliefs, why
should a rational person prefer one belief to another?
John Kennedy
Scott Erb
says...
>If there are no objective criteria by which to evaluate beliefs, why
>should a rational person prefer one belief to another?
It depends upon the person's own interpretation of their experience. In
some cases scientific analysis (for material/empirical issues) built on
assumptions of science (right now the assumptions vary a bit, between
positivism, realism, pragmatism, and certain types of relativism). Most
of those don't work with moral/ethical issues.
There is no reason why there has to be an "objective criteria" for a
rational person to have goals and work to achieve them. And there is been
no proof given that what you believe to be objectively right actually is.
You seem to need a kind of faith in your beliefs, perhaps you fear
accepting that maybe there is uncertainty in the world, and no clear test
of whether what you believe is true, or just your own fallible read. I
don't think there is a clear test. But if it makes you feel better, you
may think there is.
Mike Curtis
>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:17:21 GMT, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis)
>wrote:
>
>>pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:18:10 GMT, maf...@dial.pipex.com (maff91)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 Aug 98 09:31:41 PST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <35d2e6ff....@news.sig.net>, mi...@aimetering.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What I see is all this talk about morals. Morals do not exist in
>>>>>>nature. They cannot be discovered. Morals become morals because
>>>>>>someone judges them as such. That was what I was trying to get across
>>>>>>with the red rock/blue rock thing. Morality is a human creation and is
>>>>>>subject to all kinds of cultural influences. Since everyone in certain
>>>>>>groups can proudly contend that they know what is right and what is
>>>>>>wrong in human action and all these moralities differ in various
>>>>>>degrees then reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct.
>>>
>>>True. But reason does NOT tell us that NONE of them are correct.
>>
>>Isn't that another way of saying what I said?
>
>No. The two statements are not inconsistent, but they they do
>emphasize different aspects of the issue. You emphasized what we
>don't know. I emphasized what we might know.
>
>>I said, " . . .then
>>reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct." They can't
>>_all_ be correct. That means some of them might be.
>
>It was that last part I chose to emphasize.
>
>>We don't know what the some of them are do we?
>
>Speak for yourself. I do, and so do many other people.
Remember this?
There's a passage in Michael Shermer's _Why Do People Believe in Weird
Things_:
"Morality is relative to the moral frame of reference. As long as it
is understood that morality is a human construction influenced by
human cultures, one can be more tolerant of other human belief
systems, and thus other humans. But as soon as a group sets itself up
as the final moral arbiter of other people's actions, especially when
its members believe they have discovered absolute standards of right
and wrong, it marks the beginning of the end of tolerance, and thus
reason and rationality. It is this characteristic more than any other
that makes a cult, a religion, a nation, or any other group dangerous
to individual freedom. Its absolutism was the biggest flaw in Ayn
Rand's Objectivism, the unlikeliest cult in history. "
So you are setting yourself up as the moral arbiter of people's
actions?
You are claiming that you have discovered _absolute_ standards of
right and wrong?
You are the perfect picutre of the point I'm making. Welcome to
Pistol's dictatorship.
>>We only know that in
>>the world of different moral cultures we would accept some and reject
>>others.
>
>Some of us know a great deal more than that.
Somehow I suspect that knowledge isn't what's going on here. You're
great at name calling though.
>>We would do that based on our cultural experiences and our
>>human interactions.
>
>Again, speak for yourself. Some of us emphasize reason over
>subjective personal ditties.
Welcome to the dictatorship of Pistol.
I've considered Libertarianism but I keep running into those who are
simply in-your-face rude. They can't describe what they want
pragmatically. They pretend they are somehow better than everyone
else. It turns me away every time.
Mike Curtis
maff91
wrote:
I agree with you. Don't run away. That's giving into their own brand
of fanaticism much too easily.
>
>
>Mike Curtis
*****************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but
government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil, in its worst state
an intolerable one."
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit."
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself"
"A bad cause will ever be supported by
bad means and bad men."
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue;
but moderation in principle is always a
vice."
"War involves in its progress such a train
of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances
that no human wisdom can calculate its end.
It has but one thing certain and that is to
increase taxes."
"My country is the world"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/intro.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/3.05/features/paine.html
*****************************************************
Mike Curtis
>>I've considered Libertarianism but I keep running into those who are
>>simply in-your-face rude. They can't describe what they want
>>pragmatically. They pretend they are somehow better than everyone
>>else. It turns me away every time.
>
>I agree with you. Don't run away. That's giving into their own brand
>of fanaticism much too easily.
I'm not running away at all. I wouldn't have looked in these threads
if I was. I wouldn't try and start a dialog if I was.
It isn't that there are fanatics. It is what might lay underneath the
demeanor of those who pretend to be more open and run for office
appearing pragmatic. It is a matter of trust.
Mike Curtis
Pistol
wrote:
>pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:17:21 GMT, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis)
>>wrote:
[snips]
>>>I said, " . . .then
>>>reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct." They can't
>>>_all_ be correct. That means some of them might be.
>>
>>It was that last part I chose to emphasize.
>>
>>>We don't know what the some of them are do we?
>>
>>Speak for yourself. I do, and so do many other people.
>
>Remember this?
Enough to remember it oscillated between stale truisms and
absurdities.
>There's a passage in Michael Shermer's _Why Do People Believe in Weird
>Things_:
>
>"Morality is relative to the moral frame of reference.
No shit. X is relative to the Xist frame of reference.
>As long as it
>is understood that morality is a human construction influenced by
>human cultures, one can be more tolerant of other human belief
>systems, and thus other humans.
And as long as it is understood that certain belief systems are
objectively evil, one can have the courage to stand up to a Hitler,
and punish a Jeff Dahmer.
>But as soon as a group sets itself up
>as the final moral arbiter of other people's actions, especially when
>its members believe they have discovered absolute standards of right
>and wrong, it marks the beginning of the end of tolerance, and thus
>reason and rationality.
What a joke. The end of reason and rationality comes when a group
sets itself up as the final moral arbiter of other people's actions
(ie, a government), with no objective standards of right and wrong.
However, if a group ACTUALLY discovers absolute standards of right and
wrong, then this could be the beginning of an era of reason and
rationality (since we'd be protected from the whimsies we fall prey to
now) and a gfrowth of tolerance (since people would understand the
wide range of options they have which are morally neutral).
Shermer's argument is hopelessly circular. He "proves" that there is
no absolute moral code by ASSUMING there is none and then showing how
horrific it looks when, under such a fictional hypothetical backdrop,
someone claims there is. Very weak.
>It is this characteristic more than any other
>that makes a cult, a religion, a nation, or any other group dangerous
>to individual freedom. Its absolutism was the biggest flaw in Ayn
>Rand's Objectivism, the unlikeliest cult in history. "
The challenge that has never been answered by such relativists is,
what was our motivation for opposing Hitler, or any of the other
tyrants of the world, except a certainty that we were right? Is a man
likely to lay down his life for a position which is mere preference,
as Shermer and Curtis would have us believe. Surely this need only be
mentioned to be dismissed as absurd.
>So you are setting yourself up as the moral arbiter of people's
>actions?
Would you have asked Galileo if he were setting himself up as the
astronomical arbiter of people's thoughts about the stars? Of course
not. He merely expressed his opinoin of what is, as do I. This
dictator scenari is a big red herring.
>You are claiming that you have discovered _absolute_ standards of
>right and wrong?
Yes.
>You are the perfect picutre of the point I'm making. Welcome to
>Pistol's dictatorship.
Welcome to Dim Bulb's land of nonsequitors. I have no army, and have
never attempted to force others to live by my code. I merely insist
that they respect my code when dealing WITH ME, and if they refuse, I
go on my way and deal with others.
When I see a woman being raped, I jump in and stop the attacker with
force if necessary. If that makes me a dictator, so be it. We'll
just add "dictator" to the ever growing list of words Mike Curtis has
redefined to suit his political agenda.
>>>We only know that in
>>>the world of different moral cultures we would accept some and reject
>>>others.
>>
>>Some of us know a great deal more than that.
>
>Somehow I suspect that knowledge isn't what's going on here.
your suspicions carry very little weight 'round these parts.
>You're great at name calling though.
You started it Dimmy. Don't cry in your beer now just because I beat
you at your own game.
>>>We would do that based on our cultural experiences and our
>>>human interactions.
>>
>>Again, speak for yourself. Some of us emphasize reason over
>>subjective personal ditties.
>
>Welcome to the dictatorship of Pistol.
Welcome to Curtis' revamped English language, where claiming knowledge
equates to action, and stopping a rape equates to a dictatorship.
>I've considered Libertarianism but I keep running into those who are
>simply in-your-face rude.
Well, perhaps if you stopped being that way, you'd not run into that
problem. Go examine our first few posts together. I didn't start
getting nasty with you until YOU got nasty.
>They can't describe what they want
>pragmatically. They pretend they are somehow better than everyone
>else. It turns me away every time.
Examine Vistor Levis' and Hans Walther's detailed explanations and
defenses of their ideas on this group. Observe my debate with Scott
Erb on Politics and morality. Read David Friedman's "The Machinery of
Freedom". There you will find well-thought out libertarian
alternaives and criticisms of the current system. Such is readily
available to anyone who actually looks for it. But you, Dimmy, you'd
rather spend a lot of time squeeling tht everyone picks on you. Your
choice.
Mike Curtis
>On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:24:35 GMT, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis)
>wrote:
>
>>pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:17:21 GMT, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis)
>>>wrote:
>
>[snips]
>
>>>>I said, " . . .then
>>>>reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct." They can't
>>>>_all_ be correct. That means some of them might be.
>>>
>>>It was that last part I chose to emphasize.
>>>
>>>>We don't know what the some of them are do we?
>>>
>>>Speak for yourself. I do, and so do many other people.
>>
>>Remember this?
>
>Enough to remember it oscillated between stale truisms and
>absurdities.
>>There's a passage in Michael Shermer's _Why Do People Believe in Weird
>>Things_:
>>
>>"Morality is relative to the moral frame of reference.
>
>No shit. X is relative to the Xist frame of reference.
Whose morals?
>>As long as it
>>is understood that morality is a human construction influenced by
>>human cultures, one can be more tolerant of other human belief
>>systems, and thus other humans.
>
>And as long as it is understood that certain belief systems are
>objectively evil, one can have the courage to stand up to a Hitler,
>and punish a Jeff Dahmer.
So we go off to the extreme end of the argument and find boogey men to
argue about. Not a good show, Pistol. This is saying that we can find
a moral stance we both can agree on. For Germans Hitler wasn't evil at
first because they didn't know what was going on. Hind-sight is 20-20.
>>But as soon as a group sets itself up
>>as the final moral arbiter of other people's actions, especially when
>>its members believe they have discovered absolute standards of right
>>and wrong, it marks the beginning of the end of tolerance, and thus
>>reason and rationality.
>
>What a joke. The end of reason and rationality comes when a group
>sets itself up as the final moral arbiter of other people's actions
>(ie, a government), with no objective standards of right and wrong.
>However, if a group ACTUALLY discovers absolute standards of right and
>wrong, then this could be the beginning of an era of reason and
>rationality (since we'd be protected from the whimsies we fall prey to
>now) and a gfrowth of tolerance (since people would understand the
>wide range of options they have which are morally neutral).
And you are this group that claims to have found absolute moral
constructs?
>Shermer's argument is hopelessly circular. He "proves" that there is
>no absolute moral code by ASSUMING there is none and then showing how
>horrific it looks when, under such a fictional hypothetical backdrop,
>someone claims there is. Very weak.
I'm sorry but his argument isn't circular at all. You want it to be
but are frustrated in that you can't prove it. There IS not absolute
moral code. THAT is his point. The people of Japan and India have
different moral codes from us. Many Indian men and women will agree on
murder but they will also think it is moral to burn a dead husband's
wife alive. We do not. They don't think of that as murder. We would
argue that it is. So his point stands that different cultures have
different moral constructs. So your circualr thing fails.
>>It is this characteristic more than any other
>>that makes a cult, a religion, a nation, or any other group dangerous
>>to individual freedom. Its absolutism was the biggest flaw in Ayn
>>Rand's Objectivism, the unlikeliest cult in history. "
>
>The challenge that has never been answered by such relativists is,
>what was our motivation for opposing Hitler, or any of the other
He violated treaties. He invaded countries and eventually invade
Poland which France and England had a treaty understanding with.
>tyrants of the world, except a certainty that we were right? Is a man
Broken treaties have very little to do with morals.
>likely to lay down his life for a position which is mere preference,
>as Shermer and Curtis would have us believe. Surely this need only be
>mentioned to be dismissed as absurd.
Your argument is a fallacy of logic and history, Pistol.
>>So you are setting yourself up as the moral arbiter of people's
>>actions?
>
>Would you have asked Galileo if he were setting himself up as the
>astronomical arbiter of people's thoughts about the stars? Of course
>not. He merely expressed his opinoin of what is, as do I. This
>dictator scenari is a big red herring.
Is this the "they all laughed at Galileo" argument? Heresy does not
equal correctness. They laughed at Copernicus and the Wright Brothers.
They all laughed at the Marx Brothers. Being laughed at doesn't mean
that you are right. Lot's of true ideas oare accepted without
ridicule.
>>You are claiming that you have discovered _absolute_ standards of
>>right and wrong?
>
>Yes.
Where did you find them?
I'd like to see them.
>>You are the perfect picutre of the point I'm making. Welcome to
>>Pistol's dictatorship.
>
>Welcome to Dim Bulb's land of nonsequitors. I have no army, and have
>never attempted to force others to live by my code.
Yes, but you found all these absolute certainties and the rest of us
are dim-bulbs because you are so damn perfect. It must be god-like to
be you. So where did you find all these moral absolutes?
> I merely insist
>that they respect my code when dealing WITH ME, and if they refuse, I
>go on my way and deal with others.
What are these moral absolutes?
>When I see a woman being raped, I jump in and stop the attacker with
>force if necessary.
I bet you do just that. I guess this means that the rest of would just
stand around, eh, Pistol. You are absolutley perfect. I can see that.
What a perfect human being to be totally without flaws. It's too bad
no one knows who you really are so we can have you studied.
> If that makes me a dictator, so be it. We'll
>just add "dictator" to the ever growing list of words Mike Curtis has
>redefined to suit his political agenda.
No the dictator is one who preaches a system that he is absoultey
certain is perfectly moral and every other person must accept it
because he is right and no one can tell him any different.
>>>>We only know that in
>>>>the world of different moral cultures we would accept some and reject
>>>>others.
>>>
>>>Some of us know a great deal more than that.
>>
>>Somehow I suspect that knowledge isn't what's going on here.
>
>your suspicions carry very little weight 'round these parts.
<shrug>
>>You're great at name calling though.
>
>You started it Dimmy. Don't cry in your beer now just because I beat
>you at your own game.
*I* started it. Classic! This is ad hominem tu Qouque. "Well, so do
you" isn't proof of anything one way or the other.
>>>>We would do that based on our cultural experiences and our
>>>>human interactions.
>>>
>>>Again, speak for yourself. Some of us emphasize reason over
>>>subjective personal ditties.
>>
>>Welcome to the dictatorship of Pistol.
>
>Welcome to Curtis' revamped English language, where claiming knowledge
>equates to action, and stopping a rape equates to a dictatorship.
Pistol can't form an argument for himself so he has to make one up and
attribute it to be. Strawman, Pistol. You are desperately reduced to
strawmen. Sad.
>>I've considered Libertarianism but I keep running into those who are
>>simply in-your-face rude.
>
>Well, perhaps if you stopped being that way, you'd not run into that
>problem. Go examine our first few posts together. I didn't start
>getting nasty with you until YOU got nasty.
Ad hominem tu Quoque.
>>They can't describe what they want
>>pragmatically. They pretend they are somehow better than everyone
>>else. It turns me away every time.
>
>Examine Vistor Levis' and Hans Walther's detailed explanations and
>defenses of their ideas on this group. Observe my debate with Scott
>Erb on Politics and morality. Read David Friedman's "The Machinery of
>Freedom". There you will find well-thought out libertarian
>alternaives and criticisms of the current system. Such is readily
>available to anyone who actually looks for it. But you, Dimmy, you'd
>rather spend a lot of time squeeling tht everyone picks on you. Your
>choice.
Then there is you and you poison the well of trust I have for this
party. BTW. you aren't the only poison in the well who uses similar
tactics when caught with their pants down. So I'm not making a hasty
generalization.
Mike Curtis
Victor Levis
article <35d4500b...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
> On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:24:35 GMT, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis)
> wrote:
>
> >You are the perfect picutre of the point I'm making. Welcome to
> >Pistol's dictatorship.
>
> Welcome to Dim Bulb's land of nonsequitors. I have no army, and have
> never attempted to force others to live by my code. I merely insist
> that they respect my code when dealing WITH ME, and if they refuse, I
> go on my way and deal with others.
How dictatorial!!
> When I see a woman being raped, I jump in and stop the attacker with
> force if necessary.
You, thief you! Did you check first to see if a majority somewhere voted
for that rape, and whether that majority was operating under a constitution?
> If that makes me a dictator, so be it.
Sounds to me like you are operating the way Mr. Curtis suggested
you should -- act according to your conscience and take the consequences.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Scott Erb
says...
>However, if a group ACTUALLY discovers absolute standards of right and
>wrong, then this could be the beginning of an era of reason and
>rationality
Of course the burden is on that group to convince others they found it.
If they try to impose their morality on others, I suspect they will fail.
I know I would become a revolutionary :)
Scott Erb
Mike Curtis engages Pistol in a discussion. It is complex, and involves
the claim people like Pistol have made (many times) that if he could he
would impose his sort of system because he thinks its right. Then Victor
snips things out, makes snide comments that aren't directed at Mike but
are meant to make it look like Mike was attacking Pistol in a way much
different than it was.
I apologized to Victor before when I attacked his tactics because I
thought maybe I spoke too soon. But this kind of post suggests to me
that he is not engaged in what I would consider respectable debate. It
looks more like propaganda attempts to avoid issues and try to smear
opponents.
Note as well Victor's acceptance of Pistol's insults like "dim bulb."
Victor, your response here poisons debate, and makes Mike's points look
like they are something they are not. That should get Mike angry. It's
trolling.
In article <01bdc7a3$9f4c0d00$13ac9a8e@viclevis>, vicl...@ican.net
says...
Victor Levis
<6r1sb2$1g16$4...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
> This is another example of the kind of debate tactic I hate.
That's your right.
> Mike Curtis engages Pistol in a discussion. It is complex, and involves
> the claim people like Pistol have made (many times) that if he could he
> would impose his sort of system because he thinks its right. Then Victor
> snips things out, makes snide comments that aren't directed at Mike but
> are meant to make it look like Mike was attacking Pistol in a way much
> different than it was.
Actually, Mike said "Welcome to Pistol's dictatorship." I think that this
is an exaggeration, and I would like the debate to get toned down. I chose
some humour, to make my point.
> I apologized to Victor before when I attacked his tactics because I
> thought maybe I spoke too soon. But this kind of post suggests to me
> that he is not engaged in what I would consider respectable debate.
Parody and humour are legitimate debate tactics. When I make an
exaggerated claim, as I think Mike did, I do not complain if it is pointed
out to me. If you look carefully at what I said, there were no personal
insults
and no 'twisting' of anyone's words.
If someone makes a claim that needs to be watered down or qualified, that
is HIS problem. And if I do that, it's MY problem.
There's really no need for us to be so touchy over criticism of our ideas.
I've always debated cleanly, but making the occasional point in a sharp
way is in no way unfair.
> It looks more like propaganda attempts to avoid issues and try to smear
> opponents.
No, it is not. How could I smear Mr. Curtis by what I said? I wasn't the
one
accusing HIM of being a dictator, or anything else for that matter.
As for avoiding issues -- I think I took on MANY issues in those few lines.
Read again, and you'll see that I challenge many assumptions held by
others (not necessarily you).
> Note as well Victor's acceptance of Pistol's insults like "dim bulb."
Stop that right there. I won't hold you accountable for Mr. Curtis'
insults, and you won't hold me accountable for Pistol's. In fact, no one
should ever be responsible for the words of someone else. Deal?
[If had written, "I agree with everything Pistol wrote", you could perhaps
ask if that included his insults. But I didn't.]
Would **I** use the tactics Pistol does? No, I am not him; I would also not
behave like Mr. Curtis either. But with freedom, we can each use our own
styles and there is no vote taken to dictate proper posting style.
> Victor, your response here poisons debate, and makes Mike's points look
> like they are something they are not. That should get Mike angry. It's
> trolling.
They are not meant to get anyone angry. They are meant to shed light
on the comment that Pistol's words constituted 'dictatorship'. Yes,
I mean to shed unfavourable light on that comment. I think it's exaggerated.
But I mean no personal offense to anyone. Do as you please with that
information.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Mike Curtis
>Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote in article
><6r1sb2$1g16$4...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>
>> This is another example of the kind of debate tactic I hate.
>
>That's your right.
>
>
>> Mike Curtis engages Pistol in a discussion. It is complex, and involves
>> the claim people like Pistol have made (many times) that if he could he
>> would impose his sort of system because he thinks its right. Then Victor
>> snips things out, makes snide comments that aren't directed at Mike but
>> are meant to make it look like Mike was attacking Pistol in a way much
>> different than it was.
>
>Actually, Mike said "Welcome to Pistol's dictatorship."
It was a response to this from Pistol:
"However, if a group ACTUALLY discovers absolute standards of right
and wrong, then this could be the beginning of an era of reason and
rationality (since we'd be protected from the whimsies we fall prey to
now) and a gfrowth of tolerance (since people would understand the
wide range of options they have which are morally neutral)."
>If someone makes a claim that needs to be watered down or qualified, that
>is HIS problem. And if I do that, it's MY problem.
>
>There's really no need for us to be so touchy over criticism of our ideas.
Tell that to Pistol and then go look in the mirror.
>> Note as well Victor's acceptance of Pistol's insults like "dim bulb."
>
>Stop that right there. I won't hold you accountable for Mr. Curtis'
>insults, and you won't hold me accountable for Pistol's. In fact, no one
>should ever be responsible for the words of someone else. Deal?
If Pistol is going to write what he did write above, I'm going to call
that point of view dictatorial.
Mike Curtis
Scott Erb
says...
>Actually, Mike said "Welcome to Pistol's dictatorship."
Given Pistol's claims that imposing his correct moral view would not be
wrong, and that he would if he had the power, I think Mike's point was
clear. Of course, you snipped everything else and made Mike's comments
appear like something they were not.
I don't know. I see Mike and I really trying to stick to issues, I put
down long posts stating my positions clearly, but what ends up happening
is that snide comments, snips and personal issues tend to take over.
(Except Pistol has, to his credit, dealt with those issues in an
interesting manner). I have a feeling that this is your choice, that
you're more comfortable with such tactics. The use of extreme analogies
and lack of well defined alternatives suggest that you don't want to do
the hard work of trying to figure out how reforms could really operate --
that explains avoidance of the more substantive threads. I suspect
lurkers can see that.
But perhaps you hadn't followed the debate and misread Mike's comment and
read into it moreover your general tendancy to agree more with Pistol than
Mike and thus reacted in the way you did -- which seems to obfuscate the
issues rather than clarify them. Either way, it doesn't seem very helpful
to discussing the issues.
Victor Levis
> In article <01bdc7af$d76d2320$13ac9a8e@viclevis>, vicl...@ican.net
> says...
>
> >Actually, Mike said "Welcome to Pistol's dictatorship."
>
> Given Pistol's claims that imposing his correct moral view would not be
> wrong, and that he would if he had the power, I think Mike's point was
> clear. Of course, you snipped everything else and made Mike's comments
> appear like something they were not.
I don't think so. The only sense in which Pistol could be said to want to
'impose' his moral view is that, if he had the power, he would come to the
defense of the 'rape' victim, even if a majority in a constitutional
democracy
were willing to vote for the rape. (You may interpret 'rape' liberally
here.)
Since Pistol says he only wants to defend individual rights, I can't see how
he is any more a dictator than someone who says, "If I had the power,
I would make sure that the results of every vote in the legislature are
enforced." I'd even say that makes him less of a dictator, but would
challenge anyone to show how it makes him more, at the very least.
Furthermore, I think that people who call others 'dictators' should show
why that is an accurate and not exaggerated epithet. Maybe that's just me.
> I don't know. I see Mike and I really trying to stick to issues, I put
> down long posts stating my positions clearly, but what ends up happening
> is that snide comments, snips and personal issues tend to take over.
> I have a feeling that this is your choice, that you're more comfortable
> with such tactics.
That's what's nice about 'feelings' -- they can be so wrong!!
> The use of extreme analogies
> and lack of well defined alternatives suggest that you don't want to do
> the hard work of trying to figure out how reforms could really operate --
> that explains avoidance of the more substantive threads. I suspect
> lurkers can see that.
What I suspect is that once again a PERSON is being made the subject
of a thread. Notice that I don't do that. I am still sticking to the issue
between Mike and Pistol, despite the temptation to respond to your
personal remarks about me.
But I won't respond in kind. There will be no personal remarks from
me about you, nor your style, nor any psychological musings about
WHY you might have such and such a style -- none.
You may continue to assume that constitutional democracy is so
obviously the moral and right way to go that it has the high ground,
and I will continue to ask questions and force its proponents to deal
with its weaknesses. In the final analysis, I believe in constitutional
democracy, and consent of the governed -- it's just that my take on
them varies slightly from yours. No need for you to get personal over
that.
Oh well, c'est l'Internet. ;-) ;-)
> But perhaps you hadn't followed the debate and misread Mike's comment and
> read into it moreover your general tendancy to agree more with Pistol than
> Mike and thus reacted in the way you did -- which seems to obfuscate the
> issues rather than clarify them.
As I said, what is rarely helpful is psychological analysis of other posters.
I've never yet seen agreement come out of such attempts.
> Either way, it doesn't seem very helpful to discussing the issues.
If you want to discuss the issue, please give us a CONCRETE example
of how Pistol or anyone else might 'impose' libertarianism and why that
would be 'dangerous'.
Scott Erb
says...
>I don't think so. The only sense in which Pistol could be said to want
>to 'impose' his moral view is that, if he had the power, he would come to
>the defense of the 'rape' victim, even if a majority in a constitutional
>democracy were willing to vote for the rape. (You may interpret 'rape'
>liberally here.)
I would too. But that would make it appear that Pistol and I agree, and
somehow that doesn't seem to be the case.
Pistol has said that if he has the power he would impose his preferred
system since it is (in his view) correct. That sounds to me like
willingness to be a dictator. He has argued for elitism like that,
claiming that the people are idiots.
>Since Pistol says he only wants to defend individual rights, I can't see
>how
>he is any more a dictator than someone who says, "If I had the power,
>I would make sure that the results of every vote in the legislature are
>enforced." I'd even say that makes him less of a dictator, but would
>challenge anyone to show how it makes him more, at the very least.
There's a big difference: the person enforcing the results of the
legislature accepts that those results may not mirror his personal whims
or moral beliefs on a plethora of issues. It is enforcing democratic
decisions. The person imposing his own moral beliefs is trying to mold
the world to fit his perception of how things should be, regardless of
what the people want.
If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what else to say.
>But I won't respond in kind. There will be no personal remarks from
>me about you, nor your style, nor any psychological musings about
>WHY you might have such and such a style -- none.
Ah, how subtle. But utterly transparent. And, of course, your response
is personal too.
>You may continue to assume that constitutional democracy is so
>obviously the moral and right way to go that it has the high ground,
>and I will continue to ask questions and force its proponents to deal
>with its weaknesses.
Again, you falsely state my position, even though I've stated it many,
many times. Note: I never said that constitutional democracy is obviously
the moral and right way to go. I did say I'd go against the
constitutional democracy if it ordered me to act against my moral beliefs.
I noted only that despite being an imperfect system with many flaws, its
better than any alternative I've seen. So far, you've chosen to
misrepresent my statements and engage in snide little comments rather than
actually deal with these issues. That does not persuade me that you have
an alternative superior to constitutional democracy. You say you have a
different take on what it means, but you haven't been very clear. I've
put my views out in the open in threads you've ignored, instead engaging
in these little mispresentations. Unpersuasive.
(snide comments unhelpful to the debate deleted)
Victor Levis
<35e08282....@news.sig.net>...
> "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>
> >Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote in article
> ><6r1sb2$1g16$4...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
> >
> >Actually, Mike said "Welcome to Pistol's dictatorship."
>
> It was a response to this from Pistol:
>
> "However, if a group ACTUALLY discovers absolute standards of right
> and wrong, then this could be the beginning of an era of reason and
> rationality (since we'd be protected from the whimsies we fall prey to
> now) and a gfrowth of tolerance (since people would understand the
> wide range of options they have which are morally neutral)."
So? Where is the 'dictating' in that?
When someone says, 'this could be the beginning of...." doesn't it sound
like he's saying that things might just evolve a certain way? That's how
I took it.
Most ironically, Pistol talks about the 'growth of tolerance'. Nope, this
does NOT sound dictatorial at all.
> >If someone makes a claim that needs to be watered down or qualified, that
> >is HIS problem. And if I do that, it's MY problem.
> >
> >There's really no need for us to be so touchy over criticism of our ideas.
>
> Tell that to Pistol and then go look in the mirror.
Pistol, there is no need to get touchy if someone criticizes your idea.
Victor, go look in the mirror..........OK, done.
Incidentally, your last sentence was more 'dictatorial' than the one
you quoted Pistol writing above. Just MHO, of course.
> >> Note as well Victor's acceptance of Pistol's insults like "dim bulb."
> >
> >Stop that right there. I won't hold you accountable for Mr. Curtis'
> >insults, and you won't hold me accountable for Pistol's. In fact, no one
> >should ever be responsible for the words of someone else. Deal?
>
> If Pistol is going to write what he did write above, I'm going to call
> that point of view dictatorial.
Yes, you could call that point of view dictatorial, but expect to have to
say WHY. Mere say-so doesn't cut it. You should expect to DEFEND
your assertion.
Pistol
wrote:
>This is another example of the kind of debate tactic I hate.
>
>Mike Curtis engages Pistol in a discussion.
You mean he hurls insults and exagerrations of my position at me.
>It is complex, and involves
>the claim people like Pistol have made (many times) that if he could he
>would impose his sort of system because he thinks its right.
No, Mike claimed that by virtue of claiming to have knowledge, I was
dictating to others.
And let's be super clear on what I have said - I would, were I to be
endowed with the power, PREVENT people from violating the principles
of my system against those who object. But I would not IMPOSE my
system in the sense, as I explained earlier in this thread (before
Mike got us sidetracked on this BS) , of FORCING those who disagree
with me to abide by my principles when dealing with EACH OTHER.
This puts me in a very differet camp, fundamentally, from those who
defend the classic constitutional democracy.
>Then Victor
>snips things out, makes snide comments that aren't directed at Mike but
>are meant to make it look like Mike was attacking Pistol in a way much
>different than it was.
On the contrary, Victor isolated the essential elements of Mike's
attack and revealed them to be the absurdities they are.
>I apologized to Victor before when I attacked his tactics because I
>thought maybe I spoke too soon. But this kind of post suggests to me
>that he is not engaged in what I would consider respectable debate. It
>looks more like propaganda attempts to avoid issues and try to smear
>opponents.
As opposed to the worthless trash Curtis spits out? Your partisonship
is showing Erb. Curtis is the most worthless poster this side of Alex
Vange. You and I may have our disagreements, but at least you present
coherent positions and make points. Curtis merely avoids isues and
asks moronic questions .
>Note as well Victor's acceptance of Pistol's insults like "dim bulb."
Victor did no such thing.
>Victor, your response here poisons debate, and makes Mike's points look
>like they are something they are not.
No, it makes them look like exactly what they are.
>That should get Mike angry. It's trolling.
Well, Mike's quite a troll, so he shouldn't object to that sort of
thing.
Scott Erb
says...
>When someone says, 'this could be the beginning of...." doesn't it sound
>like he's saying that things might just evolve a certain way? That's how
>I took it.
That's because you intervened in the debate without taking into account
the issues, Pistol's other quotes which suggest he would actively impose
his own moral belief if he could, and his defense of such things. You
jump in and pick one statement Mike makes so you can simply make snide
comments and then stand back and act as if you are innocently pointing
stuff out. You try to hide your personal attacks, but you don't do a very
good job of it. Now, if you hadn't jumped in and misrepresented Mike's
position here, and actively stated your views, I think you'd find both
Mike and I agreeing with you on some aspects of this. By coming in with
this personalized style it makes disagreements look bigger, and pushes us
away from productive, substantive debate.
>> Tell that to Pistol and then go look in the mirror.
>
>Pistol, there is no need to get touchy if someone criticizes your idea.
>Victor, go look in the mirror..........OK, done.
>Incidentally, your last sentence was more 'dictatorial' than the one
>you quoted Pistol writing above. Just MHO, of course.
Rhetoric games, Victor. We're talking about political force in making
people in a system follow one set of rules. You're calling someone
telling someone what to do (without force to make him do it) dictatorial.
Don't you see how transparent these games and personalisms are? You try
to do it politely, I'l give you credit for that, but it really isn't
helpful to the debate.
Scott Erb
says...
>And let's be super clear on what I have said - I would, were I to be
>endowed with the power, PREVENT people from violating the principles
>of my system against those who object. But I would not IMPOSE my
>system in the sense, as I explained earlier in this thread (before
>Mike got us sidetracked on this BS) , of FORCING those who disagree
>with me to abide by my principles when dealing with EACH OTHER.
Well, that's more clear than what I've read before, but it still has
problems. Since you have a very vague proposal, I'll start with an
analogy, but move beyond it to show I'm just arguing by analogy.
First of all, you are assuming certain definitions of society/individual
relationships which underlie your proposal. For instance, let's say that
all the owners of factor offer the town's workers $2 an hour to work
there. That's hardly enough to live, and the factory owners are rich.
The workers don't have enough money to leave, and no opportunity to work
elsewhere. The workers decide that's immoral. They decide they should be
paid more, that the fact the factory owners control all the wealth and job
opportunities, they are using that power to force them to accept unjust
circumstances and thus stealing from them as they get rich off their
labor.
Do you enforce their view against the factory owners?
I'll assume no. So let's say they decide, fine. We'll take this in our
own hands. They go on strike, but the factory owners have the patience to
wait it out. They then try to have a work slow down, but factory owners
pay them less. They then try sabotage and taking property from the
owners. The owners turn to you and say "they are stealing and destroying
my property," Do you enforce the owners' rights?
The analogy is a microcosm of the argument that underlies my objection to
libertarianism and especially objectivism. By focusing only on some uses
of power and force, you create adherence to an ideology which accepts as
legitimate some acts and deems others illegitimate. If allowed to go
without the right of people to act against the system, create political
ways to limit the power of the elites and create more justice, your style
would end up supporting the power of a few, and limiting others, thus
enforcing a structural split in society.
But there's more. If society has a point of agreement with your
principles, and if they choose to act on them without it being imposed,
then it COULD potentially work IF people aren't unfairly exploiting or
using others as means to their own gang in a way that reflects an unequal
distribution of power. That type of system would appear much like what
you want, except that cooperative concerns would not be based on force
from economic power, but on justice. That would be my preferred system.
So we're not as far apart as one might think. The difference is that I
think: 1) it will only work if it is chosen, and a constitutional
democracy is the best way to choose; and 2) you have to expand your
definition of force to include structural force and structural
discrimination to allow the fair treatment of all humans and avoid a
social darwinist hell.
Finally, even if I had the power, I would not enforce my system. It has
to reflect choices made by the people. Communists tried to enforce a
system of social justice, but what it ended up being was a hell hole of
tyranny because any time an elite tries to guide a culture in a way they
believe right, they won't be able to, and thus they'll start relying on
force, which will then bring power hungry people into government, and turn
into...yes, a dicatatorship.
cheers, scott
Victor Levis
> In article <01bdc7ba$27eb04c0$23ac9a8e@viclevis>, vicl...@ican.net
> says...
>
> >I don't think so. The only sense in which Pistol could be said to want
> >to 'impose' his moral view is that, if he had the power, he would come to
> >the defense of the 'rape' victim, even if a majority in a constitutional
> >democracy were willing to vote for the rape. (You may interpret 'rape'
> >liberally here.)
>
> I would too. But that would make it appear that Pistol and I agree, and
> somehow that doesn't seem to be the case.
Yikes!!
> Pistol has said that if he has the power he would impose his preferred
> system since it is (in his view) correct. That sounds to me like
> willingness to be a dictator. He has argued for elitism like that,
> claiming that the people are idiots.
This contradicts what you just said above, when you said that you'd
do the same thing he would do. Incidentally, Pistol has since restated
his position, and it is now undeniable that he does not wish to dictate
to others:
"And let's be super clear on what I have said - I would, were I to be
endowed with the power, PREVENT people from violating the principles
of my system against those who object. But I would not IMPOSE my
system in the sense, as I explained earlier in this thread (before
Mike got us sidetracked on this BS), of FORCING those who disagree
with me to abide by my principles when dealing with EACH OTHER."
[Pistol, Friday, August 14, 1998 3:46 PM]
In this regard, it seems that Pistol is less demanding of others than
any contemporary government is.
> >Since Pistol says he only wants to defend individual rights, I can't see
> >how he is any more a dictator than he who says, "If I had the power,
> >I would make sure that the results of every vote in the legislature are
> >enforced." I'd even say that makes him less of a dictator, but would
> >challenge anyone to show how it makes him more, at the very least.
>
> There's a big difference: the person enforcing the results of the
> legislature accepts that those results may not mirror his personal whims
> or moral beliefs on a plethora of issues. It is enforcing democratic
> decisions. The person imposing his own moral beliefs is trying to mold
> the world to fit his perception of how things should be, regardless of
> what the people want.
>
> If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what else to say.
The person enforcing democratic decisions is enforcing his personal
whim or moral belief on the issue of jurisdiction. He is imposing the
moral belief that the actions of one person are subject to the vote of
another, often even in the case where the voter has no direct interest
in the actions.
> >You may continue to assume that constitutional democracy is so
> >obviously the moral and right way to go that it has the high ground,
> >and I will continue to ask questions and force its proponents to deal
> >with its weaknesses.
>
> Again, you falsely state my position, even though I've stated it many,
> many times. Note: I never said that constitutional democracy is obviously
> the moral and right way to go.
Sure you do. You admit it's imperfect, but it's also 'clearly the best',
'works very well', and so forth. And it seems you assign the burden of
proof to those who disagree.
> I did say I'd go against the constitutional democracy
> if it ordered me to act against my moral beliefs.
Yes you did, and I have not given you credit for that. Unfortunately on
UseNet we often respond to that with which we disagree and not the
statements we agree with.
So, it seems that you see a CD as an 'advisor', whose pronouncements
and recommendations you might reject if you felt really strongly about an
issue. Is that more accurate?
If not, what would be?
If yes, what do you think of those people who object strongly to the
fluoridation of water supplies that are paid for by taxing everyone?
Just one example (since you said that you support fluoridation).
> So far, you've chosen to misrepresent my
> statements and engage in snide little comments rather than
> actually deal with these issues.
I don't see any snide statements here, nor in any comments of
mine regarding your positions. I try to understand your views, and
deal with them. In the process, I will sometimes NOT understand your
view correctly, which sets us back a bit, but I often preface my statements
with something like "correct me if I'm wrong", or "if I read you correctly",
or even just "it seems to me that...". Even in the cases where I don't
actually write the words, perhaps it would be helpful if you just assume
that I did, because that's always how I mean my approach to be. <grin>
> That does not persuade me that you have an
> alternative superior to constitutional democracy. You say you have a
> different take on what it means, but you haven't been very clear.
I've certainly written quite a bit. Ask me about anything that isn't clear,
and
I'll try to be helpful in responding.
> (snide comments unhelpful to the debate deleted)
What you snipped included a suggestion that we AVOID nastiness by
avoiding discussions that start with words like "you want bad thing X"
or "this is why I think you behave in bad manner Y". I've never seen
agreement emerge from posts where this takes place.
And this is an even-handed proposal. If you find me doing that, please
remind me that I advised against it.
Scott Erb
says...
>In this regard, it seems that Pistol is less demanding of others than
>any contemporary government is.
Pistol's restatement is much less aggressive than in past posts, but I
welcome his more clear statement and responded to it.
>The person enforcing democratic decisions is enforcing his personal
>whim or moral belief on the issue of jurisdiction.
No, he is enforcing what the people have chosen, sometimes things he would
rather not have seen chosen. The reason is that he respects the way the
system mediates disputes and probably believes that the system offers the
best bet at a peaceful and productive move forward in human progress.
> He is imposing the
>moral belief that the actions of one person are subject to the vote of
>another, often even in the case where the voter has no direct interest
>in the actions.
That's not imposing a moral belief, but acting according to the way
society mediates disputes. If anything its likely a pragmatic belief that
this is best.
I find that superior than people enforcing their own private moral
beliefs. Either someone supports what people have chosen in a fear
democratic republic, and acts to support that system because it works, or
someone tries to enforce their own whims. The former is superior to the
latter.
>Sure you do. You admit it's imperfect, but it's also 'clearly the best',
>'works very well', and so forth. And it seems you assign the burden of
>proof to those who disagree.
If you want to persuade someone to change a conclusion they've reached
through considerable study and contemplation, you have to give proof.
That is only rational.
>> I did say I'd go against the constitutional democracy
>> if it ordered me to act against my moral beliefs.
>
>Yes you did, and I have not given you credit for that. Unfortunately on
>UseNet we often respond to that with which we disagree and not the
>statements we agree with.
We actually agree more on a lot of principles but disagree more on
pragmatics.
>So, it seems that you see a CD as an 'advisor', whose pronouncements
>and recommendations you might reject if you felt really strongly about an
>issue. Is that more accurate?
No, I see it as a system of dispute mediation which I respect as long as
it doesn't require me to do things I consider immoral. If it does, I have
to be true to my own moral beliefs and act on them, accepting whatever
consequences that brings. Civil disobedience is not something I would
enter into lightly, but in the long run, I have (quoting Rik Emmett) one
short dance on this planet. I only have one life to live and its going to
be mine.
>If yes, what do you think of those people who object strongly to the
>fluoridation of water supplies that are paid for by taxing everyone?
>Just one example (since you said that you support fluoridation).
If it violates their morals to drink fluoridated water they shouldn't
drink it. If that violated my moral beliefs, I'd probably buy
unfluoridated spring water and try to argue for a change in the law. But
that alone wouldn't cause me to consider the system illegitimate.
(snip)
>What you snipped included a suggestion that we AVOID nastiness by
>avoiding discussions that start with words like "you want bad thing X"
>or "this is why I think you behave in bad manner Y". I've never seen
>agreement emerge from posts where this takes place.
>
>And this is an even-handed proposal. If you find me doing that, please
>remind me that I advised against it.
In all, I respect your goals and principles, just disagree with how you
see their application in the world. To that extent, I think that at some
fundamental level we're more similar than different. But that sometimes
makes communication even more difficult. I mean, both Mike and I made
strong statements against the feds imposing a 55 MPH speed limit, against
the drinking age being forced on states, and in favor of real changes to
the system. We are both more "libertarian" in alot of ways than a lot of
people. Yet, even though I'm more a left-libertarian, and he's more a
historical back to the founders liberal, we seem to be united against a
few of you who seem to attack (but sometimes accept) the idea of a
consititutional democracy. Perhaps its BECAUSE we're so close on
principles that the difference on pragmatics is more acrimonious.
I agree liberty is fundamental. I agree power used over people to force
them to do what they do not want to do is bad. I see the world as one
where powerful people with wealth and position can use that to force
others to work to produce wealth for them, structurally giving advantages
to one class and disadvantages to others. I see government as a necessary
counterbalance to this, but one that should be as accountable to the
people as possible.
You seem to think that absent that governmental counterbalance things
would be more free even if capitalism were unregulated. My original
belief (and as I admitted earlier today, I was a libertarian for awhile
back in college) concurred. But what I've learned since has convinced me
that socialists have a lot of correct arguments. Yet I cling to the
principles that also drive libertarians, and strongly condemn those
socialists who try to enforce their moral beliefs on others because they
view them objectively correct. That leads to dicatorship. I conclude
that a constitutional democracy is the best way to work out these issues,
and that taxation and regulation is a necessary limitation on the abuse of
power of non-governmental actors. A strong system of keeping government
of, by and for the people is needed to make that work.
Thus: I argue for decentralization, debureaucratization and subsidarity as
a reform to increase accountability, but not give up on the need for
government involvement and democracy.
cheers, scott
John Kennedy
wrote:
>pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:17:21 GMT, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>pis...@cyberramp.net (Pistol) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:18:10 GMT, maf...@dial.pipex.com (maff91)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 13 Aug 98 09:31:41 PST, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <35d2e6ff....@news.sig.net>, mi...@aimetering.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I see is all this talk about morals. Morals do not exist in
>>>>>>>nature. They cannot be discovered. Morals become morals because
>>>>>>>someone judges them as such. That was what I was trying to get across
>>>>>>>with the red rock/blue rock thing. Morality is a human creation and is
>>>>>>>subject to all kinds of cultural influences. Since everyone in certain
>>>>>>>groups can proudly contend that they know what is right and what is
>>>>>>>wrong in human action and all these moralities differ in various
>>>>>>>degrees then reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct.
>>>>
>>>>True. But reason does NOT tell us that NONE of them are correct.
>>>
>>>Isn't that another way of saying what I said?
>>
>>No. The two statements are not inconsistent, but they they do
>>emphasize different aspects of the issue. You emphasized what we
>>don't know. I emphasized what we might know.
>>
>>>I said, " . . .then
>>>reason alone tells us that they can't all be correct." They can't
>>>_all_ be correct. That means some of them might be.
>>
>>It was that last part I chose to emphasize.
>>
>>>We don't know what the some of them are do we?
>>
>>Speak for yourself. I do, and so do many other people.
>
>Remember this?
>
>There's a passage in Michael Shermer's _Why Do People Believe in Weird
>Things_:
>
>"Morality is relative to the moral frame of reference. As long as it
>is understood that morality is a human construction influenced by
>human cultures, one can be more tolerant of other human belief
>systems, and thus other humans.
Is toleraance good? You seem to be making some sort of absolute value
judgement here. But that couldn't be. Could it?
> But as soon as a group sets itself up
>as the final moral arbiter of other people's actions, especially when
>its members believe they have discovered absolute standards of right
>and wrong, it marks the beginning of the end of tolerance, and thus
>reason and rationality.
And that would _really_ be bad? Or are you just declaring a whimsical
preference?
> It is this characteristic more than any other
>that makes a cult, a religion, a nation, or any other group dangerous
>to individual freedom. Its absolutism was the biggest flaw in Ayn
>Rand's Objectivism, the unlikeliest cult in history. "
I take it this meant to be true in an absolute sense.
>So you are setting yourself up as the moral arbiter of people's
>actions?
Well, according to you, there's no objective reason to think there's
anything wrong with that, now is there?
>You are claiming that you have discovered _absolute_ standards of
>right and wrong?
What basis do you have to claim otherwise? Are you claiming you've
discovered there are absolutely no absolute standards of right and
wrong?
>You are the perfect picutre of the point I'm making. Welcome to
>Pistol's dictatorship.
Thank you. And a fine dictatorship it is. I love the kind of
dictatorship where no one claims any authority tover me. Yup, I could
really get used to living in Pistol City, it kind of reminds me of
Scneiderland.
>
>>>We only know that in
>>>the world of different moral cultures we would accept some and reject
>>>others.
>>
>>Some of us know a great deal more than that.
>
>Somehow I suspect that knowledge isn't what's going on here. You're
>great at name calling though.
>
>>>We would do that based on our cultural experiences and our
>>>human interactions.
>>
>>Again, speak for yourself. Some of us emphasize reason over
>>subjective personal ditties.
>
>Welcome to the dictatorship of Pistol.
>
>I've considered Libertarianism but I keep running into those who are
>simply in-your-face rude. They can't describe what they want
>pragmatically. They pretend they are somehow better than everyone
>else. It turns me away every time.
Because you're better than that?
John Kennedy
John Kennedy
>On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:24:35 GMT, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis)
>wrote:
>>You are the perfect picutre of the point I'm making. Welcome to
>>Pistol's dictatorship.
>
>Welcome to Dim Bulb's land of nonsequitors. I have no army, and have
>never attempted to force others to live by my code.
Which is precisely why we, the good citizens of Pistol City, have
chosen you to be our dictator.
But if you ever start getting bossy, you are OUT OF A JOB, MISTER!
John Kennedy
John Kennedy
>Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote in article
><6r1sb2$1g16$4...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>
>> This is another example of the kind of debate tactic I hate.
>
>That's your right.
>
>
>> Mike Curtis engages Pistol in a discussion. It is complex, and involves
>> the claim people like Pistol have made (many times) that if he could he
>> would impose his sort of system because he thinks its right. Then Victor
>> snips things out, makes snide comments that aren't directed at Mike but
>> are meant to make it look like Mike was attacking Pistol in a way much
>> different than it was.
>
>Actually, Mike said "Welcome to Pistol's dictatorship." I think that this
>is an exaggeration, and I would like the debate to get toned down. I chose
>some humour, to make my point.
An exaggeration?
How about a demonstration of moral incompetence?
John Kennedy
John Kennedy
wrote:
>In article <35d3b0ca...@news.ntplx.net>, kenne...@my-dejanews.com
>says...
>>If there are no objective criteria by which to evaluate beliefs, why
>>should a rational person prefer one belief to another?
>
>It depends upon the person's own interpretation of their experience. In
>some cases scientific analysis (for material/empirical issues) built on
>assumptions of science (right now the assumptions vary a bit, between
>positivism, realism, pragmatism, and certain types of relativism). Most
>of those don't work with moral/ethical issues.
>
>There is no reason why there has to be an "objective criteria" for a
>rational person to have goals and work to achieve them.
Then what are valid criteria for criteria for evaluating a belief?
Or, if there are no valid criteria for making such an evaluation, why
should a rational person prefer one belief to another?
>And there is been
>no proof given that what you believe to be objectively right actually is.
>You seem to need a kind of faith in your beliefs, perhaps you fear
>accepting that maybe there is uncertainty in the world, and no clear test
>of whether what you believe is true, or just your own fallible read. I
>don't think there is a clear test. But if it makes you feel better, you
>may think there is.
>
John Kennedy
Scott Erb
says...
>
>Is toleraance good? You seem to be making some sort of absolute value
>judgement here.
Gee John, now you think that anyone stating an opinion is engaged in
absolute moral judgements?
>Well, according to you, there's no objective reason to think there's
>anything wrong with that, now is there?
Just culturally constructed reasons, and personal opinions. That's
reality, even if you would wish everyone would simply accept your moral
beliefs as the *right* ones. People don't. They are free to think
differently than you. Sorry about that.
>What basis do you have to claim otherwise? Are you claiming you've
>discovered there are absolutely no absolute standards of right and
>wrong?
No, he's claiming that if you think you have the absolute right answer,
you have to prove it. Otherwise, why should anyone believe you?
Pistol
We have been having many interesting discussion of constitutional
democracy, and an offhand comment I made about stopping a rape made
this idea occur to me. Perhaps it can assist us in discerning EXACTLY
what each of our positions are.
Let's presume that our CD voted to have a virgin chosen at random from
the populace to be sacrificed each month. Further, we will presume
that the girls chosen did not agree to such a procedure.
The crucial question is - if you had the power, would you use it to
prevent this from happeneing, ie, stealing away and deporting the
virgin in question prior to the appointd execution date? Why or why
not?
Ancillary questions:
How far would you go to prevent this? For example, would you shoot
and kill whoever had the job of dumping her in the volcano? Why or
why not?
If you WOULD interfere (and some defenders of CD have made comments
than imply such), then how can this behavior be reconciled with a
support for a CD, where the majority decision is to be enforced and
abided by the populace?
My answer - I would most certainly use the power to stop the action,
and I would kill whoever was carrying out the act who got in my way in
the process, if necessary. Why? The girl has an objective right to
her life, and no one, not even the gummint, has the right to take it
away on such a nonbasis. Those who participate in it are murders IMO,
the same as the Nazis who worked at the sites of the Holocaust.
Anyone and everyone join in, but I would parfticularly like to see our
resident defenders of CD, Scott Erb, and Mike Curtis, answer the
above. I suspect it would clarify a lot of the misunderstanding we
seem to be having, and stimulate interesting discussion.
do...@stone-soup.com
wrote:
>In article <01bdc7bd$833b7460$23ac9a8e@viclevis>, vicl...@ican.net
>says...
>
>>When someone says, 'this could be the beginning of...." doesn't it sound
>>like he's saying that things might just evolve a certain way? That's how
>>I took it.
>
>That's because you intervened in the debate without taking into account
>the issues, Pistol's other quotes which suggest he would actively impose
>his own moral belief if he could, and his defense of such things. You
>jump in and pick one statement Mike makes so you can simply make snide
>comments and then stand back and act as if you are innocently pointing
>stuff out. You try to hide your personal attacks, but you don't do a very
>good job of it. Now, if you hadn't jumped in and misrepresented Mike's
>position here, and actively stated your views, I think you'd find both
>Mike and I agreeing with you on some aspects of this. By coming in with
>this personalized style it makes disagreements look bigger, and pushes us
>away from productive, substantive debate.
>
Scott, I think you are some what right that Pistol would impose his
own moral beliefs on all if he could. But the difference is that
"Pistol's moral belief leads to no one telling anyone else how to
live." That is different than what you want to do with telling
everyone how to live their life.
>>> Tell that to Pistol and then go look in the mirror.
>>
>>Pistol, there is no need to get touchy if someone criticizes your idea.
>>Victor, go look in the mirror..........OK, done.
>
>>Incidentally, your last sentence was more 'dictatorial' than the one
>>you quoted Pistol writing above. Just MHO, of course.
>
>Rhetoric games, Victor. We're talking about political force in making
>people in a system follow one set of rules. You're calling someone
>telling someone what to do (without force to make him do it) dictatorial.
>Don't you see how transparent these games and personalisms are? You try
>to do it politely, I'l give you credit for that, but it really isn't
>helpful to the debate.
>
>
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
"liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
William Allen White
John Kennedy
wrote:
>In article <35d4e706...@news.ntplx.net>, kenne...@my-dejanews.com
>says...
>>
>>Is toleraance good? You seem to be making some sort of absolute value
>>judgement here.
>
>Gee John, now you think that anyone stating an opinion is engaged in
>absolute moral judgements?
Yes I'd say an opinion is a judgement and when not couched in
relativistic dodges a moral opinion is a judgement of absolute
morality.
>
>>Well, according to you, there's no objective reason to think there's
>>anything wrong with that, now is there?
>
>Just culturally constructed reasons, and personal opinions.
On what basis should one accept these?
> That's
>reality, even if you would wish everyone would simply accept your moral
>beliefs as the *right* ones. People don't. They are free to think
>differently than you. Sorry about that.
>
>>What basis do you have to claim otherwise? Are you claiming you've
>>discovered there are absolutely no absolute standards of right and
>>wrong?
>
>No, he's claiming that if you think you have the absolute right answer,
>you have to prove it. Otherwise, why should anyone believe you?
>
John Kennedy
John Kennedy
>
>We have been having many interesting discussion of constitutional
>democracy, and an offhand comment I made about stopping a rape made
>this idea occur to me. Perhaps it can assist us in discerning EXACTLY
>what each of our positions are.
>
>Let's presume that our CD voted to have a virgin chosen at random from
>the populace to be sacrificed each month. Further, we will presume
>that the girls chosen did not agree to such a procedure.
>
>The crucial question is - if you had the power, would you use it to
>prevent this from happeneing, ie, stealing away and deporting the
>virgin in question prior to the appointd execution date?
Of course.
> Why or why
>not?
To protect her from an injustice, an initiation of force.
>
>Ancillary questions:
>
>How far would you go to prevent this?
As far as I could without causing unacceptable risk to people I value
more than her.
>For example, would you shoot
>and kill whoever had the job of dumping her in the volcano?
I certainly reserve that option and consider it just.
>Why or
>why not?
Because it is just to retaliate against an initiation of force.
>
>If you WOULD interfere (and some defenders of CD have made comments
>than imply such), then how can this behavior be reconciled with a
>support for a CD, where the majority decision is to be enforced and
>abided by the populace?
I guess they're stuck. That's reality. That's just the way things are.
>
>
>My answer - I would most certainly use the power to stop the action,
>and I would kill whoever was carrying out the act who got in my way in
>the process, if necessary. Why? The girl has an objective right to
>her life, and no one, not even the gummint, has the right to take it
>away on such a nonbasis. Those who participate in it are murders IMO,
>the same as the Nazis who worked at the sites of the Holocaust.
But consider. Suppose that if you shoot him it is highly likely that
you will be apprehended and that _your_ daughter will be the next
victim.
I agree you have justification for shooting him, but I also think you
are not morally obliged to shoot him if you would effectively be
sacrificing something you value more than the first girl.
>
>Anyone and everyone join in, but I would parfticularly like to see our
>resident defenders of CD, Scott Erb, and Mike Curtis, answer the
>above. I suspect it would clarify a lot of the misunderstanding we
>seem to be having, and stimulate interesting discussion.
John Kennedy
McQ
You know, I can already anticipate you knowing my reaction to this:
>We have been having many interesting discussion of constitutional
>democracy, and an offhand comment I made about stopping a rape made
>this idea occur to me. Perhaps it can assist us in discerning EXACTLY
>what each of our positions are.
>
>Let's presume that our CD voted to have a virgin chosen at random from
>the populace to be sacrificed each month. Further, we will presume
>that the girls chosen did not agree to such a procedure.
Well gee, it has no RIGHT to do so, has it? So immediately it
becomes a rights VIOLATOR and thereby illegitimate.
Now of course it can FORCE the above and claim legitimacy through
the "vote" (sanction's a wonderful thing), but we all know that really
hasn't much validity in terms of morality, does it?
>The crucial question is - if you had the power, would you use it to
>prevent this from happeneing, ie, stealing away and deporting the
>virgin in question prior to the appointd execution date?
You mean RESCUING the virgin...you bet.
>Why or why not?
It's the "right" thing to do.
>Ancillary questions:
>
>How far would you go to prevent this? For example, would you shoot
>and kill whoever had the job of dumping her in the volcano? Why or
>why not?
Not unless he tried to kill me.
>If you WOULD interfere (and some defenders of CD have made comments
>than imply such), then how can this behavior be reconciled with a
>support for a CD, where the majority decision is to be enforced and
>abided by the populace?
If you buy the lie you have to live with it's results. After all,
your vote implies you will and it certainly sanctions the outcome.
McQ
______________________________________
Join the hot-topics list for a spirited discussion
of topical subjects.
To Subscribe: e-mail to hot-topics...@MakeList.com
Pistol
What I find fascinating is that none of the ardent defenders of
constitutional democracy have come forward to discuss this most
illuminating of hypotheticals. The reason should be obvious. If they
support the virgin sacrifice, they come off looking like barbarians.
If the resist the virgin sacrifice, they show themselves as
hypocrites, who claim tha we all should support the democracy, while
THEY may turn against it when it suits their fancy.
Robert N Newshutz
Scott Erb wrote in message <6r2649$20h0$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>>endowed with the power, PREVENT people from violating the principles
>>of my system against those who object. But I would not IMPOSE my
>>system in the sense, as I explained earlier in this thread (before
>>with me to abide by my principles when dealing with EACH OTHER.
>
>problems. Since you have a very vague proposal, I'll start with an
>analogy, but move beyond it to show I'm just arguing by analogy.
>
>First of all, you are assuming certain definitions of society/individual
>relationships which underlie your proposal. For instance, let's say that
>all the owners of factor offer the town's workers $2 an hour to work
>there. That's hardly enough to live, and the factory owners are rich.
>The workers don't have enough money to leave, and no opportunity to work
>elsewhere. The workers decide that's immoral. They decide they should be
>paid more, that the fact the factory owners control all the wealth and job
>opportunities, they are using that power to force them to accept unjust
>circumstances and thus stealing from them as they get rich off their
>labor.
>
>Do you enforce their view against the factory owners?
>
>I'll assume no. So let's say they decide, fine. We'll take this in our
>own hands. They go on strike, but the factory owners have the patience to
>wait it out.
If the workers can afford to go on strike then they have enough money to
leave.
If the factory owners can wait out the strike, then either they will lose
customers to competitors, that the workers can then work for, or there are
enough replacement workers willing to work for the wage offered, so it must
be an OK wage.
>They then try to have a work slow down, but factory owners
>pay them less.
Compensation based on productivity, seems ok to me.
>They then try sabotage and taking property from the
>owners. The owners turn to you and say "they are stealing and destroying
>my property," Do you enforce the owners' rights?
>
Yes. Are you saying that you support sabotage and theft?
BTW, unions were able to establish themselves in the face of government
force. I sincerly doubt they would have a harder time under a government
limited to protecting individual rights. In the real world, if the wage is
truly unjust, strikes work.
>The analogy is a microcosm of the argument that underlies my objection to
>libertarianism and especially objectivism. By focusing only on some uses
>of power and force, you create adherence to an ideology which accepts as
>legitimate some acts and deems others illegitimate. If allowed to go
>without the right of people to act against the system, create political
>ways to limit the power of the elites and create more justice, your style
>would end up supporting the power of a few, and limiting others, thus
>enforcing a structural split in society.
>
The problem with your espousal of government force to "create more justice"
and "limit the power of the elites", results in more power to government.
This power is used by the elites to coerce the people you were trying to
"help" in the first place. The result cannot be the creation of "more
justice", but the creation of more oppression. The more power the government
wields the less control "the people" have.
>But there's more. If society has a point of agreement with your
>principles, and if they choose to act on them without it being imposed,
>then it COULD potentially work IF people aren't unfairly exploiting or
>using others as means to their own gang in a way that reflects an unequal
>distribution of power. That type of system would appear much like what
>you want, except that cooperative concerns would not be based on force
>from economic power, but on justice. That would be my preferred system.
>
>So we're not as far apart as one might think. The difference is that I
>think: 1) it will only work if it is chosen, and a constitutional
>democracy is the best way to choose;
Exactly what is this "constitutional democracy" you keep talking about. I
don't know of a single government that has a constitution that means
anything. (Since the US government routinely does things not allowed by the
constitution, I expect you don't mean the US). All governments in existance
today are in essence oligarchy sometimes mixed with majoritarian democracy.
>and 2) you have to expand your
>definition of force to include structural force and structural
>discrimination to allow the fair treatment of all humans and avoid a
>social darwinist hell.
>
The expansion of the definition of force to include "structural force" and
"structural discrimination" is precisely the formula to descend into a
socialist hell. The major factor in the downfall of comunism was not that
the system was imposed injustly, but that it could not compete in the
welfare of its citizens with more capitalistic societies. It has yet to be
seen if the european style mixed economy can compete against even more
capitalistic societies. (It also has yet to be seen if a more free society
can be created from the current mixed economies.)
But if I have to choose my hell, I'll pick one where my individual actions
actually have an effect on my well being, where my associations are one of
choice and personal utility and where I can freely chose what, where and
with who I will trade.
>Finally, even if I had the power, I would not enforce my system. It has
>to reflect choices made by the people. Communists tried to enforce a
>system of social justice, but what it ended up being was a hell hole of
>tyranny because any time an elite tries to guide a culture in a way they
>believe right, they won't be able to, and thus they'll start relying on
>force, which will then bring power hungry people into government, and turn
>into...yes, a dicatatorship.
>
I don't understand. How would your system come into being without the use of
force? Are you saying only that you would not enforce a minority supported
system on a majority, or are you saying you would allow minorities to opt
out of a majority imposed position?
Since economic growth is strongly correlated to economic liberties like
property rights, how would you avoid economic stagnation in a system where
"social justice" overrides economic liberty.
Scott Erb
>If the workers can afford to go on strike then they have enough money to
>leave.
Ah, you admit the dilemma. What if they don't get fair pay, and are so
poor they can't leave. Then they are forced not to go on strike. That
kind of attitude is why, if you ever succeed in changing laws too much,
you will face a revolt.
And in that revolt, yes, I would condone theft and sabotage.
>Exactly what is this "constitutional democracy" you keep talking about. I
>don't know of a single government that has a constitution that means
>anything.
Ah, so you slept in civics class, eh?
That explains a lot.
Your ideas seem boring. But thanks for participating.
Pistol
wrote:
>In article <35d49239...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
>says...
>>And let's be super clear on what I have said - I would, were I to be
>>endowed with the power, PREVENT people from violating the principles
>>of my system against those who object. But I would not IMPOSE my
>>system in the sense, as I explained earlier in this thread (before
>>Mike got us sidetracked on this BS) , of FORCING those who disagree
>>with me to abide by my principles when dealing with EACH OTHER.
>
>Well, that's more clear than what I've read before, but it still has
>problems. Since you have a very vague proposal,
There is nothing the slightest bit vague about it. When people deal
with me, my principles rule. When they deal with each other, they may
use whatever principles they agree on. Clear as chrystal.
>I'll start with an analogy, but move beyond it to show I'm just arguing by analogy.
>
>First of all, you are assuming certain definitions of society/individual
>relationships which underlie your proposal.
(yawn) All statements assume definitions.
>For instance, let's say that
>all the owners of factor offer the town's workers $2 an hour to work
>there. That's hardly enough to live, and the factory owners are rich.
>The workers don't have enough money to leave, and no opportunity to work
>elsewhere.
Stop. This has now entered the realm of highly improbable fiction,
and as one poster put it so eloquently, systems should not be accepted
or rejected based on occurrences which have a 1/1,000,000,000 chance
of happening. The game of "how convoluted a scenario can we invent"
is not very productive.
But in the spirit of debate, I'll play along.
>Do you enforce their view against the factory owners?
>I'll assume no.
Of course.
>So let's say they decide, fine. We'll take this in our
>own hands. They go on strike, but the factory owners have the patience to
>wait it out. They then try to have a work slow down, but factory owners
>pay them less. They then try sabotage and taking property from the
>owners. The owners turn to you and say "they are stealing and destroying
>my property," Do you enforce the owners' rights?
Of course.
>The analogy
Uh, its an example, not an analogy.
>is a microcosm of the argument that underlies my objection to
>libertarianism and especially objectivism. By focusing only on some uses
>of power and force, you create adherence to an ideology which accepts as
>legitimate some acts and deems others illegitimate.
(yawn) ALL ideologies accept as legitimate some acts and deem others
illegitimate, constitutional democracy included.
What I believe you mean to say (and do correct me if I'm wrong) is
that because the above scenario led to a very bad situation, that
implies my system is flawed. However, the 1/1,000,000,000 argument
covers that fairly well - you don't pragmatically judge systems by
such absurd scenarios.
>If allowed to go
>without the right of people to act against the system, create political
>ways to limit the power of the elites and create more justice, your style
>would end up supporting the power of a few, and limiting others, thus
>enforcing a structural split in society.
1) I dispute that vigorously. My system would allow more freedom,
which would translate into more mobility between the classes, not
less. Goverment regulations help those currently in power to hold it.
2) If it did, too bad. That doesn't make it wrong.
>But there's more. If society has a point of agreement with your
>principles, and if they choose to act on them without it being imposed,
>then it COULD potentially work IF people aren't unfairly exploiting or
>using others as means to their own gang in a way that reflects an unequal
>distribution of power.
It could work anyway. All it takes is a vote of congress, and
enforcemet by the judiciary. This idea that the society has to agree
with the laws for them to be enforced is refuted by any cursory
examination of the current world, or history.
>That type of system would appear much like what
>you want, except that cooperative concerns would not be based on force
>from economic power, but on justice. That would be my preferred system.
That IS what my system is. A system which allows people to accumulate
wealth via voluntary association IS based on justice.
>So we're not as far apart as one might think. The difference is that I
>think: 1) it will only work if it is chosen,
Which has zip in evidence t back it.
>and a constitutional democracy is the best way to choose; and
>2) you have to expand your
>definition of force to include structural force and structural
>discrimination to allow the fair treatment of all humans and avoid a
>social darwinist hell.
No I don't. Social Darwinist scare scenarios are inventive fiction.
They have little to do with reality.
>Finally, even if I had the power, I would not enforce my system. It has
>to reflect choices made by the people.
That IS your system. YOU think people should be able to choose, and
you use what power you have to FORCE that on the rest of us.
So, you are right - we're not as far apart as one might think. The
difference is this - I admit I would enforce my system, but I lack the
power, and you currently enforce your system without acknowledging it.
>Communists tried to enforce a system of social justice,
Oh please! the communist system had little to do with justice as I
speak of it. Their definition differed, and that was their problem.
>but what it ended up being was a hell hole of
>tyranny because any time an elite tries to guide a culture in a way they
>believe right, they won't be able to, and thus they'll start relying on
>force, which will then bring power hungry people into government, and turn
>into...yes, a dicatatorship.
Nonsense.
Scott Erb
says...
>(yawn) ALL ideologies accept as legitimate some acts and deem others
>illegitimate, constitutional democracy included.
Cool. So why should we ditch what we have and what works for anything
different?
>1) I dispute that vigorously. My system would allow more freedom,
>which would translate into more mobility between the classes, not
>less. Goverment regulations help those currently in power to hold it.
I disagree. Convince me.
>2) If it did, too bad. That doesn't make it wrong.
No, but you can damn well be sure people like would be inciting others,
protesting, and doing what we can to change the system. That would lead
to attempts to put us down, and soon you have tyranny. Or a revolt.
>It could work anyway. All it takes is a vote of congress, and
>enforcemet by the judiciary. This idea that the society has to agree
>with the laws for them to be enforced is refuted by any cursory
>examination of the current world, or history.
If Congress votes to make changes, and doesn't violate the Constitution,
then fine. (Though the next Congress could vote differently). I wouldn't
complain then because you will have convinced the people, and still allow
people to try to argue for changes in the system. No problem. You just
haven't given me reason to vote for your changes, but that's OK.
>No I don't. Social Darwinist scare scenarios are inventive fiction.
>They have little to do with reality.
Perhaps, but I disagree and unless you convince me differently, will act
politically (and probably effectively with others) on that belief. That
is reality that must be dealt with.
>That IS your system. YOU think people should be able to choose, and
>you use what power you have to FORCE that on the rest of us.
If that's how you want to see it, that's your right.
>So, you are right - we're not as far apart as one might think. The
>difference is this - I admit I would enforce my system, but I lack the
>power, and you currently enforce your system without acknowledging it.
If you read my posts on reforms you'll see I'm as critical as the system
as you, only in differnet ways with different reform ideas. I just
recognize that until I convince people, I would not WANT to try to enforce
my system from above. No good can come of that type of system. It has to
be chosen to work effectively in the long run. My studies of politics and
history convince me of that.
>>but what it ended up being was a hell hole of
>>tyranny because any time an elite tries to guide a culture in a way they
>>believe right, they won't be able to, and thus they'll start relying on
>>force, which will then bring power hungry people into government, and
turn
>>into...yes, a dicatatorship.
>
>Nonsense.
I disagree vehemently with your dismissal and hence will all my life act
politically with all my power to prevent any attempt to eliminate
democracy or the right to participate politically. I will argue for my
reform ideas, and not be bitter if the people don't choose them -- I can't
expect the world to follow my whims, or adjust itself to my beliefs.
Pistol, I'm very critical of this system, in some ways more than you. My
reform ideas are pretty radical, even as I try to figure out a way to make
them practical. To posit that I prefer the status quo to anything else is
wrong. I just think this is the best decision making system, and I'll
work happily within it to try to create change.
cheers, scott
do...@stone-soup.com
wrote:
>In article <35da099...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
>says...
>
>>(yawn) ALL ideologies accept as legitimate some acts and deem others
>>illegitimate, constitutional democracy included.
>
>Cool. So why should we ditch what we have and what works for anything
>different?
>
>>1) I dispute that vigorously. My system would allow more freedom,
>>which would translate into more mobility between the classes, not
>>less. Goverment regulations help those currently in power to hold it.
>
>I disagree. Convince me.
>
Government is power.
All governments are for sale. Those who have the most money can buy
the most government. The more government there is the more power that
is for sale. The more power the rich can buy the less likely there is
to be mobility between classes.
<snip>
Scott Erb
says...
>Government is power.
>All governments are for sale. Those who have the most money can buy
>the most government. The more government there is the more power that
>is for sale. The more power the rich can buy the less likely there is
>to be mobility between classes.
Well, if you have anarchy or some kind of ultra capitalist system that's
what you'd get. But governments are for sale on the basis of one person
one vote, and we can act to try to make changes. Money still exercises
too much power, but some kind of public control via the ballot box is
better than nothing. The struggle is for the people to hold uses of power
accountable, and a governmental system of, by and for the people is better
than anything else I've seen out there.
cheers, scott
http://zinnia.umfacad.maine.edu/~erb/
do...@stone-soup.com
wrote:
>In article <35dab401...@news.atlantic.net>, do...@stone-soup.com
And how much money would be spent on buying a government who had 1/10
the power or 1/100 the power of the current government. Do you
believe that your one vote gives you the same power that the Chairman
of GM's 20 million to elected politicicals gives him? And you accuse
liberterians of living in a dream world.
Robert N Newshutz
Scott Erb wrote in message <6rcrst$agc$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>>leave.
>
>poor they can't leave. Then they are forced not to go on strike. That
>kind of attitude is why, if you ever succeed in changing laws too much,
>you will face a revolt.
>
>And in that revolt, yes, I would condone theft and sabotage.
>
poverty of the workers, but by the force of government or the lack of
government protection of workers from violence.
>>Exactly what is this "constitutional democracy" you keep talking about. I
>>don't know of a single government that has a constitution that means
>>anything.
>
>Ah, so you slept in civics class, eh?
>
>That explains a lot.
>
>Your ideas seem boring. But thanks for participating.
>
Thank you so much for you responding with civil discourse and honest
exchange of ideas and not using ad hominem and insults. I really wonder how
you got such a bad reputation with such fine examples as this post.
Maybe you could make a special effort just this once and explain to this
narcoleptic bore how your "constitutional democracy" would not turn into a
mixed government of oligarchy and majoritarian democracy like the USA has
now?
cheers,
Rob
Scott Erb
>But this does not happen. Strikes historically are not prevented by the
>poverty of the workers, but by the force of government or the lack of
>government protection of workers from violence.
Before you had a stable system of interest intermediation unions had to
fight hard for their rights, strikes were bitter, there was violence, etc.
If power were equal between owners and employers, then they could be
treated like equals and allowed to consentially negotiate. But money is
power, and the owners tend to amass more power and you know damn well
they'll use it. Strikers have some power, but ultimately owners have the
upper hand. That's why we need government. Ironically, most owners and
capitalists think we do too. The type of unrest and economic disaster
that come from strikes absent a stable form of interest intermediation
needs to be avoided. This is especially true in smaller countries where
democratic corporatist forms of interest intermediation and the rise of a
true welfare state protect both workers and employers from the impact of
labor unrest.
>Maybe you could make a special effort just this once and explain to this
>narcoleptic bore how your "constitutional democracy" would not turn into
>a mixed government of oligarchy and majoritarian democracy like the USA
>has now?
You are assuming your conclusion. The constitutional democracies of the
advanced industrialized west have had unprecedented material success,
unprecedented levels of personal freedom, and are accepted by the vast
majority of the population. They are good problem solvers and can change
as the people demand. They are not accountable enough, but unless someone
presents a very specific workable alternative, vague attacks like yours
above are unpersuasive.
cheers, scott
Robert N Newshutz
Scott Erb wrote in message <6rhbbv$1a9e$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>
>>Maybe you could make a special effort just this once and explain to this
>>narcoleptic bore how your "constitutional democracy" would not turn into
>>a mixed government of oligarchy and majoritarian democracy like the USA
>>has now?
>
>You are assuming your conclusion. The constitutional democracies of the
>advanced industrialized west have had unprecedented material success,
>unprecedented levels of personal freedom, and are accepted by the vast
>majority of the population. They are good problem solvers and can change
>as the people demand. They are not accountable enough, but unless someone
>presents a very specific workable alternative, vague attacks like yours
>above are unpersuasive.
For the sake of argument I will grant the above description of the benefits
of the "constitutional democracies of the advanced industrialized west"
(though I have points of disagreement), but what makes them
"constitutional"? What is your meaning of this adjective? It is clearly
quite different from my understanding, that a "constitutional" government
would be limited as to function as well as to form. I would like to wait
until we have your meaning of constitutional, before we get into to what
degree democracy actually exists (which will NOT be the republic vs direct
democracy argument).
To me constitutional government only exists when there is a constitution
that defines limits to the powers of government, either a positive list of
the only things that the government can do (US Constitution) or a negative
list of things the government cannot do (Bill of Rights), or a combination.
Also necessary is a mechanism (that works) to keep the government
constrained by to those limits.
I do not see any of the "constitutional democracies of the advanced
industrialized west" that are actually limited by a constitution. The
governments are limited somewhat by what a majority is willing to endure,
but this does not make the government "constitutional".
If you wish to argue that the US has a constitutional government as I
described above, then support the constitutionality of the Air Force as a
service branch. I picked the Air Force, because I expect we would agree that
the Air Force as a separate branch is a good thing. This allows us to stick
to arguments of form. Remember we fought all of WWII without the Air Force
as a service branch, so there is no expediency argument here. A
constitutional amendment would have been easy to pass, there is no utility
argument here.
Pistol
<news...@nospam.com> wrote:
[snips]
>I do not see any of the "constitutional democracies of the advanced
>industrialized west" that are actually limited by a constitution. The
>governments are limited somewhat by what a majority is willing to endure,
>but this does not make the government "constitutional".
>
>If you wish to argue that the US has a constitutional government as I
>described above, then support the constitutionality of the Air Force as a
>service branch. I picked the Air Force, because I expect we would agree that
>the Air Force as a separate branch is a good thing. This allows us to stick
>to arguments of form. Remember we fought all of WWII without the Air Force
>as a service branch, so there is no expediency argument here. A
>constitutional amendment would have been easy to pass, there is no utility
>argument here.
You could also ask how drug-money seizure laws and random sobriety
checks are consistent with the fourth amendment, which says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their ... effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures ... shall not be violated but upon
... particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized."
How exact must it be?
Scott Erb
>I do not see any of the "constitutional democracies of the advanced
>industrialized west" that are actually limited by a constitution.
I find little support for that kind of view. Perhaps you disagree with
the way the constitution is interpreted? In any event, laws are struck
down across the industrialized West consistently for being
unconstitutional, especially in the US. Great Britain, with parliamentary
sovereignty, has a more problemmatic constitution. But frankly, you are
denying most research into this, and I think your argument comes down to
the fact you would interpret the constitution differently than most do. I
really don't care to get into arguing about how the constitution should be
interpreted at this time, except to note that a majority of constitutional
scholars disagree that we lack a constitutional government.
Robert N Newshutz
Pistol wrote in message <35dd9761...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
>>governments are limited somewhat by what a majority is willing to endure,
>>but this does not make the government "constitutional".
>>
>>If you wish to argue that the US has a constitutional government as I
>>described above, then support the constitutionality of the Air Force as a
>>service branch. I picked the Air Force, because I expect we would agree
that
>>the Air Force as a separate branch is a good thing. This allows us to
stick
>>to arguments of form. Remember we fought all of WWII without the Air Force
>>as a service branch, so there is no expediency argument here. A
>>constitutional amendment would have been easy to pass, there is no utility
>>argument here.
>
>You could also ask how drug-money seizure laws and random sobriety
>checks are consistent with the fourth amendment, which says:
>
>"The right of the people to be secure in their ... effects against
>unreasonable searches and seizures ... shall not be violated but upon
>... particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
>or things to be seized."
>
>How exact must it be?
I think there are numerous clear violations of the constitution being
perpetrated by the US government. I tried to pick an example that was clear
and that would have broad support (including me) for an ammendment. I wanted
to avoid an argument about whether it was a good thing or not to focus on
the process of limits.
Robert N Newshutz
Scott Erb wrote in message <6rka7o$1t3s$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>>industrialized west" that are actually limited by a constitution.
>
>the way the constitution is interpreted? In any event, laws are struck
>down across the industrialized West consistently for being
>unconstitutional, especially in the US. Great Britain, with parliamentary
>sovereignty, has a more problemmatic constitution. But frankly, you are
>denying most research into this, and I think your argument comes down to
>the fact you would interpret the constitution differently than most do. I
>really don't care to get into arguing about how the constitution should be
>interpreted at this time, except to note that a majority of constitutional
>scholars disagree that we lack a constitutional government.
>
position folds. How can a "constitutional democracy" be the best mechanism
for dispute resolution, if it doesn't exist? The support of unquoted
"research" by unenumerated "constitutional scholars" is not convincing.
If there is so little support for my view, show me where the US constitution
allows for (funding) an air force. Defend the lack of an ammendment to
establish one. (2nd time for this) Based on Article I section 8 and the 10th
ammendment, the Air Force is clearly unconstitutional. It is a counter
example to the existance of a followed constitution.
It is important whether there is adherence to form or not. In the current
atmosphere of "interpretation" of the constitution nothing is limited. Only
acts that are clearly out of favor with a substantial segment of the
oligarchy or a majority of the populace are found unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional acts against unsympathetic minorities are often ignored.
There is a long list of government actions that are unconstitutional from
plain reading of the constitution. I tried to choose one that would not
descend into an argument over whether it was a good thing or not. But I did
not intend to pick one that would cause you to avoid argument altogether. Is
there another example of extra constitutional government action that you
would like to defend?
I want to know what YOU think, not what some "majority of constitutional
scholars" thinks. (BTW, who designated them constitutional scholars and
where in the constitution do they get to decide?) I would call them part of
the oligarchy as are all lawyers. To me this is just more evidence that we
have a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. The constitution is clearly
understandable to any well educated person. We do not need a cabal of
"constitutional scholars" to tell us what it means.