View Single Post
  #193  
Old 12-03-2012, 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Force and enforcement aren't synonyms when we are using force as an indicator of violence. I'm not really worried about getting shot or beaten to death because I didn't pay a restaurant bill or even because I didn't pay taxes, or pay someone a fair wage.
Again, so why enforce it? Violence and threat of violence aren't technically synonyms, sure. But they both involve the idea of initiatory force and so they are both immoral; as they both violate the NAP(Non-Aggression Principle).
More on that below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
The thing is, though, isn't dictating laws based on morality a slippery slope?
On the substrate of the Non-Aggression Principle? Absolutely not. The use of or threat of initiatory force by another person, group, cult, company, collective, and especially from governments as a moral paradigm is a pretty distinct line that is pretty hard to fudge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
The War on Drugs is based around principals of morality - or at least that's why the public largely supported it at one time.
As I noted earlier, drug use was most likely going down, so the government immediately had to raise moral hysteria and create a "war" on it. What's that H.L. Mencken quote? "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary". Again universal morality gets obfuscated by the hysteria whipped up by some pretty uber-thick propaganda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
When drugs were made illegal, it was based on fear tactics. The pothead who'd play piano and rape women or the hippy degenerate who'd eat your brains while on acid, and so forth. Over time, the things that were embedded because moral issues for people (based on misunderstandings of the reality of drug use) and these laws continue to be supported based, mostly, on the way people morally feel about it.
Right. Based on the obfuscation and delusions you've just alluded to and I mentioned/implied above. It's apparently so easy for people to forget where and how to put the argument where it starts(which is a property issue): It's my body, I own it. You don't. I can put whatever I want into it.

Quote:
So, I can't say that I support morality dictating whether laws are good or bad. I have an opinion on that but in now way do I feel my opinion is the definitive answer for everyone else.
But the Non-Aggression Principle has to work for everybody or no one at all. That's what a moral prescription is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
No. I mean in the fact that cops aren't there to shoot people if they aren't cooperating in regards to the enforcement of crimes that do not present a direct threat to anyone. There are a lot of degrees of things going wrong when an arrest turns to murder. There are far more things going wrong than in a situation when a robbery goes wrong. The police officer should be there, responding to a crime, but the criminal shouldn't be in the alley way, robbing someone.
I can see that I failed you here. So let me run it by you by yet another way. If they didn't have the gun and legal exception to its initiatory use at the end of the rainbow, would you obey them?

If they didn't have this moral carte blanche on violence; would you say, get out of a car and submit to a cavity search for not wearing a seat belt?(This is now an official edict thanks to the Supreme Court) I thought not(if you said yes, I have one more way to run it by you).


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
You've never talked your way out of a speeding ticket?
This is becoming less and less as the police DO have quotas to fill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
But tax laws are readily available.
Do you know how thick the tax code is? Not a single tax attorney fully understands it; much less a layman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Now, I might be painting myself into a corner of appearing that I empathize with the idea of the government being scary. There is a quote I can't recall exactly but it's to the effect of the government used to protect the people and now they control the people. I do, in many regards, feel that there are measures used which are wrong and detrimental to us as a whole. It just happens to be that asking companies to increase their minimum wage, or asking people who own a larger share of wealth to contribute a larger share back, are not among those things. To me it doesn't make sense for the country as a whole.
But you aren't "ASKING" anyone to do any of these things. You are advocating the use of initiatory force for them to do these things. I feel I've been pretty clear on this point.
Reply With Quote