Merged Harm, force, and might makes right

[Piscivore]

And that is no different from anything else I mentioned.

If you decide to not pay your mortgage, ultimately you will be physically tossed out....

"Physical force" is the ultimate threat for any social rule or convention, government or no.

And even then, you haven't been "forced" to pay your mortgage. Well said.

Cleon, this is simple, express when it is ok to use force.

1) When one's own ethics allow it
2) When the ethics of enough other people condone it
3) When the social system one lives in explicitly allows it
4) When you can get away with it.

Those are not clearly distinct situations, they overlap each other considerably.

 

[Patrick_R]

I fail to see any reason to continue this conversation. It's clear that you're here on an evangelical mission to preach the Holy Word of Libertarian philosophy, and have little interest in discussion.

So wait...I ask a question and you follow up with questions which I try to answer, keeping in mind I'm still looking for your answers and you think this is a discussion? We've been asking questions. Don't get pissed about that. But I won't keep you here.

 

[Cleon]

So wait...I ask a question and you follow up with questions which I try to answer

And then, once I explain that your "answer" actually answered nothing at all, you continue as though I said nothing at all.

Pointless.

 

[Patrick_R]

Cleon's mortgage example is simple.

Person A agrees with person B to a contract in which Person A receives a sum of money which he will repay, with interest, to person B over a set period of time. To ensure the contract is paid person B writes into the contract provisions to reduce his risk. One such provision may be a 10% down payment and the right to seize the home if payments are not kept up on time.

Person A and Person B must agree to the rules before the contract is settled. Person A and B agree under their own volition.

This is an example of private enterprise creating rules by which two separate individuals might compromise, do business, and cooperate.

Cleon, however, creates a poor analogy suggesting that if we don’t like the rules of society we should leave. We haven’t set up a society that makes this possible.

To arrange such a society, as best we can, we would need a central government with very limited powers. Remaining power would be held at a local level allowing cities and counties across the country to address their own unique social problems in their own manner. They of course, would be forced to compete with other local governments and therefore must assure the attractiveness of their ideas – and of course the outcome of their ideas. That would be a more realistic society to live in if your final answer was “if you don’t like it, leave” Moving to the next town over is a lot easier than moving across the planet.

 

[Patrick_R]

And then, once I explain that your "answer" actually answered nothing at all, you continue as though I said nothing at all.

Pointless.

Let us assume I am completely incapable of answering your questions. What is stopping you from answering the original question?

 

[Cleon]

Cleon, however, creates a poor analogy suggesting that if we don’t like the rules of society we should leave. We haven’t set up a society that makes this possible.

Interesting, as I don't recall suggesting that. What I said (not "suggested") was:

By participating in society, you agree to abide by the rules of that society.

If you don't like the rules, fine. Either try to change them, or leave society.

But the fact that we have rules is not, in itself, a problem. It's just the way people function together, and that's true whether we're talking social convention, business practices, or government laws.

 

[Piscivore]

Cleon, however, creates a poor analogy suggesting that if we don’t like the rules of society we should leave. We haven’t set up a society that makes this possible.

Nonsense. People are free to forfeit their U.S. citizenship any time they want.

 

[Cleon]

Let us assume I am completely incapable of answering your questions. What is stopping you from answering the original question?

What's keeping me from answering the original question that I already explained was flawed, as your definition of "force" was vague and meaningless?

Intellectual honesty.

 

[Patrick_R]

Cleon,

My criticism stands,

By participating in society, you agree to abide by the rules of that society.

If you don't like the rules, fine. Either try to change them, or leave society.

But the fact that we have rules is not, in itself, a problem. It's just the way people function together, and that's true whether we're talking social convention, business practices, or government laws.

By participating in society, I've agreed to the rules.

Says who?
What if the rules are wrong or unjust?

I just leave?

Nonsense. Your premise is nonsense.

 

[Cleon]

By participating in society, I've agreed to the rules.

Says who?
What if the rules are wrong or unjust?

I just leave?

Nonsense. Your premise is nonsense.

So you're deliberately ignoring the "either try to change them" part of the equation for the purpose of attributing to me a position I do not hold.

That is dishonest.

 

[Patrick_R]

Cleon,

Arguing about when it is ok to use force against another implies you would have to argue and or understand the merit of using force against a person in the first place. This so called flaw isn't so much of a flaw than it is your unwillingness to participate in a discussion that discusses when force is or is not legitimate.

 

[Patrick_R]

So you're deliberately ignoring the "either try to change them" part of the equation for the purpose of attributing to me a position I do not hold.

That is dishonest.

Segregation existed for decades in America. One set of people forcing another set of people to be seperate by force of government. We did take years to change that cruel reality. So why not talk about when it is ok to use force and when it is not?

 

[Darat]

Cleon,

My criticism stands,



By participating in society, I've agreed to the rules.

Says who?
What if the rules are wrong or unjust?

I just leave?
Nonsense. Your premise is nonsense.

For societies like the USA & EU countries the answer is yes - you are free to leave the society anytime you want.

 

[ravdin]

For societies like the USA & EU countries the answer is yes - you are free to leave the society anytime you want.

Indeed. There are plenty of cities in the Third World where you can pretty much do as you please. There are open air markets for firearms and drugs, prostitution is rampant, and you can drive as fast as you like. You might try living in such a free environment for a time and see how well you like it.

 

[Cleon]

Cleon,

Arguing about when it is ok to use force against another implies you would have to argue and or understand the merit of using force against a person in the first place. This so called flaw isn't so much of a flaw than it is your unwillingness to participate in a discussion that discusses when force is or is not legitimate.

That's all well and good, but it's still based on a vague and nebulous concept of "force" that you have yet to enumerate.

So while I'm sure you'd love to pretend that I'm just trying to sink this discussion for my own nefarious ends, whatever they might be, the reality is that your "question" was largely meaningless.

 

[Cleon]

Indeed. There are plenty of cities in the Third World where you can pretty much do as you please. There are open air markets for firearms and drugs, prostitution is rampant, and you can drive as fast as you like. You might try living in such a free environment for a time and see how well you like it.

Ah, Somalia, the workers' paradise.

 

[Patrick_R]

Ah, Somalia, the workers' paradise.

Ah the anti libertarians favorite national fallacy....

so exactly, how is a failed socialist state run by warlords anything like a libertarian nightwatchman state?

 

[Patrick_R]

For societies like the USA & EU countries the answer is yes - you are free to leave the society anytime you want.

Then what were African Americans complaining about so long in the US. Yes, they're life was terrible because the government treated them poorly. But they could have left....

 

[Patrick_R]

Indeed. There are plenty of cities in the Third World where you can pretty much do as you please. There are open air markets for firearms and drugs, prostitution is rampant, and you can drive as fast as you like. You might try living in such a free environment for a time and see how well you like it.

They don't have free trade in the third world, they don't have property rights, and they don't really have much in the way of capitalism...that is not a condition of being "Free" has you seem to imply its a condition of being "unfree" both politically and economically.

 

[ravdin]

They don't have free trade in the third world, they don't have property rights, and they don't really have much in the way of capitalism...that is not a condition of being "Free" has you seem to imply its a condition of being "unfree" both politically and economically.

That's not my intent. I am pro-capitalist, enough so to have ruffled a few feathers on this forum myself. It should tell you something that where law and order has broken down, and individuals can implement a "do as you please" philosophy (without fear of being restrained by physical force if necessary), that concepts like free trade and property rights don't work.