Massacre in Connecticut - Page 24

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

No - tonton presented a credible (though refutable) counterexample argument, and you completely failed even to try to refute it, choosing to refuse to engage the substance and argue semantics instead.

 

Bullshit. His whole claim is based on the idea that proponents of the NAP are claiming a perfect justice world with the NAP. No one is claiming that what he presented could not happen. That's a straw man. Sure that can happen. It even happens now. He also claims that this point "proves" why the NAP "won't work." He hasn't presented anything worth trying to refute...because there's nothing to refute here.

I disagree. He presented a quite general argument for a serious impediment to justice under his interpretation of NAP - not that the NAP would not be perfect, but that it contains a quite fundamental flaw.  I think his interpretation is wrong, but his interpretation, in itself, is not a straw man argument. I cannot figure out why you did not refute his argument by attacking his flawed interpretation, rather than his logic on what that interpretation would lead to, which was not flawed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I disagree.

OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

He presented a quite general argument for a serious impediment to justice under his interpretation of NAP - not that the NAP would not be perfect, but that it contains a quite fundamental flaw.  I think his interpretation is wrong, but his interpretation, in itself, is not a straw man argument. I cannot figure out why you did not refute his argument by attacking his flawed interpretation, rather than his logic on what that interpretation would lead to, which was not flawed.

Well, I actually tried to address the fact that what he was claiming would occur as he claimed, in fact, it would. But I got nowhere there.

But, more importantly, I agree that there is a fundamental flaw in his interpretation of the Non-Aggression Principle and how it would apply to situations like this. Namely that he interprets any action take to bring an aggressor to justice to be a form of aggression. I'd disagree with this. I think it is a flawed interpretation of the idea of aggression (vs. defensive and reciprocal and reparative actions.) He actually suggested that someone acting in defense against an aggressor was the same as using initiative force. I think earlier in this thread. I actually tried to address this similar interpretation in another post, possibly in another thread. Haven't been keeping track to be honest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I disagree.

 

OK.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

He presented a quite general argument for a serious impediment to justice under his interpretation of NAP - not that the NAP would not be perfect, but that it contains a quite fundamental flaw.  I think his interpretation is wrong, but his interpretation, in itself, is not a straw man argument. I cannot figure out why you did not refute his argument by attacking his flawed interpretation, rather than his logic on what that interpretation would lead to, which was not flawed.

 

Well, I actually tried to address the fact that what he was claiming would occur as he claimed, in fact, it would. But I got nowhere there.

 

But, more importantly, I agree that there is a fundamental flaw in his interpretation of the Non-Aggression Principle and how it would apply to situations like this. Namely that he interprets any action take to bring an aggressor to justice to be a form of aggression. I'd disagree with this. I think it is a flawed interpretation of the idea of aggression (vs. defensive and reciprocal and reparative actions.) He actually suggested that someone acting in defense against an aggressor was the same as using initiative force. I think earlier in this thread. I actually tried to address this similar interpretation in another post, possibly in another thread. Haven't been keeping track to be honest.

And there you go - in one short paragraph you make the case - argument over. Why didn't you just do that earlier?

Anyway - that goes directly back to my earlier statement that he would lose this argument - NAP has been refined to deal with arguments of exactly that kind, to the extent that it has ended up as a quite reasonable philosophy and, in its refined form, not that far from the ideal (if not the practice) of democracy with robust individual rights.  Unless one adheres to one of the more hardline interpretations of NAP it's hard to find that much wrong with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

And there you go - in one short paragraph you make the case - argument over. Why didn't you just do that earlier?

Actually, I have tried to explain this distinction in the past. It appears to have simply been ignored or disagreed with without coming out and saying it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

And there you go - in one short paragraph you make the case - argument over. Why didn't you just do that earlier?

 

Anyway - that goes directly back to my earlier statement that he would lose this argument - NAP has been refined to deal with arguments of exactly that kind, to the extent that it has ended up as a quite reasonable philosophy and, in its refined form, not that far from the ideal (if not the practice) of democracy with robust individual rights.  Unless one adheres to one of the more hardline interpretations of NAP it's hard to find that much wrong with it.

Except I don't think he has made the case.  How does one become labeled an aggressor upon which this form of justifiable aggression is allowed?  MJ needs to delineate when force is OK and when it isn't.  Instead, he'd rather play games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

And there you go - in one short paragraph you make the case - argument over. Why didn't you just do that earlier?

 

Anyway - that goes directly back to my earlier statement that he would lose this argument - NAP has been refined to deal with arguments of exactly that kind, to the extent that it has ended up as a quite reasonable philosophy and, in its refined form, not that far from the ideal (if not the practice) of democracy with robust individual rights.  Unless one adheres to one of the more hardline interpretations of NAP it's hard to find that much wrong with it.

Except I don't think he has made the case.  How does one become labeled an aggressor upon which this form of justifiable aggression is allowed?  MJ needs to delineate when force is OK and when it isn't.  Instead, he'd rather play games.

I think he made the case just fine. The point is that most sensible interpretations of NAP accept that society needs to be able to protect itself from criminal activity. And while it places great importance on individual rights and the presumption of innocence, it also accepts that a functional justice system cannot be susceptible to the general scenario that tonton presented. It may assert that a defendant may not be compelled to attend his trial and should not be locked up like a convicted criminal, but it recognizes that it may be necessary to prevent guilty (or innocent) defendants from simply refusing to cooperate and taking off. Such actions are then categorized as defensive rather than aggressive, and thus not in violation of the intent of NAP.

Who is the arbiter of these decisions?  To whom can I redress a grievance if someone else's interpretation of an act of defense differs from my own?  What level of force is one allowed to use in these aggressive acts that someone has reclassified as defensive? 

This loophole seems awful large and primed for severe abuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Who is the arbiter of these decisions?  To whom can I redress a grievance if someone else's interpretation of an act of defense differs from my own?  What level of force is one allowed to use in these aggressive acts that someone has reclassified as defensive? 

 

This loophole seems awful large and primed for severe abuse.

The law - the legal system. NAP does not preclude an institutional judicial process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

The law - the legal system. NAP does not preclude an institutional judicial process.

And who pays for this legal system?  Donations only?  MJ and Jazz seem to clamor against the very idea of government.  I don't see how you have law and a legal system without some form of government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

The law - the legal system. NAP does not preclude an institutional judicial process.

And who pays for this legal system?  Donations only?  MJ and Jazz seem to clamor against the very idea of government.  I don't see how you have law and a legal system without some form of government.

So that's where some of their ideas seem a bit off track. Many interpretations of NAP accept the need for taxation to pay for those kinds of things that are not suitable to be provided by private enterprise. A judicial system would be one of those.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

So that's where some of their ideas seem a bit off track. Many interpretations of NAP accept the need for taxation to pay for those kinds of things that are not suitable to be provided by private enterprise. A judicial system would be one of those.

So perhaps that's why tonton and I are having such a problem with MJ & Jazz's presentation of NAP.  Their interpretation of it seems far more extreme than yours, and ultimately less robust (or at the very least contradicts mightily with their other assertions about taxation).  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

So that's where some of their ideas seem a bit off track. Many interpretations of NAP accept the need for taxation to pay for those kinds of things that are not suitable to be provided by private enterprise. A judicial system would be one of those.

So perhaps that's why tonton and I are having such a problem with MJ & Jazz's presentation of NAP.  Their interpretation of it seems far more extreme than yours, and ultimately less robust (or at the very least contradicts mightily with their other assertions about taxation).  

I can't speak for them. My interpretation is just based on reading the literature. NAP clearly spans a spectrum of doctrine from the extreme (which, like most extremes, seems to lack both pragmatism and internal consistency) to the more practical.  I based my arguments on the latter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I disagree.

OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

He presented a quite general argument for a serious impediment to justice under his interpretation of NAP - not that the NAP would not be perfect, but that it contains a quite fundamental flaw.  I think his interpretation is wrong, but his interpretation, in itself, is not a straw man argument. I cannot figure out why you did not refute his argument by attacking his flawed interpretation, rather than his logic on what that interpretation would lead to, which was not flawed.

Well, I actually tried to address the fact that what he was claiming would occur as he claimed, in fact, it would. But I got nowhere there.

But, more importantly, I agree that there is a fundamental flaw in his interpretation of the Non-Aggression Principle and how it would apply to situations like this. Namely that he interprets any action take to bring an aggressor to justice to be a form of aggression. I'd disagree with this. I think it is a flawed interpretation of the idea of aggression (vs. defensive and reciprocal and reparative actions.) He actually suggested that someone acting in defense against an aggressor was the same as using initiative force. I think earlier in this thread. I actually tried to address this similar interpretation in another post, possibly in another thread. Haven't been keeping track to be honest.

And there you go - in one short paragraph you make the case - argument over. Why didn't you just do that earlier?

Anyway - that goes directly back to my earlier statement that he would lose this argument - NAP has been refined to deal with arguments of exactly that kind, to the extent that it has ended up as a quite reasonable philosophy and, in its refined form, not that far from the ideal (if not the practice) of democracy with robust individual rights.  Unless one adheres to one of the more hardline interpretations of NAP it's hard to find that much wrong with it.

Wrong, and wrong.

Is the suspect now the aggressor? How on earth do you know? How can you prove it without his cooperation? You can't. So you can't prove he's the aggressor. So how do you bring him to trial, or collect evidence, without initiating force? You can't. So he walks away unless you take initiative force. Which is what I've been arguing all along.

It is absolutely impossible to enforce the NAP without violating the NAP.

Or is omniscience of guilt part of the NAP plan?

My point is that you are arguing against an extreme version of NAP, under which you correctly conclude that law enforcement is basically impossible. But that is not an immutable definition of NAP.

I don't see why you need his cooperation. You may need to detain him, or otherwise prevent him from fleeing, and while under some interpretations that would constitute aggression, the more practical interpretations have accepted that as a prerequisite of being able to defend society against aggression. Is it a bit contradictory? Yes, but the fundamental philosophy of maximizing reasonable protection of individual rights is still there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Yes, I was arguing a strict interpretation, because that's what MJ is arguing in his claim that government is fundamentally immoral.

In the context of government vs. nongovernment, as you say, we might need to have the ability to detain suspects to collect evidence and hold a trial. Who do you suggest should have this right of detention of suspects? Private enterprises? Nongovernmental social constructs like the ridiculous feudal Irish example? How is that any better than government? How is that particular non-strict interpretation any different than the rule of law?

As I said earlier - I can't speak for MJ.  I addressed the issue of who owns the judicial system in post 931. I completely agree that it is better to have an elected organization run the judiciary than to try to leave it to private enterprise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Yes, I was arguing a strict interpretation, because that's what MJ is arguing in his claim that government is fundamentally immoral.


In the context of government vs. nongovernment, as you say, we might need to have the ability to detain suspects to collect evidence and hold a trial. Who do you suggest should have this right of detention of suspects? Private enterprises? Nongovernmental social constructs like the ridiculous feudal Irish example? How is that any better than government? How is that particular non-strict interpretation any different than the rule of law?

As I said earlier - I can't speak for MJ.  I addressed the issue of who owns the judicial system in post 931. I completely agree that it is better to have an elected organization run the judiciary than to try to leave it to private enterprise.

And there we have it.

1. Under a strict interpretation of the NAP, you cannot effectively enforce any laws without violating the NAP by making an arrest or seizing evidence. As I claimed.

2. Government is a better way to manage enforcement and adjudication, because of checks and balances, the representative voting system, and open candidacy, as I claimed.

Are we done now?

Except that I'm not sure that the assumption of that strict an interpretation was ever established or admitted. I agree that it does seem to have been implied in many posts, but you didn't nail it down before you made your argument.

MJ and Jazz both say taxation is theft.  That's well established.  Given that, I say the onus is on them to now claim otherwise in supporting a less extreme version of NAP.  I feel very safe in saying they are proponents of the incredibly extreme NAP.

And another shooting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/nyregion/four-killed-in-shootings-in-upstate-new-york.html?_r=0

4 dead

(Sorry, I've missed quite a few as there are so many)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

And another shooting.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/nyregion/four-killed-in-shootings-in-upstate-new-york.html?_r=0

 

4 dead

 

 

(Sorry, I've missed quite a few as there are so many)

Why don't you just setup a blog for this?

While you're at it, let's list deaths from auto accidents, drone attacks by your president and alcohol consumption?

Have more guns I say and let us kill and kill until we cannot kill any longer.This country is turning into the Wild West! Dammit Regulate these dam guns !
 

The fact that you fail to see "guns for all" libertarianism as resulting in eugenics is even more troubling.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The fact that you fail to see "guns for all" libertarianism as resulting in eugenics is even more troubling.
 

That fact that you do (with the historical precedents of what's happened when large groups of people have been disarmed by their governments) is still more troubling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

And another shooting.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/nyregion/four-killed-in-shootings-in-upstate-new-york.html?_r=0

 

4 dead

 

 

(Sorry, I've missed quite a few as there are so many)

 

Why don't you just setup a blog for this?

 

While you're at it, let's list deaths from auto accidents, drone attacks by your president and alcohol consumption?

You're so deeply against the drone attacks, maybe you should join the party that is taking the initiative in opposing them. Or are you simply grasping for a straw man with which to criticize Obama and BR and I by association?

And as I've said before, two wrongs don't make a right. The non-transparency of the drone attacks is wrong, and most likely the attacks themselves. And so is free for all gun sales.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

You're so deeply against the drone attacks, maybe you should join the party that is taking the initiative in opposing them. Or are you simply grasping for a straw man with which to criticize Obama and BR and I by association?

I was addressing Berger actually. Chill with your victim complex.

P.S. I don't join political parties. Certainly not the Republicrats/Demopublicans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The fact that you fail to see "guns for all" libertarianism as resulting in eugenics is even more troubling.
 

 

That fact that you do (with the historical precedents of what's happened when large groups of people have been disarmed by their governments) is still more troubling.

 

The fact that you acknowledge no difference between the governments that have committed atrocities and the US government is even morex2 troubling!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The fact that you acknowledge no difference between the governments that have committed atrocities and the US government is even morex2 troubling!

Ooooh a STRAW MAN! How exciting!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The fact that you acknowledge no difference between the governments that have committed atrocities and the US government is even morex2 troubling!

 

Ooooh a STRAW MAN! How exciting!

LMFAO. Says the guy who posted about deaths from cars and alcohol in a gun control thread. Priceless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

LMFAO. Says the guy who posted about deaths from cars and alcohol in a gun control thread. Priceless.

WTF?! 

And in case you can't connect two dots, my point was that there is less threat from the US government taking away guns than there is from Syria taking away guns, so you can't use other countries as an example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

And in case you can't connect two dots, my point was that there is less threat from the US government taking away guns than there is from Syria taking away guns...

Possibly your presumption and prediction is true. Possibly it is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

...so you can't use other countries as an example.

I see, you want it both ways. Got it.

What a dumb video.  Maybe the assholes filming should have actually showed proper technique to those ladies instead of setting them up to get hurt.  This video does nothing to invalidate Biden's claims.  Of course, it's just Jazz making another low quality drive-by post without any commentary.  

Biden invalidates his claims when he starts speaking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

Biden invalidates his claims when he starts speaking.

Lets add a qualifier here.

In your mind or opinion of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

 

Lets add a qualifier here.

 

In your mind or opinion of course.

Did ya get yer shotgun yet?