or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage - Page 5

post #161 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Just an observation - NAP is so plagued by conflicting definitions, exemptions, and contradictions...

 

Please do share.

 

Plagued may have been the wrong word.  Benefits from... might be more accurate.

 

There is a concise summary on Wikipedia that mentions many of the different interpretations, a number of which have been honed to address exactly the kind of arguments that tonton is likely to use. He won't win that argument because you have too many options to draw from.

post #162 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Plagued may have been the wrong word.  Benefits from... might be more accurate.

 

There is a concise summary on Wikipedia that mentions many of the different interpretations, a number of which have been honed to address exactly the kind of arguments that tonton is likely to use. He won't win that argument because you have too many options to draw from.

 

I'm familiar with the wiki page. I'm also familiar with the criticisms. Of course that there are criticisms doesn't, ipso facto, make them correct or valid.

 

The key points here are to a) examine this principle and consider it and debate it without simply rejecting it out of hand, and b) to consider how and if it could be implemented, and c) whether it is logically and morally consistent (or more so than other proposed approaches.) I don't know if there is a claim of perfection (nor is there such a claim for the free-market) however many critics (tonton among them) appear to hold the NAP, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism or free-market capitalism in general to a much higher standard, even a standard of perfection that they do not hold the state to. Personally, I seek and strive for a model that is morally and logically consistent (or at least as morally and logically consistent as we can get this side of heaven.) That's the pure goal. Short of that, I am willing to compromise, but my point of compromise is much further away from the size, scope and power of government than tonton's and, perhaps, yours. Ultimately, in practical terms, I would characterize myself as a "minarchist"...seeking, at least, the so-called "night watchman state." I also recognize that none of this can come about without widespread respect for life, liberty and private property. So the fundamental problem is education, information and persuasion. I don't seek to coerce anyone to adopt what I propose...though I would greatly appreciate that sentiment be returned.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #163 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Plagued may have been the wrong word.  Benefits from... might be more accurate.

 

There is a concise summary on Wikipedia that mentions many of the different interpretations, a number of which have been honed to address exactly the kind of arguments that tonton is likely to use. He won't win that argument because you have too many options to draw from.

 

I'm familiar with the wiki page. I'm also familiar with the criticisms. Of course that there are criticisms doesn't, ipso facto, make them correct or valid.

 

The key points here are to a) examine this principle and consider it and debate it without simply rejecting it out of hand, and b) to consider how and if it could be implemented, and c) whether it is logically and morally consistent (or more so than other proposed approaches.) I don't know if there is a claim of perfection (nor is there such a claim for the free-market) however many critics (tonton among them) appear to hold the NAP, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism or free-market capitalism in general to a much higher standard, even a standard of perfection that they do not hold the state to. Personally, I seek and strive for a model that is morally and logically consistent (or at least as morally and logically consistent as we can get this side of heaven.) That's the pure goal. Short of that, I am willing to compromise, but my point of compromise is much further away from the size, scope and power of government than tonton's and, perhaps, yours. Ultimately, in practical terms, I would characterize myself as a "minarchist"...seeking, at least, the so-called "night watchman state." I also recognize that none of this can come about without widespread respect for life, liberty and private property. So the fundamental problem is education, information and persuasion. I don't seek to coerce anyone to adopt what I propose...though I would greatly appreciate that sentiment be returned.

 

I was not rejecting NAP at all - just commenting on its diversity of interpretation as an impediment to nailing down any particular contradiction. I actually think it embraces many admirable ideas. Some of its iterations do not even preclude taxation - I view opposition to taxation as an added libertarian construct. The criticisms may or may not be valid, but in many cases led to supporters of NAP modifying it accordingly, so a working assumption would be that some, at least, are valid.

 

Interesting comment: "I also recognize that none of this can come about without widespread respect for life, liberty and private property. So the fundamental problem is education, information and persuasion." In my view, you just stated the fundamental obstacle to practical libertarianism. Humanity has never demonstrated a capacity for widespread adoption of those principles. We are a fundamentally competitive species, and the strong will take what they can get. Good luck educating the majority to that enlightened state. Who's going to take care of educating by the way? Civilized society succeeds by offering the carrots of order, security and care in exchange for not competing outside the rules, with still some enforcement needed. Do you really foresee being able to replace that without leading to the same chaos that has ensued every time in history that anarchy has occurred? NAP is the first casualty.

post #164 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I was not rejecting NAP at all - just commenting on its diversity of interpretation as an impediment to nailing down any particular contradiction. I actually think it embraces many admirable ideas. Some of its iterations do not even preclude taxation - I view opposition to taxation as an added libertarian construct. The criticisms may or may not be valid, but in many cases led to supporters of NAP modifying it accordingly, so a working assumption would be that some, at least, are valid.

 

Fair points.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Interesting comment: "I also recognize that none of this can come about without widespread respect for life, liberty and private property. So the fundamental problem is education, information and persuasion." In my view, you just stated the fundamental obstacle to practical libertarianism. Humanity has never demonstrated a capacity for widespread adoption of those principles. We are a fundamentally competitive species, and the strong will take what they can get.

 

I disagree.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Who's going to take care of educating by the way?

 

The educating of these principles? Well, it will have to be private individuals and institutions. There are many that are out there giving it the old "college try." But I could easily argue that there was a time in the not too distant pat where people though different races were of different values and different levels of superiority or inferiority and that some deserved to be enslaved or even were expendable...and that these were widely held ideas and values. I believe that's changed much more than some might think and in an incredibly short time period.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Civilized society succeeds by offering the carrots of order, security and care in exchange for not competing outside the rules, with still some enforcement needed.

 

I don't disagree. But I do disagree that all of these "carrots of order, security and care" and enforcement need to be provided by the state and that the rules which constrain society must be declared and enforced by the state.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #165 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Interesting comment: "I also recognize that none of this can come about without widespread respect for life, liberty and private property. So the fundamental problem is education, information and persuasion." In my view, you just stated the fundamental obstacle to practical libertarianism. Humanity has never demonstrated a capacity for widespread adoption of those principles. We are a fundamentally competitive species, and the strong will take what they can get.

 

I disagree.

 

Disagree with what - that humanity has not demonstrated that capacity, that we are competitive, or that the strong will take what they can?

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Who's going to take care of educating by the way?

 

The educating of these principles? Well, it will have to be private individuals and institutions. There are many that are out there giving it the old "college try." But I could easily argue that there was a time in the not too distant pat where people though different races were of different values and different levels of superiority or inferiority and that some deserved to be enslaved or even were expendable...and that these were widely held ideas and values. I believe that's changed much more than some might think and in an incredibly short time period.

 

I really wish I could agree with you on that, but seriously - look around. You think racial discrimination, for example, went away because of education? It went away because it was outlawed, and it still thrives in geographic and demographic regions. If it's fading that's due to suppression of exposure to younger generations.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Civilized society succeeds by offering the carrots of order, security and care in exchange for not competing outside the rules, with still some enforcement needed.

 

I don't disagree. But I do disagree that all of these "carrots of order, security and care" and enforcement need to be provided by the state and that the rules which constrain society must be declared and enforced by the state.

 

So who gets to make the rules and provide those things? I like the system of a limiting constitution with elected representatives, who at least we can vote out of office if they annoy us. The population is too large to form a big committee. What's left? Private companies? They will definitely have our best interests at heart, no question about that, no sir. We're from the corporation and we're here to help.  If you think that constitutionally limited governments tend towards increased powers, how do you think for-profit companies will operate in that environment?

post #166 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Disagree with what - that humanity has not demonstrated that capacity, that we are competitive, or that the strong will take what they can?

 

Most of it. Specifically the claim that "Humanity has never demonstrated a capacity for widespread adoption of those principles" and that "strong will take what they can get" and while I agree humanity has a competitive nature, I don't believe that this nature is fundamentally destructive or problematic but in fact has many positive consequences.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I really wish I could agree with you on that, but seriously - look around. You think racial discrimination, for example, went away because of education? It went away because it was outlawed, and it still thrives in geographic and demographic regions. If it's fading that's due to suppression of exposure to younger generations.

 

I guess we disagree.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

So who gets to make the rules and provide those things?

 

Who says that they have to be "set" by some central authority? We have quite a number of "rules" and customs in society that don't need any governmental enforcement. Society actually has a number of self-correcting characteristics that ultimately create the "rules" as things go along.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I like the system of a limiting constitution with elected representatives, who at least we can vote out of office if they annoy us.

 

I like this idea too. If it could actually work. But the US has demonstrated that constitutional limits don't seem to be respected by elected representatives and they are often beholden to special interests (business and otherwise.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The population is too large to form a big committee.

 

I agree. Who's suggesting that? You seem to be consistently view a different whorl order only through the lens of the current world order.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

What's left? Private companies? They will definitely have our best interests at heart, no question about that, no sir.

 

No question at all? Seems you're revealing a bias here. I think the opposite. In a world where no business can force me to buy anything from them, they actually must have my interests at heart if they want my business or they won't get it. The ones who actually don't have very much incentive to have my interests at heart are the local, state and federal bureaucrats and agencies and politicians who generally get paid and get my money whether they've served me well or not and who, at best might, possibly get elected out in a couple of years (and that's only for the elected ones!)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If you think that constitutionally limited governments tend towards increased powers, how do you think for-profit companies will operate in that environment?

 

The important difference here is that the state is given (or claims) special privileges (to use force) to achieve it objectives where businesses must create value for me in order to earn my business.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #167 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Simple questions.


There has been a murder. There is a clear suspect, but guilt cannot be proven without trial. What do you do, under the non-aggression principle?

I would think, hold some kind of trial/review/inquest to establish actual guilt.

What would you do?
The suspect declines to submit to a trial.

Let's make it very simple. Fingerprints were found all over the murder weapon. Someone's blood was found at the scene that was not the victim's. There is no fingerprint or DNA database to refer to. What do you do under the non-aggression principle?

A million dollars was stolen from the victim.

The suspect is at the airport with a ticket for the Bahamas.
post #168 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The suspect declines to submit to a trial.

 

Who says he's required to. He doesn't even need to be present. The burden is upon whomever claims a crime has been committed to prove it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Let's make it very simple. Fingerprints were found all over the murder weapon. Someone's blood was found at the scene that was not the victim's. There is no fingerprint or DNA database to refer to. What do you do under the non-aggression principle?

A million dollars was stolen from the victim.

The suspect is at the airport with a ticket for the Bahamas.

 

What do you mean what do you do? What is the goal in this scenario? To right the wrong? First is to prove who committed the crime. Once that has been established, that criminal can be morally and justly be apprehended and the process of righting the wrong (this might include repayment of the stolen property, etc.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #169 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The suspect declines to submit to a trial.

Who says he's required to. He doesn't even need to be present. The burden is upon whomever claims a crime has been committed to prove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Let's make it very simple. Fingerprints were found all over the murder weapon. Someone's blood was found at the scene that was not the victim's. There is no fingerprint or DNA database to refer to. What do you do under the non-aggression principle?


A million dollars was stolen from the victim.


The suspect is at the airport with a ticket for the Bahamas.

What do you mean what do you do? What is the goal in this scenario? To right the wrong? First is to prove who committed the crime. Once that has been established, that criminal can be morally and justly be apprehended and the process of righting the wrong (this might include repayment of the stolen property, etc.)
Too late. The guy got on the plane.

Simply fingerprinting him or taking his DNA or searching him for the stolen money could have proved or disproved his guilt, leading to justice, either way. But to do any of those things, unless the suspect cooperates (who says he has to?), there is no way to get that information without violation of the non-aggression principle.

I've just proved that the non-aggression principle was unenforceable in this example. Someone was killed. No one was held accountable. The system of the non-aggression principle failed miserably.
post #170 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



Conservatives don't care about anything but:
1. Enriching their corporations (especially oil and gas companies).
2. Interfering with anything that the President tries to do - even if it was something that the conservatives were pushing just a few years ago.
3. Trying to return to the era where white males were the only ones who mattered or had any voice in decision-making.
4. Returning women to the kitchen and bedroom.

Lets see...

1. You must drill your own oil to run your car and heat your home... how knowable.

2. If his policies made sense maybe they wouldn't.

3. If it weren't for white males you would still have slavery, there would be no affirmative action, no 1964 welfare act... just keep blaming them for your failure and see who the real racists is.

4. Being a mother is an honorable job. Strong families have fewer problems with delinquency and crime. Too bad you never had a father.

post #171 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Too late. The guy got on the plane.

 

Not sure why that's a limiting factor.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Simply fingerprinting him or taking his DNA could have proved or disproved his guilt, leading to justice, either way. But to do either of those things, unless the suspect cooperates (who says he has to?), there is no way to get that information without violation of the non-aggression principle.

 

Agreed that the suspect need not voluntarily submit to these procedures. Of course if he is innocent he may be willing to simply to clarify his innocence and avoid any incorrect finding of guilt. Absent this, then the burden of proof is still on the person trying to prove it. They would have to use other forms of evidence in this pursuit. I don't see the problem here. Are you looking for perfection here?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I've just proved that the non-aggression principle was unenforceable in this example. Someone was killed. No one was held accountable. The system of the non-aggression principle failed miserably.

 

First your premise that the NAP is something to be "enforced" is flawed from the get-go. It is a principle of conduct. What you're really looking for is how justice (as defined by righting some wrong such as murder or theft) will be achieved under a system which only the NAP applies. You've created a single example where this justice might not be achieved. Is this the standard you wish to use?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #172 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Thank you for your opinion.
Why not just tell him to **** himself? The intent is there. The thanks are clearly sarcastic. This dismissive phrase you constantly repeat is just you acting like a dick while pretending to be polite. Your intent is not polite.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #173 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Too late. The guy got on the plane.

Not sure why that's a limiting factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Simply fingerprinting him or taking his DNA could have proved or disproved his guilt, leading to justice, either way. But to do either of those things, unless the suspect cooperates (who says he has to?), there is no way to get that information without violation of the non-aggression principle.

Agreed that the suspect need not voluntarily submit to these procedures. Of course if he is innocent he may be willing to simply to clarify his innocence and avoid any incorrect finding of guilt. Absent this, then the burden of proof is still on the person trying to prove it. They would have to use other forms of evidence in this pursuit. I don't see the problem here. Are you looking for perfection here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I've just proved that the non-aggression principle was unenforceable in this example. Someone was killed. No one was held accountable. The system of the non-aggression principle failed miserably.

First your premise that the NAP is something to be "enforced" is flawed from the get-go. It is a principle of conduct. What you're really looking for is how justice (as defined by righting some wrong such as murder or theft) will be achieved under a system which only the NAP applies. You've created a single example where this justice might not be achieved. Is this the standard you wish to use?
I could name a hundred other examples.
post #174 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I could name a hundred other examples.

 

Perhaps. But even this one fails to prove what you think it proves. Again is this the standard you wish to use? That a person was able to escape justice for a crime they have committed? Is that the standard you're holding a societal organizing approach to?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #175 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I could name a hundred other examples.

Perhaps. But even this one fails to prove what you think it proves. Again is this the standard you wish to use? That a person was able to escape justice for a crime they have committed? Is that the standard you're holding a societal organizing approach to?
It does prove that there can be no justice, no enforceable law (even against murder and theft) and no security in such a system. Yes, it does. Mad Max.
post #176 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It does prove that there can be no justice, no enforceable law (even against murder and theft) and no security in such a system. Yes, it does.

 

It doesn't prove any of those things at all. Far from it.

 

Now, I repeat my questions: Is this the standard you wish to use? That a person was able to escape justice for a crime they have committed? Is that the standard you're holding a societal organizing approach to?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Mad Max.

 

What, are you in middle school?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #177 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It does prove that there can be no justice, no enforceable law (even against murder and theft) and no security in such a system. Yes, it does.

It doesn't prove any of those things at all. Far from it.
Hence my assertion that you don't understand logic.
Quote:
Now, I repeat my questions: Is this the standard you wish to use? That a person was able to escape justice for a crime they have committed? Is that the standard you're holding a societal organizing approach to?
Why shouldn't it be? Why don't you tell me? There can be no security without justice.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Mad Max.

What, are you in middle school?
No, but I've been through middle school. And I have my eyes open and can see what happens when there is no enforceable law.
post #178 of 192
Life would be peachy if every single member of society adhered to the non-aggression principle. Life would also be peachy if every single member of society shared every dollar and every effort they made equally with society. Life would also be peachy if every member of government were truthful and righteous. Life would be peachy if perfection in anything existed.
post #179 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Hence my assertion that you don't understand logic.

 

Sadly, for you, none of the above support your assertion. You've given one example of the possibility of justice not being served and claim this is "proof" that there would be and can be, and I quote:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

no justice, no enforceable law (even against murder and theft) and no security

 

You haven't even proven it in your example, let alone shown how the one example proves that there would or could be no justice, enforceable law or security. You simply made a huge logical leap. You've used a non sequitur here. So, in fact, there is no logical deduction here at all.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Why shouldn't it be? Why don't you tell me? There can be no security without justice.

 

I'm asking you if that is the standard you want to use. Is it?


Edited by MJ1970 - 2/28/13 at 9:22pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #180 of 192

Now let's turn things around.

 

You clearly believe that it is morally defensible, even morally imperative to endow some people with the authority if not the "right" to initiate the use of force against others in certain circumstances.

 

First, what are the limits or boundaries of those circumstances? In other words when is it morally defensible for said people to do so? When is it not? What are the conditions we can use to when they are outside of their moral authority? What are the limits?

 

Second, who should these people be (or not be)? How will it be decided who should have such special authority?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #181 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Now let's turn things around.

You clearly believe that it is morally defensible, even morally imperative to endow some people with the authority if not the "right" to initiate the use of force against others in certain circumstances.
It's not a question of morals or not. It's the only practical way to ensure any measure of order. Without order there is chaos.
Quote:
First, what are the limits or boundaries of those circumstances? In other words when is it morally defensible for said people to do so? When is it not? What are the conditions we can use to when they are outside of their moral authority? What are the limits?
The rule of law.
Quote:
Second, who should these people be (or not be)? How will it be decided who should have such special authority?
A representative constitutional system with checks and balances and universal suffrage is the best system we have thus far devised. It is not a perfect system. It is not infallible. But there has never been a system that has worked so well to ensure the rule of law is administered in a responsible way. Do I have 100% control? No. Do you? No. Does Barack Obama? No. Does any one person or any non accountable group of people? No. And that's the way it should be.
post #182 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's not a question of morals or not. It's the only practical way to ensure any measure of order. Without order there is chaos.

 

It's not? It certainly seems to be. You seem to be positing a set of moral values about what is right to do and what is not right to do. What ought to be done and what ought not be done. This is the very essence of moral thinking.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The rule of law.

 

I was hoping for something less vague and hand-wavy.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

A representative constitutional system with checks and balances and universal suffrage is the best system we have thus far devised. It is not a perfect system. It is not infallible.

 

Yet you seem to be holding any other system to a higher standard of perfection.

 

You also continue to avoid answering my question: The issue of someone escaping justice...is that the standard you wish to use?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But there has never been a system that has worked so well to ensure the rule of law is administered in a responsible way.

 

That may well be that, to date, this is the best system humanity has devised. But that does not mean it is the best system and that something else cannot be better. I suspect that this system we have today seem as impractical, unworkable and even "Utopian" to those hundreds of years ago who knew nothing but monarchy or feudalism. If you told them the world could operate under a system like we have today they likely might have looked at you like you were completely insane.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #183 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Hence my assertion that you don't understand logic.

Sadly, for you, none of the above support your assertion. You've given one example of the possibility of justice not being served and claim this is "proof" that there would be and can be, and I quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

no justice, no enforceable law (even against murder and theft) and no security

You haven't even proven it in your example BULLSHIT, let alone shown how the one example proves that there would or could be no justice, enforceable law or security. You simply made a huge logical leap. You've used a non sequitur here. So, in fact, there is no logical deduction here at all.
Allow me to rephrase. No acceptable amount of...
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Why shouldn't it be? Why don't you tell me? There can be no security without justice.

I'm asking you if that is the standard you want to use. Is it?
Whatever standard I use, I guarantee you my example would not be possible under any measure of acceptability.
post #184 of 192
Quote:
You also continue to avoid answering my question: The issue of someone escaping justice...is that the standard you wish to use?
No. It is the ease with which someone can commit a crime without reasonable fear of reasonably reciprocal justice.
post #185 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

BULLSHIT

 

Well, now I'm convinced. 1oyvey.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Allow me to rephrase. No acceptable amount of...

 

You've only claimed it. You only assume it. But you haven't proven that. Not even close.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Whatever standard I use, I guarantee you my example would not be possible under any measure of acceptability.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you please re-phrase?

 

Next...yes or no...is this the standard you want to use?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #186 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's not a question of morals or not. It's the only practical way to ensure any measure of order. Without order there is chaos.

It's not? It certainly seems to be. You seem to be positing a set of moral values about what is right to do and what is not right to do. What ought to be done and what ought not be done. This is the very essence of moral thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The rule of law.

I was hoping for something less vague and hand-wavy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

A representative constitutional system with checks and balances and universal suffrage is the best system we have thus far devised. It is not a perfect system. It is not infallible.

Yet you seem to be holding any other system to a higher standard of perfection.

You also continue to avoid answering my question: The issue of someone escaping justice...is that the standard you wish to use?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But there has never been a system that has worked so well to ensure the rule of law is administered in a responsible way.

That may well be that, to date, this is the best system humanity has devised. But that does not mean it is the best system and that something else cannot be better. I suspect that this system we have today seem as impractical, unworkable and even "Utopian" to those hundreds of years ago who knew nothing but monarchy or feudalism. If you told them the world could operate under a system like we have today they likely might have looked at you like you were completely insane.
Well, then, you have the means, through our system, to present your case through (and let me paraphrase Muppetry here) deductive reasoning, and not just assumptions and unproven theories, which is all you've ever presented on the matter.
post #187 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


No. It is the ease with which someone can commit a crime without reasonable fear of reasonably reciprocal justice.

 

So your standard for judging the acceptability of a system of social organization is: How easily someone can commit a crime without fear of "reciprocal justice."

 

OK. But you still haven't proven that a system of social organization that is based on the NAP (or as closely as possible) would be worse than what we have now.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #188 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Well, then, you have the means, through our system, to present your case through (and let me paraphrase Muppetry here) deductive reasoning, and not just assumptions and unproven theories, which is all you've ever presented on the matter.

 

All you are presenting here are assumptions and unproven theories about how things would be.

 

You assume (without proving) there wouldn't be any justice or law or security.

 

You assume (without proving) the world would be like Mad Max.

 

You assume (without proving) there would be total chaos and social Darwinism.

 

That's all you're doing here.

 

I say that if you want to assert that some people should be able to use force and coercion against others, the burden of proof is on you to prove why this is necessary. I say that's wrong. You think it's okay. If you want to use force against me and claim it is legitimate to do so, you should be the one proving to me why it is.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #189 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

So your standard for judging the acceptability of a system of social organization is: How easily someone can commit a crime without fear of "reciprocal justice."

 

OK. But you still haven't proven that a system of social organization that is based on the NAP (or as closely as possible) would be worse than what we have now.

 

One standard.  And you are committing the burden of proof fallacy.  It is up to you to prove that NAP is better, not for tonton to prove that NAP is worse.  We have a system of government.  You want it changed.  The responsibility is upon you to make your case.  So far you have failed miserably.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #190 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

All you are presenting here are assumptions and unproven theories about how things would be.

 

You assume (without proving) there wouldn't be any justice or law or security.

 

You assume (without proving) the world would be like Mad Max.

 

You assume (without proving) there would be total chaos and social Darwinism.

 

That's all you're doing here.

 

I say that if you want to assert that some people should be able to use force and coercion against others, the burden of proof is on you to prove why this is necessary. I say that's wrong. You think it's okay. If you want to use force against me and claim it is legitimate to do so, you should be the one proving to me why it is.

Somalia.  You hate it and shrug it off because it's a counterexample to your claims.  However, your confirmation bias won't let you admit that Somalia undermines your propositions.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #191 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Somalia.  You hate it and shrug it off because it's a counterexample to your claims.  However, your confirmation bias won't let you admit that Somalia undermines your propositions.

 

Somalia - Is that really all you got?

 

 

The major problems with claims that Somalia is a "libertarian utopia" is that it's actually a failed third-world state. Government or no, it's not going to magically acquire the resources, education, and technology to become a first-world nation; and those of us in first-world nations like the technology that even a semi-free market can produce. Nor will its citizens necessarily be ready for freedom and individual responsibility; much like the fizzled "Arab spring", they may instead cry for a new (religious) dictator. Second, the fallout of a failed state doesn't mean a peaceful voluntaryist nation. In fact, new distributed states—warlords—sprang up quickly, hardly libertarian followers of the NonAggressionPrinciple. There is definitely variance across the nation, and apparently more freedom outside the larger cities (Mogadishu).

Somalia also does not protect property rights, which is what libertarians and right-anarchists demand of a society to be considered liberty-oriented to begin with.

But it's interesting that measurably, even with those problems, Somalia is in some ways better off then when it had a centralized state:

 

Sauce: CIA, UN, UNICEF - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365

The article attributes this in part to aid agencies (not government).

 

It would seem even distributed, smaller, government is preferable to the large centralized moloch developing in the western world. If we take that to its' logical conclusion, decentralization>centralization ends up with the smallest increment of society -the individual- taking responsibility for herself and society, and we end up with anarchy (not chaos -that would be irresponsible!).

post #192 of 192

I applaud Apple for being forward-thinking in both its actual product design [i]and[/i] its sense of social responsibility.

For gay Apple employees in particular, this is an incredibly positive step, which demonstrates the company's commitment to inclusion.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage