Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't make objective moral rules. You can only make objective rules about moral rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding. This point cannot be emphasised enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

So morality is subjective, but rules ABOUT morality are objective? Ummm...why? Just because you say so?

There is no difference between these statements:
- "Justice is good." (Morality.)
- "All good moralities are just." (Rule about morality.)

Do you see that you're just special pleading by claiming objectivity at ANY point?

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't make objective moral rules. You can only make objective rules about moral rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding. This point cannot be emphasised enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

So morality is subjective, but rules ABOUT morality are objective? Ummm...why? Just because you say so?

There is no difference between these statements:
- "Justice is good." (Morality.)
- "All good moralities are just." (Rule about morality.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Rules about morality are not necessarily objective. You can select a set of objective criteria, though.

Which car is "best" is subjective.

But we can say "let's measure a car's performance from 0-100kmh".

Or you could say "let's look at quarter-mile times".

Etc.

Which objective criteria you select is a subjective choice.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't make objective moral rules. You can only make objective rules about moral rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding. This point cannot be emphasised enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

So morality is subjective, but rules ABOUT morality are objective? Ummm...why? Just because you say so?

There is no difference between these statements:
- "Justice is good." (Morality.)
- "All good moralities are just." (Rule about morality.)

Do you see that you're just special pleading by claiming objectivity at ANY point?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point a bit. If you are putting forward a moral theory the first thing you need to do is make sure its consistant. Thats a rule about moral theories. You dont have to follow the rules, but if you dont then you are just accepting that there is no such thing as morality.

So if you accept the moral rule that moral theories have to be consistant then you cant say group A gets to draw lines on a map and extort money from people that live in that area and group B doesnt. Where group A is the government and group B is the mafia.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
No.

Rules about morality are not necessarily objective. You can select a set of objective criteria, though.

Which car is "best" is subjective.

But we can say "let's measure a car's performance from 0-100kmh".

Or you could say "let's look at quarter-mile times".

Etc.

Which objective criteria you select is a subjective choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much what I was saying! Arbitrarily choosing a "best" morality is, indeed, subjective.

But...it's not more "objective" to first choose a set of comparative metrics, which then uniquely determine the "best" morality. Both are equally subjective; both are nothing more than special pleading, and there is no moral high ground.

Anyways, back to my initial question, what are the major types of US government-authorized violence that are (1) initiated; (2) reactive?

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

You were serious? I'll give it a shot off the top of my head:

initiated: drug war, income tax, import tarriffs, all other taxes, FDA/other regulation, Iraq war, CIA assassinations in other countries, most other armed conflicts we've been in, anti-discrimination laws (when applied to private sector), fiat currency laws, etc.

reactive: federal murder cases? Unabomber? WW2? Most violent offenders are charged in state courts.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
initiated: drug war, income tax, import tarriffs, all other taxes, FDA/other regulation, Iraq war, CIA assassinations in other countries, most other armed conflicts we've been in, anti-discrimination laws (when applied to private sector), fiat currency laws, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, in order to improve my understanding of AC:

These only qualify as initiated violence against non-statists, right? Because statists are not actually being coerced; they believe the government has legitimate authority to enact majority-affirmed norms.

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

I'd say it's initiated violence against anyone, but some people are for whatever reason willing to tolerate violence initiated by the state. (different people give different reasons)

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say it's initiated violence against anyone, but some people are for whatever reason willing to tolerate violence initiated by the state. (different people give different reasons)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...I wouldn't say the distinction is who tolerates it! Despite all the talk on here of defending rights, my guess is 0.5% of the forum would even consider resisting arrest with a firearm. (Or even resisting passively via tax evasion, etc.)

Rather, a lot of people do believe that the government has legitimate authority to violently enforce the mandate of the majority.

Are you at least willing to concede this point?

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]


Rather, a lot of people do believe that the government has legitimate authority to violently enforce the mandate of the majority.

Are you at least willing to concede this point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I see no evidence presented, just a statement.

Superman is faster then the flash, do you concede this point?

Re: Initiated vs. Reactive Violence
 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Emphasis mine.)

Sound familiar?