For moral relativists

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if it's voluntary in the sense that you are free to join another society. However there is no guarantee that another society will let you join and there's no guarantee that a society with rules to your liking exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring that people are not free to join another society. If I want to switch barbers, I can do so. If I want to "join another society" I have to physically relocate (and even then, some "societies" will attempt to prevent me from doing so;


[/ QUOTE ] I did not ignore those things. They are right there in my post.

[ QUOTE ]
even the US will claim ongoing tax obligations on those who both leave and renouce citizenship).

[/ QUOTE ] I didn't know that. That sounds messed up.

[ QUOTE ]
My barber doesn't use force to maintain a territorial monopoly, and if he tried, everyone would agree that he's acting illegitimately.

[/ QUOTE ] You think your barber would be fine with me and some of my friends moving into his shop? It's just for a couple of weeks till we can find something better. We'll try to only throw parties between 4pm and 8am.

[ QUOTE ]
A "love it or leave it" arrangement is not voluntary - unless the party issuing the ultimatum is the rightful owner of the property one must leave if he does not agree to the proposal.

[/ QUOTE ] So who says who the rightful owner is? I bet most people would think the american people are the rightful owners to the land in the U.S, yet you don't accept a "love it or leave it" arrangement from the american people.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
off topic reply so I don't want this to derail the thread, but why would you want to have your life and the rules you live by defined by some people who lived 200 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ] What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you were born into a society that is a certain way does not mean that it 'should' be that way, or that it is desirable.

The status quo is not 'correct' because it is the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your choices are to
A- Change your society
B- Find a society more to your liking
C- Live as a legal deviant, accepting the fact that you may face penalties if caught.
D- Live outside of society

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nothing more than a description of the status quo. It doesn't provide any sort of normative justificaiton for that state of affairs being the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
He asked "why would you want to have your life and the rules you live by defined by some people who lived 200 years ago?" I was just laying out the alternatives. Maybe I misunderstood his post. I took it as a question rather than an argument. If it was an argument then it would appear to be somewhat of a straw man attack.
[ QUOTE ]

Nobody is disputing what the status quo is. If someone makes a post suggesting that, for example, pot be decriminalized, do you respond by saying "but pot is illegal!!!" ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Decriminalizing pot would fall under category A. How did I imply that I'm opposed to changing the law?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying that people shouldn't do what they think they should do, and instead do what you think they should do.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he is saying is that group 1 is doing what they think they should do and it involves forcing the minority into following their beliefs. Nobody is arguing that democracy isnt effective at what it does, just that we dont believe its a moral way to run society. By all means use your overwhelming force to make decisions for my life, theres not much I can do about it. Just dont expect me to praise your corrupt system of governance. At least a mugger doesnt expect me to appreciate what he is doing to me.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
off topic reply so I don't want this to derail the thread, but why would you want to have your life and the rules you live by defined by some people who lived 200 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ] What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you were born into a society that is a certain way does not mean that it 'should' be that way, or that it is desirable.

The status quo is not 'correct' because it is the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your choices are to
A- Change your society
B- Find a society more to your liking
C- Live as a legal deviant, accepting the fact that you may face penalties if caught.
D- Live outside of society

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nothing more than a description of the status quo. It doesn't provide any sort of normative justificaiton for that state of affairs being the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
He asked "why would you want to have your life and the rules you live by defined by some people who lived 200 years ago?" I was just laying out the alternatives. Maybe I misunderstood his post. I took it as a question rather than an argument. If it was an argument then it would appear to be somewhat of a straw man attack.
[ QUOTE ]

Nobody is disputing what the status quo is. If someone makes a post suggesting that, for example, pot be decriminalized, do you respond by saying "but pot is illegal!!!" ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Decriminalizing pot would fall under category A. How did I imply that I'm opposed to changing the law?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how ACists argue. Even if you want to change the status quo, youre still a filthy statist status quoist.

PVN, seriously, reread your response and bk's response to this guy. You guys are not debating with any intellectual honesty here.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
So who says who the rightful owner is? I bet most people would think the american people are the rightful owners to the land in the U.S, yet you don't accept a "love it or leave it" arrangement from the american people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights are only maintained by your ability to defend your territory. If the American people wants to dig into my paycheck and take a portion for themselves theres not much I can do. Do you think this is a moral way to run society? Do you not think that there might be better ways to run a society where people dont have to worry about their property being aggressed against on a regular basis?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are being intentionally obtuse.

Living in my hypothetical community with shared land ownership requires that you consent to living according to the town charter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop right there. I already asked if the person in question consented to the charter. You dismissed my question thusly:

[ QUOTE ]
What does Jerry's agreement have to do with consistency?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've repeatedly mentioned that my characterization of this as inconsistent is dependent upon it being *imposed*. I've emphasized that word several times.

If he consents, consistency is possible.

Further, the moral system I have supported in the politics forum is entirely 100% compatible with what you're describing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said participation in this society was voluntary. Jerry knows about the charter as he is a member of this society. He may not agree with every provision, nor his agreement on every provision required for the society's "rules" to be consistently decided upon and applied. By making this the central issue, you are advocating only one moral system: one in which every member of the voluntary society is free from any action by the other members if he chooses. This is not an issue of "consistency".

It's like: Hey my system is the only one consistent. Why? Because I define consistency as a moral system identical to mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's voluntary, it's entirely compatible with what I'm supporting. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Voluntary in the sense that if you don't like the way its run, you can try to change it or leave.

Your sense of voluntary is that you can still live in my small communal society but are exempt from any communal "rules" you don't want to follow. My townspeople will escort you to the edge of our communally controlled territory in that case.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it's voluntary, it's entirely compatible with what I'm supporting. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[/ QUOTE ] What if it's voluntary in the sense that you are free to join another society. However there is no guarantee that another society will let you join and there's no guarantee that a society with rules to your liking exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring that people are not free to join another society. If I want to switch barbers, I can do so. If I want to "join another society" I have to physically relocate (and even then, some "societies" will attempt to prevent me from doing so; even the US will claim ongoing tax obligations on those who both leave and renouce citizenship). My barber doesn't use force to maintain a territorial monopoly, and if he tried, everyone would agree that he's acting illegitimately.

A "love it or leave it" arrangement is not voluntary - unless the party issuing the ultimatum is the rightful owner of the property one must leave if he does not agree to the proposal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is crap.

If we are talking small societies, you certainly are free to leave, just like I'm free to choose which town in this area to live (or which house to buy -- ZOMG but I want to build a house in your backyard, but you'll tell me to leave!). Stop using a behemoth like the US or current political institutions as your only concept of future AS society, if you want us to stop using Somalia and Walmart as the only examples of future AC society. (And AS and AC can coexist, you know.)

This has been pointed out before. You clearly are not intellectually honest in this thread in that you will not consider new small-scale communal societies as a paradigm. And when they are presented you retort with your "love it or leave it" crap. You have no "right" to live on any plot of land you like, so your "love it or leave it" argument is unfounded. The hurdles of changing communities in a small-society framework like I proposed are not great. I knew from the start that your request for other considerations of societal structures was disingenuous. Recommend you quit this thread before you prove even more that your thread was [censored].

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
This has been pointed out before. You clearly are not intellectually honest in this thread in that you will not consider new small-scale communal societies as a paradigm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you actually reading what I write? You've seen what I write in Politics enough to KNOW this isn't true. I think small-scale communal societies can be TOTALLY legitimate AND 100% compatible with what I'm talking about. I don't know how many more times I have to say it (I'm *not* going to say it again, at least in this thread, though I'm sure you'll probably trot this out again at some point in the future).

What you're talking about, where people voluntarily join, is a LOT different than what other people are talking about, where you "tacitly consent". The fact that I think their proposed arrangements are morally inconsistent does not imply that I think yours are.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying that people shouldn't do what they think they should do, and instead do what you think they should do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What do I think they should do?

[ QUOTE ]
I would really love a place where everyone did what i think they should do, how can i have that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I should hit you in the head with a brick. You want that?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if it's voluntary in the sense that you are free to join another society. However there is no guarantee that another society will let you join and there's no guarantee that a society with rules to your liking exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring that people are not free to join another society. If I want to switch barbers, I can do so. If I want to "join another society" I have to physically relocate (and even then, some "societies" will attempt to prevent me from doing so;


[/ QUOTE ] I did not ignore those things. They are right there in my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where? You've got one half of the problem (you might not find someone who will take you) but ignored the first half (you might not be able to get out).

My position necessarily recognizes that there may be people who don't want to deal with you, or that there may not be anyone who deals in whatever it is you seek. A person has no positive entitlements to interaction with other people, and has no inherent "right" to any particular goods or services.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My barber doesn't use force to maintain a territorial monopoly, and if he tried, everyone would agree that he's acting illegitimately.

[/ QUOTE ] You think your barber would be fine with me and some of my friends moving into his shop? It's just for a couple of weeks till we can find something better. We'll try to only throw parties between 4pm and 8am.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally moving goal posts. I don't have to move into an existing barber shop to compete with an established barber. My position includes respect for other people and their property, and you are trying to reframe it in completely opposite terms.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A "love it or leave it" arrangement is not voluntary - unless the party issuing the ultimatum is the rightful owner of the property one must leave if he does not agree to the proposal.

[/ QUOTE ] So who says who the rightful owner is? I bet most people would think the american people are the rightful owners to the land in the U.S, yet you don't accept a "love it or leave it" arrangement from the american people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The american people own the land in the US? How come I didn't get a check for my portion of the sale of the house next door to me?

How come the Government doesn't claim to own my property? In fact, they specifically *deny* that claim.