Initiated vs. Reactive Violence

[Subfallen]

[ 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?

[ianlippert]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit - To clarify: if you assume the government has a "right" to act in self-interest, I think all types qualify as reactive.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Governments have no rights.

2) Governments have no self-interest.

3) having the "right to act in self interest" is incredibly vague and open-ended.
If I have such a right, that means I have a RIGHT to do whatever I want. Anything goes!

[ QUOTE ]
If the government does not have the right to act in self-interest for: collection of debts, enforcement of a majority-affirmed code of ethics; then why does any free market agent have the right to self-interest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Collection of debts? I can't just say "you owe me $100" and then have a right to collect that.

Regardless, why would my right to X be depenedent upon a government right to the same X? There's no reason one should be dependent on the other.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]


1) Governments have no rights.

2) Governments have no self-interest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the current state model used in the first world is based on the state being viewed as a juristic person.

You might disagree with that, but that wouldn't actually come as a shocker. But anyways, for those that support these models the state has rights and self-interest.