An ethical question?

[Selene]

We needed to raise the debt ceiling to keep this thug employed

But roughly two weeks later, that same woman from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showed up at Capo's front door. This time, Capo says the woman was accompanied by a state trooper. Capo refused to accept a citation, but was later mailed a notice to appear in U.S. District Court for unlawfully taking a migratory bird. She's also been slapped with a $535 fine.

"I feel harassed and I feel angry," said Capo.

"Kids should be able to save a baby bird and not end up going home crying because their mom has to pay $535. I just think that's crazy," said Skylar.

9NEWS NOW has tried repeatedly to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, they have not returned any of our calls. If convicted, Capo could face up to a year behind bars.

My vote is yes.

[Greybird]

"Is it ethical to resist a government thug?"

You feel you have to ask?

It may not be prudent, given their usually greater firepower, but it is always ethical.

[Brant Gaede]

"Is it ethical to resist a government thug?"

You feel you have to ask?

It may not be prudent, given their usually greater firepower, but it is always ethical.

Don't forget the government hugs, too.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

"Is it ethical to resist a government thug?"

You feel you have to ask?

It may not be prudent, given their usually greater firepower, but it is always ethical.

This illustrates a fundamental difference between libertarianism and Objectivism.

With libertarianism, all that matters is asserting your right to be free. Therefore, it is ‘always ethical to resist.’ Resistance constitutes an intrinsic moral value.

An Objectivist has a somewhat more complicated task: evaluating his own long-term self-interest depending on the objective facts of the situation. It may or may not be ethical for an Objectivist to resist a bureaucratic thug, depending on his own values and what he is risking if he resists. If he resists merely for the sake of resisting, jeopardizing his health and well-being for the sake of something unimportant to him, it would be unethical. That would constitute a sacrifice, just as it would be a sacrifice to give an armed street thug reason to shoot you or a loved one by not surrendering your wallet.

For an Objectivist, what is ethical will depend on the specifics of any given situation and what actually constitutes self-interest. There is no dichotomy between what is ethical and what is “prudent” (i.e., smart).

[Selene]

Excellent post Dennis.

I believe that a libertarian, or any rational individual, should also evaluate a "situation" and make a sane judgment.

Risk versus danger versus reward can change depending on circumstances.

In the bird example, there will come a day when people will snap at this oppression. Lemonade stands. Helping a bird. Vegetable gardens in your front yard.

It seems to me that the time is now.

Adam

[sjw]

Yes, excellent reply Dennis.

Shayne

[Starbuckle]

Yes, it depends on the details. But it's often not important to distinguish explicitly between whether a kind of action is moral or immoral per se and whether it's both moral and prudent to act in a specific context. The relevance of specifying and applying is taken for granted. (Whether an action is moral per se can't be the only desideratum, since there is usually a range of moral alternatives in pursuing a goal. Morality only gives boundaries.)

If we say "it's moral to eat," we don't thereby imply that it's moral to eat anything, under any circumstance, by any means whatever. Nobody has to explain, "Well, an Objectivist will tell you that whether you have a right to eat is not the only consideration here in determining the morality of a specific act of consumption, whereas the libertarian doesn't care whether he's eating vegetables or drinking cyanide, he's going to assert his right to consume."

Of course people can make bad choices while acting morally. The willfully bad choices may be immoral, depending on the motive and the consequences. They may not be. If you decide to act against the thug despite a large personal cost, it's moral per se to do so, if it is just to do so (which depends on both what the thug is doing and how you propose to respond); even if some of your decisions about when and how to go about it are blunders.

[Brant Gaede]

"Is it ethical to resist a government thug?"

You feel you have to ask?

It may not be prudent, given their usually greater firepower, but it is always ethical.

This illustrates a fundamental difference between libertarianism and Objectivism.

With libertarianism, all that matters is asserting your right to be free. Therefore, it is 'always ethical to resist.' Resistance constitutes an intrinsic moral value.

An Objectivist has a somewhat more complicated task: evaluating his own long-term self-interest depending on the objective facts of the situation. It may or may not be ethical for an Objectivist to resist a bureaucratic thug, depending on his own values and what he is risking if he resists. If he resists merely for the sake of resisting, jeopardizing his health and well-being for the sake of something unimportant to him, it would be unethical. That would constitute a sacrifice, just as it would be a sacrifice to give an armed street thug reason to shoot you or a loved one by not surrendering your wallet.

For an Objectivist, what is ethical will depend on the specifics of any given situation and what actually constitutes self-interest. There is no dichotomy between what is ethical and what is "prudent" (i.e., smart).

Sophisticated analysis, but while there are libertarians there is no such thing as libertarianism per se. It's no philosophy. It's a label. The philosophy came and went with Hospers and Rothbard in the 1970s. What's left is called anarchy or anarcho-capitalism.

--Brant

[sjw]

Sophisticated analysis, but while there are libertarians there is no such thing as libertarianism per se. It's no philosophy. It's a label. The philosophy came and went with Hospers and Rothbard in the 1970s. What's left is called anarchy or anarcho-capitalism.

--Brant

Yes, Objectivists should learn to distinguish between Libertarianism and libertarianism.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Sophisticated analysis, but while there are libertarians there is no such thing as libertarianism per se. It's no philosophy. It's a label. The philosophy came and went with Hospers and Rothbard in the 1970s. What's left is called anarchy or anarcho-capitalism.

--Brant

Yes, Objectivists should learn to distinguish between Libertarianism and libertarianism.

Shayne

Ah, one word where two would do.

--Brant

[psychoanaleesis]

We needed to raise the debt ceiling to keep this thug employed

But roughly two weeks later, that same woman from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showed up at Capo's front door. This time, Capo says the woman was accompanied by a state trooper. Capo refused to accept a citation, but was later mailed a notice to appear in U.S. District Court for unlawfully taking a migratory bird. She's also been slapped with a $535 fine.

"I feel harassed and I feel angry," said Capo.

"Kids should be able to save a baby bird and not end up going home crying because their mom has to pay $535. I just think that's crazy," said Skylar.

9NEWS NOW has tried repeatedly to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, they have not returned any of our calls. If convicted, Capo could face up to a year behind bars.

My vote is yes.

Of course IT IS ethical - especially if the situation warrants it and one has no other options left open. Does the government care what a dollar or $535 for that matter means to the survival and well-being of a person? I have posted something like this a couple of years back about the man who had a Philippine eagle (endangered specie) for dinner but was later arrested for it. It was his survival that was clearly at stake and yet the government thugs takes away his sustenance (even if it was just for a day)?!? In such cases, you bet he should resist.

Gentlemen, I believe our governments want us to beg and be dependent on others/them for our basic necessities (including thinking) and let them have the final say about what we could or could not do according to our rational judgment.

The last straw is on its way to the camel's back over here and I'm gonna have it kick and spit on the bastards once it reaches the breaking point... how about there?

Edited August 4, 2011 by David Lee

[Selene]

The last straw is on its way to the camel's back over here and I'm gonna have it kick and spit on the bastards once it reaches the breaking point... how about there?

David:

I think the time has arrived. In fact, I think it arrived a while ago.

The problem is that we have become immobilized by fear and the idea that it really can't happen here in America.

It has.

Adam

[sjw]

Ah, one word where two would do.

--Brant

Right again. Still, it doesn't excuse Objectivists who pretend that they're the only philosophical game in town.

Shayne

[psychoanaleesis]

The last straw is on its way to the camel's back over here and I'm gonna have it kick and spit on the bastards once it reaches the breaking point... how about there?

David:

I think the time has arrived. In fact, I think it arrived a while ago.

The problem is that we have become immobilized by fear and the idea that it really can't happen here in America.

It has.

Adam

Oh yeah, I meant to ask, is the US budget still on stalemate?

[Selene]

The last straw is on its way to the camel's back over here and I'm gonna have it kick and spit on the bastards once it reaches the breaking point... how about there?

David:

I think the time has arrived. In fact, I think it arrived a while ago.

The problem is that we have become immobilized by fear and the idea that it really can't happen here in America.

It has.

Adam

Oh yeah, I meant to ask, is the US budget still on stalemate?

No, but the Federal Aviation Administration is.

We now have exceeded our GDP with our debt. We are heading to the brick wall, not at 100 m.p.h.,, just at 95 m.p.h., so there is nothing to worry about.

The "cuts" that the Benedict Arnold Republicans, including Paul Ryan, unfortunately, agreed to, are merely reducing the the automatic baseline rate which of increase that is 7.5% which is not a "cut" at all it is a smaller increase.

In other words, pure, absolute bullshit.

But General Motors sold almost 200 volts last month so the planer is saved.

Adam

Edited August 4, 2011 by Selene