How do you know murder is wrong?

[anthony]

17 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Wow.

Didn't think anyone would take to my comment. But what does one think the (objective) Law is for, fundamentally?

If the answer is (in any way) the "constraining" of citizens and their actions, it's not the full purpose nor the most significant. I'd think the predominant object of laws is the "liberating" of citizens. Those who live and act without threat to others, who cannot take what isn't theirs, the unearned, nor harm others physically except defensively, and will unfailingly honor the contracts they make with others. Simply, one who morally - by his rational virtues - can't conceive of using force or commiting fraud ("force" also) to get his way.

While everyone is equally subordinate to rule of law, of course, he's essentially a free agent for whom the Law is only necessary to guard his freedom from others - not to restrict his actions, which he will determine rationally by himself. (And it's not so rare, there are many people who are basically "above the law" - in this respect. I've known several, and they'd be taken aback if I called them what they are, if only explicitly - rationally selfish).   

[Peter]

Anthony wrote: While everyone is equally subordinate to rule of law, of course, he's essentially a free agent for whom the Law is only necessary to guard his freedom from others - not to restrict his actions, which he will determine rationally by himself. end quote

Well said, Will Shakespeare.

“Western Civilization” has a mighty sword but as more countries like North Korea gain nuclear weapons we will need to either: ignore them, take their weapons away (the destructive military option), or devise a method to neutralize them. Sanctions work with most smaller countries, and treaties like NATO’s allow countries to have no need for their own costly, nuclear weapons in a dangerous world.

Peter

“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

“Be not afraid of greatness. Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.”

“Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.”

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

“I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed!”

“It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.”

“We know what we are, but not what we may be.”

“Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once . . . .

William Shakespeare

[Peter]

Do unto others? I speak with historical moral authority when I say President Trump needs to consider more than just blowing *them* to smithereens. Morally speaking, what should a more powerful neighbor do?

Ron Paul said, “We just need to mind our own business.”

The late, great Christopher Hitchens answered: We have certain permanent enemies — the totalitarian state; the nihilist / terrorist cell — with which 'peace' is neither possible nor desirable. Acknowledging this, and preparing for it, might give us some advantages in a war that seems destined to last as long as civilization is willing to defend itself. end quote

I would agree with Mr. Hitchens and suggest to Representative Ron Paul and his son, Senator Rand Paul, that peace and prosperity combined with isolationism might be wishful thinking. The “ants” would still march up our picnic table. Keeping with the bug analogy, I would rather be a dragonfly than a . . . . Say? Whatever happened to Obama’s drones? Do we still have some?

Peter

[moralist]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

While everyone is equally subordinate to rule of law, of course, he's essentially a free agent for whom the Law is only necessary to guard his freedom from others - not to restrict his actions, which he will determine rationally by himself. (And it's not so rare, there are many people who are basically "above the law" - in this respect. I've known several, and they'd be taken aback if I called them what they are, if only explicitly - rationally selfish).   

Hey Tony... just for the sake of a relevant response I'll assume you're talking about moral law rather than legal law. Moral law does nothing to constrain the actions of people who love what is morally right. It can only affirm what they already see fit to do. So in that regard they are totally free to work and play and enjoy their life in Paradise on Earth.

Moral law only constrains people who wish to do evil but who fear the consequences of their actions. Moral law has no affect on those who do evil and have no fear of the consequences...

...until those consequences actually happen to them personally when they get exactly what they deserve...

...which they always will.

 

Greg

[moralist]

31 minutes ago, Peter said:

I speak with historical moral authority when I say President Trump needs to consider more than just blowing *them* to smithereens. Morally speaking, what should a more powerful neighbor do?

People who do evil understand only ONE thing...

...FORCE.

 

Greg

[Peter]

2 hours ago, moralist said:

People who do evil understand only ONE thing...

...FORCE.

 

Greg

But you must define “evil,” and explain “force vs. the retaliatory use of force.” I am not necessarily looking for a libertarian cookie cutter definition nor a simplistic, “You took my toy so I am free to punish you,” definition. Cite a few examples.

Peter

Hello. This is Sheldon Cooper and today we are going to have fun with flags and two quotes.

 

"To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion." Ayn Rand

 

George H. Smith wrote to the O’site Atlantis:

. . . . (3) It is interesting to note that determinists, such as Bill and Gayle, also apply their mechanistic, push-pull notions of human motivation to the field of ethics -- as if a moral code were like a cookie cutter that need only be stamped on human dough to come out with a uniform product. But Rand never adopted this "Ten Commandments" approach to ethics. She never denied or underestimated the role of personal judgment in moral decision-making. Moral principles are a guide to judgment, not a substitute for them. Life isn't always simple, and decisions are not always easy. There is far more involved in moral judgment than consulting a rule book.

(4) Since rights, according to Rand, exist as moral barriers against the aggressive actions of others, it makes no sense to say that it is impossible to violate these barriers if only your needs are sufficiently desperate -- for it is against those who are most desperate that we most need the protection of rights. Bill may have "walked through his argument step-by-step," but he also danced over three of Rand's key essays on the subject of rights and self-interest, dismissing them as irrelevant. Does anyone seriously believe that Rand would have similarly dismissed her foundational essays as irrelevant to the subject at hand? Give me a break. end quote

[anthony]

5 hours ago, moralist said:

Hey Tony... just for the sake of a relevant response I'll assume you're talking about moral law rather than legal law. Moral law does nothing to constrain the actions of people who love what is morally right. It can only affirm what they already see fit to do. So in that regard they are totally free to work and play and enjoy their life in Paradise on Earth.

Moral law only constrains people who wish to do evil but who fear the consequences of their actions. Moral law has no affect on those who do evil and have no fear of the consequences...

...until those consequences actually happen to them personally when they get exactly what they deserve...

...which they always will.

 

Greg

Greg, I'm talking about law and individual rights, which are 'moral' (befitting individual freedom-in-action in the social context), but not "moral law", per se. As distinct from Objectivist ethics (befitting man's nature and mind) which you have some understanding of, I reckon, and that is not "moral law" either. Bear in mind I'm an atheist and I maintain that laws are man made, for man's purpose.

[Wolf DeVoon]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Didn't think anyone would take to my comment. But what does one think the (objective) Law is for, fundamentally?

If the answer is (in any way) the "constraining" of citizens and their actions, it's not the full purpose nor the most significant. I'd think the predominant object of laws is the "liberating" of citizens. Those who live and act without threat to others, who cannot take what isn't theirs, the unearned, nor harm others physically except defensively, and will unfailingly honor the contracts they make with others. Simply, one who morally - by his rational virtues - can't conceive of using force or commiting fraud ("force" also) to get his way.

Not in America. Fundamental law exists primarily to restrain the state.

[anthony]

1 hour ago, wolfdevoon said:

Not in America. Fundamental law exists primarily to restrain the state.

"...to restrain the state" ... yes, and still - always for the central purpose of the individual's freedom from others, ultimately(?) A Government "of the people, by the people, for the people"-- is composed of people, run by people and elected by people and can be corrupted by some, to their ends. Since it holds the monopoly on initiation of force and delivery of law, this necessitates objective governance and objective (clear, predictable, non-arbitrary, impartial) laws.

"To be free, a man must be free of his brothers". (I take to mean: free from their direct intervention--and-- of their INdirect intervention through Government - the ballot or any other means). 

[moralist]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

But you must define “evil,” and explain “force vs. the retaliatory use of force.”

Evil:

chopping people's heads off, strapping a bomb to yourself and detonating it in a crowd of shoppers, crushing as many people as you can with a truck, hijacking passenger planes and flying them into buildings, murdering Christians solely because they're not muslims, mutilating female genitals... need I go on?

Force (for good):

that which destroys evil people... retaliatory, premptive, unilateral...  (shrug...) whatever gets the job done

Greg

[moralist]

3 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Not in America. Fundamental law exists primarily to restrain the state.

While that certainly holds true for the original design of America...

...have you noticed how those restraints have been continualy lifted from the state?

This has to happen because so many people have failed to govern their own behavior. Because of their own personal failure to be decent self governed citizens, they failed to deserve a decent government. So they get an indecent one, because they need a large intrusive bureaucracy to govern their lives for them and to give them free stuff.

Government is not the enemy. 

As a duly appointed authority of moral retribution, it can only respond to the failure of people to govern themselves by giving them exactly what they deserve.

 

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

"...to restrain the state" ... yes, and still - always for the central purpose of the individual's freedom from others, ultimately(?) A Government "of the people, by the people, for the people"-- is composed of people, run by people and elected by people and can be corrupted by some, to their ends.

Well, no. For a couple hundred years, it was widely understood that the U.S. Constitution had to be interpreted through the lens of common law. That's very much like saying it has to be interpreted as an English-language document, so fundamental and implicit was common law at the time it was written. Some of it is quite explicitly common law, pertaining to due process, trial by jury, counsel of your own choosing, etc. Law is not run by people, so much as the notion of fundamental fairness in a court of law. I suppose it's important to mention equity, because James Otis was remembered for arguing in Boston that "an Act against natural equity is void," which started the whole No Taxation Without Representation colonial movement. When Thomas Paine ridiculed the fat Pennsylvania Quakers and insisted that we could win independence from "foreign" rule, the die was cast.

I dislike quarreling about law. Whether you conceive it as individual States (confederated or united by ratifying the U.S. Constitution) or as a national system of justice, it remains that common law courts treat you and the Government as equals before the bar. It doesn't matter a great deal who the judges are or how they are selected. The meaning of law is due process, fair public trial by jury, especially in civil matters, Mr. A versus Mr. B., two parties equally presumed innocent of wrongdoing.

Get it? -- the rule of law has nothing to do with your right to liberty, a separate matter you have to decide for yourself, ex parte and extralegal.

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, moralist said:

While that certainly holds true for the original design of America...

...have you noticed how those restraints have been continualy lifted from the state?

This has to happen because so many people have failed to govern their own behavior. Because of their own personal failure to be decent self governed citizens, they failed to deserve a decent government. So they get an indecent one, because they need a large intrusive bureaucracy to govern their lives for them and to give them free stuff.

Government is not the enemy. 

As a duly appointed authority of moral retribution, it can only respond to the failure of people to govern themselves by giving them exactly what they deserve.

Greg

The American "Civil War."

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

2 hours ago, moralist said:

Government is not the enemy. As a duly appointed authority of moral retribution...

Christ, you're dense. Two thirds of the Federal budget is entitlements, and the rest is a standing army of bureaucrats directing road construction, ports, air traffic, munitions procurement and active-duty warriors and military pilots spread out all over the world, two carrier battle groups in and around Korea, a big flotilla in the Med and Persian Gulf. Our B2s and B52s can be anywhere in a few hours flying time, not to mention a worldwide patrol of attack and strategic submarines that nobody ever talks about because it's too scary to consider their missions. Has nothing to do with moral retribution. Just drop it, Greg. War is never a moral question. It's war.

[BaalChatzaf]

On 4/13/2017 at 8:27 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Finally, for you just said, "Good and Evil to some extent are [not] doxa--matters of opinion."

--Brant

congratulations

I meant what -I- wrote,  not what you interpolated.  Don't do that. 

[Brant Gaede]

9 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I meant what -I- wrote,  not what you interpolated.  Don't do that. 

And not replying to what you're objecting to as is your forte. So don't object to what I did. I'm telling you I'd do it again. It was excellent.

--Brant

 

[BaalChatzaf]

On 4/8/2017 at 10:26 PM, jts said:

Does education affect the physical structure of the brain? Autism can be diagnosed by brain image.

 

The silicon valley autism "epidemic"  may be the result of asortive mating.  Silicon Valley is the computer capital of the world.  Loads of software types live and work there.  About 20 percent of the software producing community  has Aspberger's Syndrome,  a high functioning type of autism.  What you have is Aspies mating with Aspies  and producing lots of autistic kids. It is genetic.   Read "The Greek Syndrom"  in Wired magazine.  The article goes into great detail on this matter. 

[Peter]

Greg wrote: This has to happen because so many people have failed to govern their own behavior. Because of their own personal failure to be decent self governed citizens, they failed to deserve a decent government. So they get an indecent one, because they need a large intrusive bureaucracy to govern their lives for them and to give them free stuff. end quote

The true *cause* is more concrete and not a convoluted wisp of smoke. It goes way past your condemnation that they deserve nothing better. I would only agree so far as to say, they set themselves up, but the true evil is what happens next.

Some people think they are better than you. They think they are smarter than you. They know better than you, and they know what is good for you. They should govern you. You should obey them. They even develop political systems, and try to brainwash people to speed things along to their Fascist, Communist, or Progressive Dream Land. They preach ideology.     

So the less than vigilant may deserve it, but the true evil comes from those who impose their rule. How many spineless punks have ruled a country? Zero.

Peter    

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Greg wrote: This has to happen because so many people have failed to govern their own behavior. Because of their own personal failure to be decent self governed citizens, they failed to deserve a decent government. So they get an indecent one, because they need a large intrusive bureaucracy to govern their lives for them and to give them free stuff. end quote

The true *cause* is more concrete and not a convoluted wisp of smoke. It goes way past your condemnation that they deserve nothing better. I would only agree so far as to say, they set themselves up, but the true evil is what happens next.

Some people think they are better than you. They think they are smarter than you. They know better than you, and they know what is good for you. They should govern you. You should obey them. They even develop political systems, and try to brainwash people to speed things along to their Fascist, Communist, or Progressive Dream Land. They preach ideology.     

So the less than vigilant may deserve it, but the true evil comes from those who impose their rule. How many spineless punks have ruled a country? Zero.

Peter    

In the U. S.  people get the government they choose.  We are a functioning democracy.  If  our government is warm, brown,  sticky and smelly  it is because the judgement of the electorate is warm, brown, sticky and smelly. 

[moralist]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Some people think they are better than you. They think they are smarter than you. They know better than you, and they know what is good for you. They should govern you.

Peter, they don't govern me... because I govern myself.  

They can only govern people who fail to govern themselves. So you see, I'm getting exactly the government I deserve just like everyone else... except the government I personally experience is different from the government others personally experience.

 

Greg

[moralist]

3 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Two thirds of the Federal budget is entitlements...

...because two thirds of the population are parasites. Perfect moral justice. 

The government people demand is an exact match to the government people are getting.

NEMISIS:  Government is the inescapable duly authorized moral agent of people's own immoral downfall

Greg

[moralist]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The American "Civil War."

--Brant

Yes, Brant.

It's the Conservative American Capitalist producers versus the European liberal socialist parasites.

Individualists versus Collectivists...

...and I already won.

 

Greg

[Peter]

10 hours ago, moralist said:

Peter, they don't govern me... because I govern myself.  

They can only govern people who fail to govern themselves. So you see, I'm getting exactly the government I deserve just like everyone else... except the government I personally experience is different from the government others personally experience.

 

Greg

You are always psychologizing. “Gaze into the Mirror” by Guru Dash Greg. Touting your personally achieved self-governance is not that good an argument, and when it is your chief argument it is repetitious, like one of those new-age, self-help books.  What will you do if there is a knock at your door and a guy hands you a paper and says, “You have been served” . . . ? Tell him you do not recognize any authority but your own, then go check your ammo supply just in case. What malarkey. In the land of the free and home of the brave, it is assumed you will live within the law of the land.

A lot was made over the fact that Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare. She probably even obeyed the jay-walking laws. Did you ever get a license for a car or a business? Swami, do people say you are more like your father or your mother?

Peter  

As Prince sang to Porter Wagner:

How can you just leave me standing?
Alone in a world that's so cold?
Maybe I'm just too demanding
Maybe I'm just like my father, too bold
Maybe I'm just like my mother
She's never satisfied (She's never satisfied)
Why do we scream at each other
This is what it sounds like
When doves cry

[moralist]

6 hours ago, Peter said:

Touting your personally achieved self-governance is not that good an argument, and when it is your chief argument it is repetitious, like one of those new-age, self-help books.  What will you do if there is a knock at your door and a guy hands you a paper and says, “You have been served” . . . ? Tell him you do not recognize any authority but your own, then go check your ammo supply just in case. What malarkey. In the land of the free and home of the brave, it is assumed you will live within the law of the land.

Why would you believe self governance is a bad thing, Peter? Don't you govern your own behavior? Or does your government need to do it for you? I'm not making an argument for governing yourself because no one else is agruing against it... unless you are. Are you?

Quote

What will you do if there is a knock at your door and a guy hands you a paper and says, “You have been served” . . . ? Tell him you do not recognize any authority but your own, then go check your ammo supply just in case. What malarkey. In the land of the free and home of the brave, it is assumed you will live within the law of the land.

That'll never happen.

I can smell the stench of litigious cruds a mile away, and refuse to do business with them because they don't share my moral values.And that goes for anyone else who doesn't share my moral values... regardless of their litigiousity

That's how to always keep yourself safe from the legal system because there are fanged vipers slithering around in that pit. Simply don't have anything to do with people who don't live by decent values. They'll naturally tend to avoid you anyways because they'd rather deal with their own kind, just as you would.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I have one acre--and rattlesnakes.

--Brant