Warcraft Legacy Starcraft Legacy BlizzForums
The Future?

Go Back   BlizzForums > General Forums > Chit Chat

Chit Chat Your Life, Your Thoughts, Your Nonsense.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes


Old 02-10-2009
 
#31
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Cool Re: I agree with the defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Kaizen I love you but you one crazy ass nigga.
What about me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
I never asserted that happiness comes from tradition or that tradition cannot cause unhappiness. That does not lead to the conclusion that human society can exist without tradition; it cannot.
Then this is a worthless factoid, also known as a "red herring." Since nobody is claiming "get rid of all tradition," rather we are talking about specific traditions, in this case a reletively recent "tradition" (and by tradition I mean law) which melded the attitudes of society. Society can definitely exist without some traditions, like ancestor worship for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
No it isn't. All human action other than suicide is predicated on the value judgment "I choose to live". Limiting socially acceptable sexual behavior to marriage gives an incentive to produce children and for men to stick around and raise their children, as one can easily see by looking at birth rates and family retention rates in areas where sexual activity outside of marriage is more or less accepted. Allowing sexual behavior outside of marriage has also led to the spread of mass disease and violent crime.

The societies that choose to limit sexual behavior to marriage simply outbreed the societies that do not, as you can again see by looking at those rates. Native Europe is dying out and the vacuum is being filled by Muslims who bear children, in America the birthrates are highly concentrated where the largest Evangelical and Catholic communities are found. We do not judge our own affairs, their success or failure is judged against the objective laws of nature. Since all of our actions (other than suicide) are predicated on the value judgment "I choose to live", consequences which are inimical to human life are objectively problematic. Ends are subjective, means are objective.
What the bloody hell does this have to do with anything? Why on Earth do we want to encourage overpopulation anyways? How does this create net happiness? If anything you are making the connection between less marriages = less kids = contradicts the very problem we are talking about. Earlier you said the primary reason it should not be legal is because of the possibility that kids can have kids. Where this fits into that thesis is anybodies guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Radical libertarian systems are not reconcilable to the real world, because libertarian ethics are predicated on non-aggression. Aggression, however, has a necessary and desirable role in human affairs. That is why libertarians must talk about futuristic "perfect weapons" or people simply agreeing to drop aggression out of society totally.
Well that is your opinion again as Kaizen stated dressed up as fact. In that case you are pretty much pro-aggression. You are simply clinging to the hope that you will be able to control this aggression, and not become a victim of it (which you inevitably will).

Libertarianism is reconcilable to the real world, because there are natural consequences to aggression, most obvious being retaliation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
As social animals, human beings cannot survive outside the group. Without the group, they cannot defend themselves or feed themselves.

As such humans realize that maintaining the cohesion of the group, being integral to survival, is more important than the rights or happiness of some minorities (the extent to which it is more important being largely defined by how wealthy/secure the society is, and so how much dissension it can tolerate). The societies which are willing to subordinate the happiness of some to the function of the group, and to enforce that subordination through violence, are societies that will survive.

The two extremes of political society are tyranny and anarchy. Tyranny cannot survive because it attempts to turn man in to a purely political being rather than political and individual being. Anarchy cannot survive because it attempts to turn man in to a purely individual being rather than a political and individual being.

The affairs of the world are not predicated on consent, as the libertarian would like them to be, but on violence. Specifically, the violence that humans must engage in against man and beast in order to defend themselves and in order to feed themselves. Invaders who threaten the functionality of the group from outside are restrained by force of arms, or the group dies. Those who threaten the functionality of the group from inside, criminals violent or non-violent, are treated in the same way.
So why do you take issue when we correctly characterize your position as essentially utilitarian? Do you deny the fact that you attempt to seek the greatest good for the greatest number? There are many forms of utilitarianism (ex: act, principle, etc.). If this is what you are then you shouldn't be ashamed of it.

You might consider libertarians to be on the side with Kant, whereas the categorical imperative in our case would be the non-initiation of force.

Just to add, saying that human beings live in groups does not take away from the libertarianism position. We all do not have to think alike to live together, America is a great example of different cultures and people largely integrating and exchanging ideas, without identifying as a single group. Our (Americas) predecessor would of course be any marketplace in ancient times. This is where you truly saw the mixing of cultures and knowledge and is indeed where happiness and prosperity flourished. America was once a giant marketplace, and it is this freedom from coercion, freedom from tradition, freedom from tyranny and threat of violence, freedom to trade peacefully that ultimately allowed us to become so prosperous. These are the principles upon which our country was founded, not the traditions from old Europe or the Christian churches. It's time we return to those principles, namely L-I-B-E-R-T-Y, and reject the vile machinations of government and "society" (simply the largest faction with power).
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-10-2009
 
#32
United States Ben
The Sartorialist
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11,099
 Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...
Default Re: I agree with the defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by DE
Then this is a worthless factoid, also known as a "red herring." Since nobody is claiming "get rid of all tradition," rather we are talking about specific traditions, in this case a reletively recent "tradition" (and by tradition I mean law) which melded the attitudes of society. Society can definitely exist without some traditions, like ancestor worship for example.
No it isn't. Kaizen was asking if all traditions carry the weight of justice. No, but society cannot exist without them, even if they don't. If we had a society where ancestor worship was a large scale religious tradition, it would not be possible to simply abandoning that tradition and moving on to some other system without great damage. Gradual change in human societies is vastly important to their tranquility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DE
What the bloody hell does this have to do with anything? Why on Earth do we want to encourage overpopulation anyways? How does this create net happiness? If anything you are making the connection between less marriages = less kids = contradicts the very problem we are talking about. Earlier you said the primary reason it should not be legal is because of the possibility that kids can have kids. Where this fits into that thesis is anybodies guess.
Happiness for a organism on earth is predicated on the difference between life and death. Policies that are friendlier to life, such as reproduction and family retention that comes with limiting socially acceptable sexual behavior to marriage, will win out over policies that are friendlier to death, such as post-sexual revolution society. This is presently being demonstrated within Europe and the United States. It isn't up to humans to decide whether or not they like it, we are not our own judges, nature judges us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DE
Well that is your opinion again as Kaizen stated dressed up as fact. In that case you are pretty much pro-aggression. You are simply clinging to the hope that you will be able to control this aggression, and not become a victim of it (which you inevitably will).

Libertarianism is reconcilable to the real world, because there are natural consequences to aggression, most obvious being retaliation.
Anarcho-Capitalism is the only logical conclusion of libertarian ethics. Anarcho-Capitalism is predicated on a non-coercive society. Power is distributed unequally in the world, therefore a non-coercive society will never be sustainable.

I am not "hoping" I can control aggression, thems just the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DE
So why do you take issue when we correctly characterize your position as essentially utilitarian? Do you deny the fact that you attempt to seek the greatest good for the greatest number? There are many forms of utilitarianism (ex: act, principle, etc.). If this is what you are then you shouldn't be ashamed of it.

You might consider libertarians to be on the side with Kant, whereas the categorical imperative in our case would be the non-initiation of force.
My position here is more utilitarian than it is Kantian, but virtue ethics is not the same thing as utilitarian ethics. The main difference being that both utilitarianism and deontology are concerned with action whereas virtue ethics is concerned with being. See the wiki article I linked before.

In this particular instance, utilitarianism justifies coercion by believing it has some scientific way to calculate human happiness. Virtue ethics just realizes that the individual and his happiness is subordinated to the function of the group in all social animals, humans or any other kind, and there is no need to make any claims of precise calculation to realize that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DE
Just to add, saying that human beings live in groups does not take away from the libertarianism position. We all do not have to think alike to live together, America is a great example of different cultures and people largely integrating and exchanging ideas, without identifying as a single group. Our (Americas) predecessor would of course be any marketplace in ancient times. This is where you truly saw the mixing of cultures and knowledge and is indeed where happiness and prosperity flourished. America was once a giant marketplace, and it is this freedom from coercion, freedom from tradition, freedom from tyranny and threat of violence, freedom to trade peacefully that ultimately allowed us to become so prosperous. These are the principles upon which our country was founded, not the traditions from old Europe or the Christian churches. It's time we return to those principles, namely L-I-B-E-R-T-Y, and reject the vile machinations of government and "society" (simply the largest faction with power).
American is a pluralistic society, but it absolutely does have a national identity. It was also never at any point a giant market place free from coercion. It was born on a foundation of human slavery and slaughter of the other (indians) and the size of its state has been growing since its foundation. We should be proud of our ideal of a free nation of laws, but to accept some libertarian golden age myth of what America once was is useless.

Every society in recorded history which has survived for any appreciable period of time has done so because it has enforced obedience to a socially cohesive code of values and behavior. Libertarians can point to a few examples in history of libertarian societies, but they don't exist any longer. The reason they don't exist any longer is clear; they couldn't compete with societies that did enforce such codes and they were subsumed in to them. Whether that be the American frontier, the Somali Xeer, or Medieval Iceland, all anarchistic societies either dropped anarchy themselves or were subsumed in to societies that did. This is no more a coincidence than it is when reds ask us to believe that every communist society of the 20th century turned in to a horrible tyranny just by chance.
 

Last edited by Ben; 02-10-2009 at 04:23 PM.
Ben has 11,099 Posts

What's happening?
I keep my dreadlocks in a napkin ring
Rap and sing
Unlike the homogenous clones
I'm in to earth tones, birth stones, and erogenous zones
The more ticklish the more you have
Sitting on the curb of what used to be the burbs
And before that was Canarcie
I'm a disturbed and bitter herb
Like saltwater and parsley

Most Intelligent Debater 2008
 

Ben is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via AIM to Ben Send a message via MSN to Ben  
Reply With Quote


Old 02-10-2009
 
#33
Canada Kaizen
Promethean Male
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,469
 Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...Kaizen must really think internet = serious business...
Default Re: I agree with the defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
I never asserted that happiness comes from tradition or that tradition cannot cause unhappiness. That does not lead to the conclusion that human society can exist without tradition; it cannot.
This is a massive point: No one here is claiming that society can exist without tradition. Tradition is merely a method that humans have developed in order to pass on ideas through the generations. This says nothing whatever about the content of these ideas. Traditions could be libertarian in nature, or socialist, it doesn't matter.

Furthermore, you are asserting that happiness does come from tradition. You are making an assumption that the existence of a tradition itself implies something true about the particular issue the tradition is aiming to address.

What I am pointing out is that the existence of tradition says nothing in regards to the actual content being discussed. This was emphasized in my asking you if all traditions carry the weight of justice. Since they do not, justice is something independent of traditions.

This therefore makes referring to a tradition as a source to substantiate a proclamation of justice something that is entirely incorrect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
No it isn't. Kaizen was asking if all traditions carry the weight of justice. No, but society cannot exist without them, even if they don't.
You agree with me, traditions say nothing about justice and should not be used as arguments for justice.

For instance, from you addressing DE:
"Sometimes it does. It's up to society to decide what those cases are. In this case, society has chosen that the greater good is more important than liberty. Which is why you have the burden of proof to show that they should change their minds.

The very fact that there is virtually no movement in society in favor of abolishing age of consent laws and fringe groups which do support abolishing them, such as NAMBLA, are so universally reviled is evidence enough that sex between minors and majors is not germaine to harmonious social order.
"

This is a completely false argument. The traditions and social customs of society may or may not have anything to do with justice. To claim they do is ultimately utilitarian, which is why this argument must always revert to this very basic duality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
If we had a society where ancestor worship was a large scale religious tradition, it would not be possible to simply abandoning that tradition and moving on to some other system without great damage. Gradual change in human societies is vastly important to their tranquility.
No one is suggesting this. Anarcho-capitalism will surely be founded in tradition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
No it isn't. All human action other than suicide is predicated on the value judgment "I choose to live". Limiting socially acceptable sexual behavior to marriage gives an incentive to produce children and for men to stick around and raise their children, as one can easily see by looking at birth rates and family retention rates in areas where sexual activity outside of marriage is more or less accepted. Allowing sexual behavior outside of marriage has also led to the spread of mass disease and violent crime.

The societies that choose to limit sexual behavior to marriage simply outbreed the societies that do not, as you can again see by looking at those rates. Native Europe is dying out and the vacuum is being filled by Muslims who bear children, in America the birthrates are highly concentrated where the largest Evangelical and Catholic communities are found. We do not judge our own affairs, their success or failure is judged against the objective laws of nature. Since all of our actions (other than suicide) are predicated on the value judgment "I choose to live", consequences which are inimical to human life are objectively problematic. Ends are subjective, means are objective.
This is where you've gotten yourself lost.

Means are certainly objective, hence the libertarian non-aggression axiom. It points out the only possible way of addressing the issue of human happiness. Since we know by the objective nature of man that he acts for his own happiness, any hinderance of action must be, as you say, inimical to human life. What you are attempting to argue for, if actually taken to its logical zenith, is precisely the libertarian axiom! "I choose to live" equates immediately to "I choose to act." Hinderance of action is therefore in direct opposition to this initial statement.

The objective laws of nature are discerned in deontological ethics, yet you are trying to infuse them somehow with utilitarian components.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Radical libertarian systems are not reconcilable to the real world, because libertarian ethics are predicated on non-aggression. Aggression, however, has a necessary and desirable role in human affairs. That is why libertarians must talk about futuristic "perfect weapons" or people simply agreeing to drop aggression out of society totally.
You aren't understanding my arguments, clearly. I am merely pointing out an aggression free society is certainly the most beneficial. This is the essence of the non-aggression axiom, which is merely a fancy way to describe the concept of "liberty."

You are the one making the claim that violence is desirable in human affairs. How this can be rationalized is beyond me. Its only use might be construed as a response to an initiation of violence somewhere else, but certainly a violence free world is objectively beneficial given the nature of human action - and therefore life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
As social animals, human beings cannot survive outside the group. Without the group, they cannot defend themselves or feed themselves.
Does not imply anything beyond cooperation. Subordination to the group via force can in no way be argued as beneficial, since happiness gained cannot be measured and weighed against happiness lost. Nonetheless, the idea that human beings are socially involved due to coercion is a ridiculous assertion, albeit subtle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
As such humans realize that maintaining the cohesion of the group, being integral to survival, is more important than the rights or happiness of some minorities (the extent to which it is more important being largely defined by how wealthy/secure the society is, and so how much dissension it can tolerate). The societies which are willing to subordinate the happiness of some to the function of the group, and to enforce that subordination through violence, are societies that will survive.
Again, this weird idea that groups only exist due to forceful subordination rears its ugly, and completely unsupported, head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
The two extremes of political society are tyranny and anarchy. Tyranny cannot survive because it attempts to turn man in to a purely political being rather than political and individual being. Anarchy cannot survive because it attempts to turn man in to a purely individual being rather than a political and individual being.
This is fantastically false Ben. You have not identified the underlying nature of either of these ideas. Tyranny is one man subordinating those to himself. Anarchy is all men subordinate to no one.

Tyranny can certainly survive, it is a function of the power to coerce others.
Anarchy can certainly survive, it is a function of the liberty to resist the coercion of others.

We lie within these two spheres because, as you say, power is unequal. However, this does not mean we should not pursue the latter in all manners possible. For instance, by fostering and promoting traditions that are liberty friendly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Anarcho-Capitalism is the only logical conclusion of libertarian ethics. Anarcho-Capitalism is predicated on a non-coercive society. Power is distributed unequally in the world, therefore a non-coercive society will never be sustainable.

I am not "hoping" I can control aggression, thems just the facts.
I'll clear this up for you for good here:

"Anarcho-Capitalism is predicated on a non-coercive society."
Not true. Anarcho-Capitalism is predicted on a society where liberty outweighs power. It might be a million years away but it is essentially a simple logical position.

Nonetheless, Anarcho-Capitalism is merely founded in the idea that a crime-free society is the best form of society. Certainly you would not disagree? Once you understand the ideal, you understand all movements towards this ideal are beneficial. I make no illusions that Anarcho-Capitalism is possible, and I completely agree that power is distributed unequally. In fact, some of my best contributions are to point out the nature of this power distribution, making a compelling case that "society" dramatically improved with the development of a liberty inducing technology (the personal sidearm), which is defensive in nature. Former weapons, like swords, are aggressive in nature due to the learning curve and its links to physical ability. When defensive weapons (call them Liberty Weapons) overtake Power Weapons (swords, etc), the world becomes more peaceful. A great example of a liberty weapon is the nuclear bomb, and since then we have not seen a major world war.

When I refer to a magical weapon that makes it impossible to coerce us, I am merely pointing out the nature of a pure defensive weapon and how it would lead to pure liberty. It's a ridiculous scenario, but it points out the nature of man and the nature of weapons.

If we ever travel to space, we'll likely experience anarcho-capitalism.
 
Kaizen has 1,469 Posts

"Liberty, or Freedome, signifieth (properly) the absence of opposition; (by Opposition, I mean externall Impediments of motion) and may be applied no lesse to Irrationall, and Inanimate creatures, that to Rationall.

And according to this proper, and generally received meaning of the word, a free man, is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to doe what he has a will to."

- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.

So close... Yet so far.
 

Kaizen is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via MSN to Kaizen  
Reply With Quote


Old 02-10-2009
 
#34
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: I agree with the defense

Just let me address this lunacy for one sec, then I'll butt out

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Happiness for a organism on earth is predicated on the difference between life and death. Policies that are friendlier to life, such as reproduction and family retention that comes with limiting socially acceptable sexual behavior to marriage, will win out over policies that are friendlier to death, such as post-sexual revolution society. This is presently being demonstrated within Europe and the United States. It isn't up to humans to decide whether or not they like it, we are not our own judges, nature judges us.
So now "nature" gets to decide what constitutes happiness? Ben, seriously, you have proven nothing! You've merely asserted your premise, which is what I'm calling into question. There are other measures of happiness besides simply "life," what about the quality of life? Are 2 slaves happier than 1 free man? How can you tell?

I also don't know what you're talking about with the United States and Europe, these two geographic locations are definitely much happier than a lot of other places in the world, like Sub-Saharan Africa for example.

To recap, you simply asserted that more babies = more happiness because more life = more happiness, which goes quite well with your other assertion that happiness = simply the act of living. I assure you that many living people are quite unhappy, in fact miserable, and wish for death. Otherwise there would be no such thing as suicide.

So in the end your "argument" is merely one unsupported assertion after another. Some people who choose not to have kids are quite happy, and others who choose to have kids are quite miserable, so you're assertion doesn't hold up to our observations of the real world.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-11-2009
 
#35
United States Ben
The Sartorialist
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11,099
 Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...
Default Re: I agree with the defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizen
his is a massive point: No one here is claiming that society can exist without tradition. Tradition is merely a method that humans have developed in order to pass on ideas through the generations. This says nothing whatever about the content of these ideas. Traditions could be libertarian in nature, or socialist, it doesn't matter.

Furthermore, you are asserting that happiness does come from tradition. You are making an assumption that the existence of a tradition itself implies something true about the particular issue the tradition is aiming to address.

What I am pointing out is that the existence of tradition says nothing in regards to the actual content being discussed. This was emphasized in my asking you if all traditions carry the weight of justice. Since they do not, justice is something independent of traditions.

This therefore makes referring to a tradition as a source to substantiate a proclamation of justice something that is entirely incorrect.
No I didn't. I asserted that tradition is important in addition to providing a defense of the tradition of sexual conservatism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizen
This is a completely false argument. The traditions and social customs of society may or may not have anything to do with justice. To claim they do is ultimately utilitarian, which is why this argument must always revert to this very basic duality.
No. My defense of the tradition of sexual conservatism is elsewhere in my post. That was simply an argument that practices which are damaging to social order often have to be restricted even if we are not dealing with a question of justice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizen
This is where you've gotten yourself lost.

Means are certainly objective, hence the libertarian non-aggression axiom. It points out the only possible way of addressing the issue of human happiness. Since we know by the objective nature of man that he acts for his own happiness, any hinderance of action must be, as you say, inimical to human life. What you are attempting to argue for, if actually taken to its logical zenith, is precisely the libertarian axiom! "I choose to live" equates immediately to "I choose to act." Hinderance of action is therefore in direct opposition to this initial statement.

The objective laws of nature are discerned in deontological ethics, yet you are trying to infuse them somehow with utilitarian components.

You are the one making the claim that violence is desirable in human affairs. How this can be rationalized is beyond me. Its only use might be construed as a response to an initiation of violence somewhere else, but certainly a violence free world is objectively beneficial given the nature of human action - and therefore life.

Does not imply anything beyond cooperation. Subordination to the group via force can in no way be argued as beneficial, since happiness gained cannot be measured and weighed against happiness lost. Nonetheless, the idea that human beings are socially involved due to coercion is a ridiculous assertion, albeit subtle.
This is fantastically false Ben. You have not identified the underlying nature of either of these ideas. Tyranny is one man subordinating those to himself. Anarchy is all men subordinate to no one.

Tyranny can certainly survive, it is a function of the power to coerce others.
Anarchy can certainly survive, it is a function of the liberty to resist the coercion of others.

We lie within these two spheres because, as you say, power is unequal. However, this does not mean we should not pursue the latter in all manners possible. For instance, by fostering and promoting traditions that are liberty friendly!
Once again, my position is more utilitarian than it is Kantian, but it is not utilitarian itself. See earlier posted link.

Limiting human action hinders happiness, yes. Because the cohesive function of the social group is absolutely necessary to survival, all social animals sacrifice the happiness of some individuals within the group to the cohesive function of the group. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civiliz...ts_Discontents

There is no example anywhere on earth of a social animal whose groups do not use violence to enforce cohesion. If we use the Weberian definition of the state as an entity with a monopoly on the socially acceptable use of force over a given social group, every social animal displays the state, in the form of alpha males.

The good life is predicated on life, the social group is necessary for life, so the desires of the individual are subordinated to the group if they conflict with the cohesion of the group. Utilitarian claims about happiness calculation are not necessary for this. It is entirely possible that when the group does so the net happiness lost outweighs the net happiness gained. Successful social groups are simply unconcerned with this. The good life is predicated upon life, so the security of the latter is given more importance than the security of the former. Before we can talk about happiness we must talk about survival, and therein lies the supremacy of the group over the individual.

In a world based on violence, where the ability to get food and to defend oneself is predicated on one's ability to engage in organized violence effectively, a social order in which all men are subject to no one will not survive and is for that reason not desirable. Wild speculation about space travel and futuristic super weapons not withstanding, without social hierarchy it will either be easily preyed upon by other social groups or collapse from within. Tyranny will not survive because a group in which all are subject to one will not be able to as effectively respond to the needs of the whole society.

All social groups, whether they be human or of any other kind of social animal, are based on three guarantees, as best as the social group can offer them:

-The guarantee of common defense against enemies without and within.

-The guarantee of some level of minimum economic well being.

-The guarantee that social codes of behavior will be regulated at a sufficient level to ensure the continued harmonious cohesion of the group, vis a vis whatever value codes are held by the population at large

A truly laissez-faire society has never existed and never will in a world of scarcity and violence, because a truly laissez-faire society does not offer these guarantees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizen
I'll clear this up for you for good here:

"Anarcho-Capitalism is predicated on a non-coercive society."
Not true. Anarcho-Capitalism is predicted on a society where liberty outweighs power. It might be a million years away but it is essentially a simple logical position.

Nonetheless, Anarcho-Capitalism is merely founded in the idea that a crime-free society is the best form of society. Certainly you would not disagree? Once you understand the ideal, you understand all movements towards this ideal are beneficial. I make no illusions that Anarcho-Capitalism is possible, and I completely agree that power is distributed unequally. In fact, some of my best contributions are to point out the nature of this power distribution, making a compelling case that "society" dramatically improved with the development of a liberty inducing technology (the personal sidearm), which is defensive in nature. Former weapons, like swords, are aggressive in nature due to the learning curve and its links to physical ability. When defensive weapons (call them Liberty Weapons) overtake Power Weapons (swords, etc), the world becomes more peaceful. A great example of a liberty weapon is the nuclear bomb, and since then we have not seen a major world war.

When I refer to a magical weapon that makes it impossible to coerce us, I am merely pointing out the nature of a pure defensive weapon and how it would lead to pure liberty. It's a ridiculous scenario, but it points out the nature of man and the nature of weapons.

If we ever travel to space, we'll likely experience anarcho-capitalism.
I certainly agree that a crime-free society is the best society, but do not simply define crime as "aggression". Crime is behavior that is odious to the cohesive function of the social group toward the end of human life and the good life. Indeed when aggression is not odious to the cohesive function of the social group toward the end of human life and the good life, it is not criminal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DE
So now "nature" gets to decide what constitutes happiness? Ben, seriously, you have proven nothing! You've merely asserted your premise, which is what I'm calling into question. There are other measures of happiness besides simply "life," what about the quality of life? Are 2 slaves happier than 1 free man? How can you tell?

I also don't know what you're talking about with the United States and Europe, these two geographic locations are definitely much happier than a lot of other places in the world, like Sub-Saharan Africa for example.

To recap, you simply asserted that more babies = more happiness because more life = more happiness, which goes quite well with your other assertion that happiness = simply the act of living. I assure you that many living people are quite unhappy, in fact miserable, and wish for death. Otherwise there would be no such thing as suicide.

So in the end your "argument" is merely one unsupported assertion after another. Some people who choose not to have kids are quite happy, and others who choose to have kids are quite miserable, so you're assertion doesn't hold up to our observations of the real world.
I simply pointed out that value codes which are friendlier to life are objectively more successful than value codes which are friendlier to death at securing the end of human action: life and the good life. You can't have the good life if you aren't alive. Societies can choose death-friendly codes of values if they like, they will just die out, which is what is presently occurring. Suicide can be an individual action or it can be a social action, this is an example of a social manifestation of it. Ethics really has nothing to say to that, since ethics is predicated on the decision to live.
 

Last edited by Ben; 02-11-2009 at 03:21 AM.
Ben has 11,099 Posts

What's happening?
I keep my dreadlocks in a napkin ring
Rap and sing
Unlike the homogenous clones
I'm in to earth tones, birth stones, and erogenous zones
The more ticklish the more you have
Sitting on the curb of what used to be the burbs
And before that was Canarcie
I'm a disturbed and bitter herb
Like saltwater and parsley

Most Intelligent Debater 2008
 

Ben is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via AIM to Ben Send a message via MSN to Ben  
Reply With Quote


Old 02-11-2009
 
#36
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: I agree with the defense

Wait a minute, you just made another logical contradiction. You're previous problem with underage sex was that we don't want to encourage them to have babies, even when having babies is decidedly "pro-life." You've even demonstrated that earlier with that bizarre reference to the Muslims in European countries. According to this new logic, we should encourage underage sex!
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-11-2009
 
#37
United States Ben
The Sartorialist
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 11,099
 Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...Ben would like to thank all of the little people...
Default Re: I agree with the defense

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hawaiian View Post
Wait a minute, you just made another logical contradiction. You're previous problem with underage sex was that we don't want to encourage them to have babies, even when having babies is decidedly "pro-life." You've even demonstrated that earlier with that bizarre reference to the Muslims in European countries. According to this new logic, we should encourage underage sex!
I suggest you read all of the posts I've made in the thread. I have stated I think multiple times now that the issue of age of consent laws is one of many negative results of the abandonment of sexual conservatism - ie we don't want a bunch of sixteen year old single mothers. In the context of sexual behavior only being acceptable within marriage, age of consent regulation would be a much less pressing issue.

In any event event, if I hadn't said that you would still be mischaracterizing my argument, since I said that sexual policies are more successful when they encourage both reproduction and successful family retention, whereas you are acting as if I had only said the first.
 

Last edited by Ben; 02-11-2009 at 04:59 PM.
Ben has 11,099 Posts

What's happening?
I keep my dreadlocks in a napkin ring
Rap and sing
Unlike the homogenous clones
I'm in to earth tones, birth stones, and erogenous zones
The more ticklish the more you have
Sitting on the curb of what used to be the burbs
And before that was Canarcie
I'm a disturbed and bitter herb
Like saltwater and parsley

Most Intelligent Debater 2008
 

Ben is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via AIM to Ben Send a message via MSN to Ben  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Relationship Thread Version 4ish brimstone howler Chit Chat 1417 02-09-2009 10:43 PM
You like to choke on my wall, GG mutantmagnet StarCraft Discussion 29 01-05-2009 09:28 PM
Thesis to Increase Macro Part 6: Base Defense Buildings Archerofaiur StarCraft Discussion 7 12-19-2008 09:31 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:49 AM.
Designed by XG3