Dominoes - Pay a little more

[SpontaneousOrder]

Right, so now we're on the subject of truth and proof and defining reality according to what's convenient for yourself, let's come back to the post I made here in response to what our said about government schemes to help poor people;

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1855838

So why have you linked directly to a prime example of the kind of 'necessary evil' reasoning that completely ignores truth? You posit that all of the coercion necessary to achieve those things were morally justified, based purely on your own subjective opinion that it was worth it?

What you have done is to
1) effectively imply that "Yes, violence (or threats-of) is used to achieve all of these things" (that's a good start - met people here won't even admit that much), and
2) more explicitly that you would approve of those things because you personally prefer the result to that result which you guess would be the case otherwise.

Nowhere in here is there anything to do with morality, there than the implied idea that what is moral is whatever you feel like at the time.

[d000hg]

Stop changing the subject SO. What kind of pizza do you like? The pretentious kind with a hole in the middle?

[Mich the Tester]

So why have you linked directly to a prime example of the kind of 'necessary evil' reasoning that completely ignores truth? You posit that all of the coercion necessary to achieve those things were morally justified, based purely on your own subjective opinion that it was worth it?

What you have done is to
1) effectively imply that "Yes, violence (or threats-of) is used to achieve all of these things" (that's a good start - met people here won't even admit that much), and
2) more explicitly that you would approve of those things because you personally prefer the result to that result which you guess would be the case otherwise.

Nowhere in here is there anything to do with morality, there than the implied idea that what is moral is whatever you feel like at the time.

Utter, utter nonsense. I have given examples of several government schemes that helped the poor inresponse to your assertion that nearly all government schemes to help the poor have had the opposite effect. Then you suggest that I have said something about the moral justification of such schemes. You are slithering about to avoid the fact that somebody has shown evidence that contradicts what you are saying.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Then you suggest that I have said something about the moral justification of such schemes. You are slithering about to avoid the fact that somebody has shown evidence that contradicts what you are saying.

Your post was part of a line of discussion about morality with regards to reason/emotion...

Yes, that may explain the biological grounding of how we developed morals. Trying to justify them, however, requires logical argumentation. Ethics by and large is concerned with trying to justify norms that are conducive to social cooperation, which subsumes the notion of rights.

/------

Quote Originally Posted by vetran View Post
Understanding emotions is reason. Emotions aren't always reasonable. Emotions may have reasons.

So it's clear to see that you're the one doing the slithering.

But anyway, ignoring that...

Utter, utter nonsense. I have given examples of several government schemes that helped the poor inresponse to your assertion that nearly all government schemes to help the poor have had the opposite effect.

Ignoring the morality of the situation, you're making the mistake (deliberately or not) that Frederic Bastiat describes in "That which is seen, and that which is unseen". You're probably a fan of window-smashing too.



This is the winning quote though -

the fact that someone born to a poor family now can reasonably expect to live about twice as long as someone born to a poor family 200 years ago but otherwise, nothing governments have ever done to help the poor has ever worked, no.

Government is the reason people live longer than they did 200 years ago! 100 points for full-on retardedness.

[Old Greg]

Yes, because you are violating my property rights. You are initiating aggression towards me when you refuse to leave when I ask you.

What if Parliament passes a law stating I may live there?

[SpontaneousOrder]

What if Parliament passes a law stating I may live there?

What if parliament passes a law stating you're allowed to rape your neighbour?

[Old Greg]

What if parliament passes a law stating you're allowed to rape your neighbour?

What if Parliament has previously passed an Enclosure Act transferring your garden from common ownership to private ownership? Can you use violence to remove me then?

[SpontaneousOrder]

What if Parliament has previously passed an Enclosure Act transferring your garden from common ownership to private ownership? Can you use violence to remove me then?

If you're supposing that "my" land was previously stolen (and I strongly suspect that it will have been at some point; especially as I had to get an insurance policy to cover me if the church ever claimed cathedral roof repair moneys from me due to the convenient that comes with the land, and that historically the church has tended to just take hat it wants), then arguably it isn't mine. If it isn't mine then your original question of "If I peacefully move into your garden with a tent, would you use force to evict me?" would technically be malformed.

There will always be a requirement for dispute arbitration, and where we can be certain that one person is in violation of another's rights, then force can be used. Where someone's transgressions amount to what would be better described as "undesirable behaviour", then other methods are available, and arguable more effective too.

[Old Greg]

If you're supposing that "my" land was previously stolen (and I strongly suspect that it will have been at some point; especially as I had to get an insurance policy to cover me if the church ever claimed cathedral roof repair moneys from me due to the convenient that comes with the land, and that historically the church has tended to just take hat it wants), then arguably it isn't mine. If it isn't mine then your original question of "If I peacefully move into your garden with a tent, would you use force to evict me?" would technically be malformed.

There will always be a requirement for dispute arbitration, and where we can be certain that one person is in violation of another's rights, then force can be used. Where someone's transgressions amount to what would be better described as "undesirable behaviour", then other methods are available, and arguable more effective too.

So if I move onto your garden will you use violence to remove me?

[AtW]

So if I move onto your garden will you use violence to remove me?

No, he'll make you a cup of tea with biscuits - if you want to be beaten up then you'd just have to go to Bridgwater, just the M4.

HTH