|
On February 04 2011 06:31 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Good luck reading 2500 years of philosophy talking on that matter.
The thing is, we most of the time talk without even knowing that we reason with concepts which have been discussed for thousands of years, without even realizing that there are different perspective than the one we are used to.
Everything you will hear on a website like teamliquid will be variations on economy-oriented liberal philosophy which is absolutely egemonic today. Thing is, even the concept of freedom which seems very obvious can have definitions incredibly different than the one that we, as liberals, are used to. Civic humanist definition of freedom, for example, is pretty much the opposite of what everybody here understand when the word is used.
My advice if you are really interested is to read Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and Laws, and then probably Machiavel, Rousseau (Social Contract) and Adam Smith. And if you are really into it, definitly Marx.
Then you have kind of an overview and you stop thinking that you are reasonning freely while in fact you are repeating the same liberal doxa than almost everybody else in western world today.
That's for the longer road. Longest but most interesting.
You can't have a good answer to such a complex question without spending a lot of time studying it and reading philosophers and thinkers. I've read Republic, Wealth of Nations, The Prince and The Republic. I'm not really looking for an "answer" per say, more so just a discussion with some philosophically minded folks on TL. I realize that finding a suitable answer to something like this is a time consuming endeavor, and I'm already doing what I can, but just some live dialogue can often be more stimulating than a book because it requires a degree of mental dexterity as well as having a good answer.
Ok, I'll try then to give an answer which is not completely naive, but taht's going to be difficult since any kind of position implies at least 500 years of thinking on the subject (I say 500 years since that's the birth of merchant humanism which leads to liberalism, the system in which we are usually reasonning).
The only think I could say, is that in my opinion, we should maybe give a bit more attention to Republican tradition which is pretty much dead since Condorcet and Paine (although Hannah Arendt could be considered as a Republican philosopher), and which consider the State and politics in general not only as a mean but as an end in itself. In short, in the Replican tradition, a free man is a citizen fully involved in the affairs of the State, in opposition to our modern liberal conception for which the role of the State is to regulate society so that people can be free to chose the way they want to live.
Obviously, republican tradition impllies a substancial and positive definition of freedom, very different than the negative and formal way we are used to.
A good example of such position is Rousseau. Republicanism is very refreshing since libreal positions are absolutely hegemoic today although anybody can see their limit at any moment of his life (in short, we know that having the choice between two brands of soda in a supermarket is a quite poor definition of freedom).
|
On February 04 2011 07:18 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 07:08 sc4k wrote:
My philosophy of what a government should be is taking the wisest, brightest, most motivated, most capable people in the country and letting them decide how we should as a group act, because they are superior to the common man and will prevent the common man's idiocy from getting in the way of his life's betterment.
Government should:
educate
create infrastructure
protect
encourage
inform
advance technology
heal It seems like a nice thought, but I don't think it holds up. First, how are you going to find these people? Second, no one will ever agree on who these people are. This is basically what politics already is, and I think it's clear that it's not working that well. Everyone votes for who they think is best, but no one agrees on who they think is best, then you're left with choosing the lesser of two evils and all that bullshit.
That's just my idealism. I believe in meritocracy, and responsible moderately-sized government. It's a lot less unachievable than some of the crazy ideologies espoused here such as libertarianism or communism.
Anyway, I think it holds up. I don't know about your government, but the UK government does all of the things I mentioned to a certain extent. Also, lots of the people in my government are really clever bastards, many have worked very hard. They may not be the wisest or the cleverest or the hardest working, but most of the time the truly incompetent or idiotic people are found out...it's a tough one, but that's the general idea. I hope in the future our house of lords can become a body of peers who have been elected by fellows in their fields such as science and education and such. They would truly be a council of elders, to provide temperance and knowledge to the standard policy-making, which comes out of the general motivation of placating the majority (and is therefore usually extremely shortsighted)
|
Saw the title of the blog, and mused "lol, must be Kimaker". I was kinda surprised to see that it actually WAS Kimaker.
On topic:
I already know your views pretty well from our numerous discussions, but I've never really gotten a good answer for this. Kimaker, how does your Libertarian stand deal with endeavors too large, and without immediate gain for an entrepreneur to ever consider undertaking? Like space exploration, or things like CERN?
|
How old are you OP?
This would have made for a decent, not great, discussion, but your language is discouraging. "Think of it as a mental exercise"? Of course, this could be nothing more than a mental exercise, what else! You sound like you don't read much, otherwise you'd already be exhausted just thinking about the REAL problem, if you know what you are talking about. Or maybe you have the wrong reading list.
Let me humor you with your little question here. In its most vulgar form, Governments are the embodiment of the peoples desires, protection from each other, as you say, is only one of them, in fact the most minor. It also, at least ideally, ensures equal opportunity for everyone to pursue their goals individually and society as a whole, mostly as a function of political economy, ie who/what is in power at any given time. Which is why, as the reply above, we have space exploration and CERN.
|
On February 04 2011 07:24 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 06:45 Aesop wrote:
I think you are confusing aggression with sadism. Sadism, in my mind, is hurting others since you plainly enjoy it. Aggression doesn't mean you are necessarily having fun, but that you are trying to gain an advantage on others. That, on the other hand, is rather natural behaviour, and governments serve the purpose to get it out of humans. That was actually precisely my point. Sadism is an unnatural and overt extension of aggression. I'm saying that the only reason for aggression to occur is because of a perceived gain, or "advantage" as you put it.
You're still misunderstanding the concept of sadism.
Sadism is deriving pleasure from the infliction of pain. It is not at all an extension of aggression as you can be very aggressively masochistic.
This statement
"Thus gain, or property, as satisfaction is indicative of sadism and thus a mental disturbance"
is way off.
First, you haven't even proven that sadism is a mental disturbance. Secondly, I don't see how satisfaction from gain or property is indicative of sadism at all.
I'm not even going to go in to how you build upon an unproven premise of "Why does a government exist? To protect people"
|
On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for.
Lol, no....self defense is not always justified.
Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example.
Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you.
This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply.
|
On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply.
Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases.
Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against.
|
On February 04 2011 12:36 Q.E.D. wrote:
How old are you OP?
This would have made for a decent, not great, discussion, but your language is discouraging. "Think of it as a mental exercise"? Of course, this could be nothing more than a mental exercise, what else! You sound like you don't read much, otherwise you'd already be exhausted just thinking about the REAL problem, if you know what you are talking about. Or maybe you have the wrong reading list.
Let me humor you with your little question here. In its most vulgar form, Governments are the embodiment of the peoples desires, protection from each other, as you say, is only one of them, in fact the most minor. It also, at least ideally, ensures equal opportunity for everyone to pursue their goals individually and society as a whole, mostly as a function of political economy, ie who/what is in power at any given time. Which is why, as the reply above, we have space exploration and CERN.
...sigh*
I read LOTS. I'm at university and am 20. I wrote this in the middle of a 48 hour sleep free binge and am now regretting it having woke up from my first real sleep in two days.
On February 04 2011 12:46 lixlix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 07:24 Kimaker wrote:On February 04 2011 06:45 Aesop wrote:
I think you are confusing aggression with sadism. Sadism, in my mind, is hurting others since you plainly enjoy it. Aggression doesn't mean you are necessarily having fun, but that you are trying to gain an advantage on others. That, on the other hand, is rather natural behaviour, and governments serve the purpose to get it out of humans. That was actually precisely my point. Sadism is an unnatural and overt extension of aggression. I'm saying that the only reason for aggression to occur is because of a perceived gain, or "advantage" as you put it. You're still misunderstanding the concept of sadism. Sadism is deriving pleasure from the infliction of pain. It is not at all an extension of aggression as you can be very aggressively masochistic. This statement "Thus gain, or property, as satisfaction is indicative of sadism and thus a mental disturbance" is way off. First, you haven't even proven that sadism is a mental disturbance. Secondly, I don't see how satisfaction from gain or property is indicative of sadism at all. I'm not even going to go in to how you build upon an unproven premise of "Why does a government exist? To protect people"
I'm missing a comma, and it's HORRIBLY worded. Something I'll have to fix later when I have time. It does not read as I intended it as ALL. My bad.
And as for your second and third points: THAT'S WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO. This was meant to be a cursory statement to induce discussion. Find holes, and tell me why they're wrong so we can get a dialogue going. I'm fully aware this is an incomplete thought, I've taken it further with other people, but I just want to see what new blood will do to the basic concept.
It should read something closer to: "Thus gain, or property as we will call it because satisfaction as a form of gain is indicative of sadism and thus a mental disturbance, ..."
|
On February 05 2011 02:15 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases. Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against.
Again, I disagree (and I knew someone would pull this)
Who defines the justifiability of self-defense? Is it the defender? If so, what's stopping anyone who retaliates "in self-defense" from claiming that they were justified?
Is it okay for a man to shoot someone who breaks into his home? Is he to be charged with manslaughter or murder when that intruder then dies in the hospital? What if the intruder is underage? What if the defender is inebriated or under the influence of drugs, and kills the intruder outright?
Is it okay for a police officer to shoot to kill a man on trial who becomes unruly?
Is it okay for a country to wage war because of a small set of nationals who commit a "crime of terrorism?"
Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you?
Is it okay to shoot someone who doesn't steal a bag of potato chips, but perhaps steals your car? What about a homeless person who breaks into your Porsche because he sees food in it?
Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you?
Blanket terms like "self-defense is always justified" don't work in principle. Everyone's definition of justification is different. This isn't physics, where there are no blanket principles anyway. Everything in modern physics applies specifically under different conditions. Quantum mechanics applies to things at the microscopic scale, for example, while relativity applies to things moving at very great velocities. (I am a physics major, btw) Different standards are required for different situations.
Also, to the OP: If government exists solely to protect the people, then should public schools exist? What about government healthcare systems, trade and commerce regulation, emergency services, government-sponsored infrastructure, government energy policies, environmental regulation, and projects such as NASA? Perhaps you can define parts of these things under "protection," but surely none of those things fall under the realm of government as you define it. Under your definition, the majority of government would simply be the military!
|
On February 06 2011 08:31 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 02:15 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases. Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. Again, I disagree (and I knew someone would pull this) Who defines the justifiability of self-defense? Is it the defender? If so, what's stopping anyone who retaliates "in self-defense" from claiming that they were justified? Is it okay for a man to shoot someone who breaks into his home? Is he to be charged with manslaughter or murder when that intruder then dies in the hospital? What if the intruder is underage? What if the defender is inebriated or under the influence of drugs, and kills the intruder outright? Is it okay for a police officer to shoot to kill a man on trial who becomes unruly? Is it okay for a country to wage war because of a small set of nationals who commit a "crime of terrorism?" Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you? Is it okay to shoot someone who doesn't steal a bag of potato chips, but perhaps steals your car? What about a homeless person who breaks into your Porsche because he sees food in it? Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you? Blanket terms like "self-defense is always justified" don't work in principle. Everyone's definition of justification is different. This isn't physics, where there are no blanket principles anyway. Everything in modern physics applies specifically under different conditions. Quantum mechanics applies to things at the microscopic scale, for example, while relativity applies to things moving at very great velocities. (I am a physics major, btw) Different standards are required for different situations. Also, to the OP: If government exists solely to protect the people, then should public schools exist? What about government healthcare systems, trade and commerce regulation, emergency services, government-sponsored infrastructure, government energy policies, environmental regulation, and projects such as NASA? Perhaps you can define parts of these things under "protection," but surely none of those things fall under the realm of government as you define it. Under your definition, the majority of government would simply be the military!
The courts decide whether or not any of those actions of self-defense are justified. And as for things like "Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you?" or "Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you?" Do you expect me to just LET that animal attack me, or let that person kill me? Again, its proportionality that matters. If that animal has the capacity to seriously harm or kill me, and stopping it without killing it is far more difficult and likely to end with me being injured or killed, its as good as dead in my book. Same with the person. If I feel they pose a serious threat, i.e. are brandishing a weapon or are simply much physically stronger than I, then I WILL defend myself. I'm not going to just stand around and get stabbed or what have you. If I can defuse the situation peacefully, great, I will. But that isn't always an option. The courts will decide afterwards if I was justified, and if I was, cool. If not I'll be punished for murder or manslaughter or however the court decides.
I was a physics major my freshman year too. I quit because I couldn't handle Calc 3, but I know enough to know that there ARE vast fields of study where Newtonian Mechanics, or Classical E&M hold true. Seems like a blanket statement to me.
|
Basically, I view humans as selfish. In other words, above all else, we do what we do for pleasure - luckily some members of our society get pleasure from the pleasure of other - we call that being selfless. Anyway, given that some members of society, for whatever reason, draw pleasure from the pain of others, it becomes necessary to use government to protect people from other people - economically, physically, and mentally.
In order to do this and guarantee some liberties, government must restrict some others - take away man's ability to harm others. Furthermore, I would argue that it is also government's job to guarantee people's rights to pursue whatever they want in life - people should be born into our society as equals. Therefore government must also attempt to guarantee this equality via the guaranteeing of things like education, universal health care etc. etc.
I'm like a really, really far left democrat.
|
I encourage everybody interested in this kind of stuff to read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Predator-State-Conservatives-Abandoned-Liberals/dp/141656683X
I think it's THE definitive history book on how selfish pragmatists have managed to take the philosophies and ideals of people like the OP to shape the US government into something that directly benefits them over the last 50 years.
But don't listen to me, just read the book. If you study the history of US Government it should be pretty clear that it's description of the last 50 years is dead-on. Then maybe people like the OP would reevaulate their philosophies and ask themselves whether or not it truly benefits the few or the many.
(the chapter on "economic freedom" is especially enlightening)
I'm a pragmatist, philosophy and ideals are nice but they need to map onto reality. Most pure ones don't.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Interesting. I have been studying this exact same topic for the past 7-8 hours due to midterms coming up. I will try to give you my take, which is influenced by what I am currently studying, that is Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, etc.
To answer the question of why government exists, we must think back to the "state of nature", a term that was coined during the period of Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau. The state of nature is defined as the actions and thoughts of humans without any government. The general consensus here (I think) is that humans without government will act within their own self-interest. As all humans are endowed with the same natural liberties from birth--that is, they are all equal and all have the same rights--they answer to no one but themselves. Therefore, humans that are acting in their own self-interest may impede on another person's liberties for their own profit, which causes others to always be cautious and strive to protect what is theirs. That is the state of nature.
Thus, government is formed. My philosophy is a mixture of Locke's and Rousseau's, in that humans then band together for mutual protection of their interests (interests here being defined as property, which, in this case, is defined as life, liberty, and estates). It is this "sovereignty of the General Will," as Rousseau puts it, that creates a legitimate government; one that is built upon a rational need for self-preservation and with consent of the populace.
Of course, I could go further, but then it'd get long and drawn out, so I'll stop here. =p
|
I think the main purpose of a government is to stack capital and put that capital in their own pocket, which happens in most cases.
The way they do that is they turn one group of people to be an enemy of another group of people, so the focus gets bended away from the government and down back into the people.
The better the government you have the better they are at dividing the people. Divide and conquor.
If it should happen that your government goes out and say we should all live in peace, you know for sure that, thats not their real intentions, and they are lying. Infact they are lying all the time.
|
On February 04 2011 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Good luck reading 2500 years of philosophy talking on that matter.
The thing is, we most of the time talk without even knowing that we reason with concepts which have been discussed for thousands of years, without even realizing that there are different perspective than the one we are used to.
Everything you will hear on a website like teamliquid will be variations on economy-oriented liberal philosophy which is absolutely egemonic today. Thing is, even the concept of freedom which seems very obvious can have definitions incredibly different than the one that we, as liberals, are used to. Civic humanist definition of freedom, for example, is pretty much the opposite of what everybody here understand when the word is used.
My advice if you are really interested is to read Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and Laws, and then probably Machiavel, Rousseau (Social Contract) and Adam Smith. And if you are really into it, definitly Marx.
Then you have kind of an overview and you stop thinking that you are reasonning freely while in fact you are repeating the same liberal doxa than almost everybody else in western world today.
That's for the longer road. Longest but most interesting.
You can't have a good answer to such a complex question without spending a lot of time studying it and reading philosophers and thinkers.
Probably shouldn't leave out John Locke and the Founding Fathers if you are throwing those heavyweights around.
As far as the rhetoric issue of reasoning freely and definitions of liberals and the like. While I agree a good portion of people are like that, especially in the States. I don't think that is true for everyone. I am a philosophy and political science major though, and have read a ton on the subject. So I could just be around a lot of individuals who have done quite a bit of reading on the subject. I think that reading this material is extremely interesting and worthwhile. The relevancy of it to all aspects of other knowledge is unfathomable. Anyone that is ever interested should def. start reading up on those powerful philosophical works. Starting with the Classics of course.
|
The second portion of this has been so much more useful than the first half where everyone just waved around the E-Penis and told me I was retarded xD
|
On February 06 2011 10:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2011 08:31 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 05 2011 02:15 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases. Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. Again, I disagree (and I knew someone would pull this) Who defines the justifiability of self-defense? Is it the defender? If so, what's stopping anyone who retaliates "in self-defense" from claiming that they were justified? Is it okay for a man to shoot someone who breaks into his home? Is he to be charged with manslaughter or murder when that intruder then dies in the hospital? What if the intruder is underage? What if the defender is inebriated or under the influence of drugs, and kills the intruder outright? Is it okay for a police officer to shoot to kill a man on trial who becomes unruly? Is it okay for a country to wage war because of a small set of nationals who commit a "crime of terrorism?" Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you? Is it okay to shoot someone who doesn't steal a bag of potato chips, but perhaps steals your car? What about a homeless person who breaks into your Porsche because he sees food in it? Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you? Blanket terms like "self-defense is always justified" don't work in principle. Everyone's definition of justification is different. This isn't physics, where there are no blanket principles anyway. Everything in modern physics applies specifically under different conditions. Quantum mechanics applies to things at the microscopic scale, for example, while relativity applies to things moving at very great velocities. (I am a physics major, btw) Different standards are required for different situations. Also, to the OP: If government exists solely to protect the people, then should public schools exist? What about government healthcare systems, trade and commerce regulation, emergency services, government-sponsored infrastructure, government energy policies, environmental regulation, and projects such as NASA? Perhaps you can define parts of these things under "protection," but surely none of those things fall under the realm of government as you define it. Under your definition, the majority of government would simply be the military! The courts decide whether or not any of those actions of self-defense are justified. And as for things like "Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you?" or "Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you?" Do you expect me to just LET that animal attack me, or let that person kill me? Again, its proportionality that matters. If that animal has the capacity to seriously harm or kill me, and stopping it without killing it is far more difficult and likely to end with me being injured or killed, its as good as dead in my book. Same with the person. If I feel they pose a serious threat, i.e. are brandishing a weapon or are simply much physically stronger than I, then I WILL defend myself. I'm not going to just stand around and get stabbed or what have you. If I can defuse the situation peacefully, great, I will. But that isn't always an option. The courts will decide afterwards if I was justified, and if I was, cool. If not I'll be punished for murder or manslaughter or however the court decides. I was a physics major my freshman year too. I quit because I couldn't handle Calc 3, but I know enough to know that there ARE vast fields of study where Newtonian Mechanics, or Classical E&M hold true. Seems like a blanket statement to me.
So, if the courts decide these matters, then clearly government needs to step in outside of the simple sphere of "protecting people."
No, I don't expect you to just sit there, but there is a STARK difference between saying "all self-defense is justified" and "self-defense is ONLY justified when it is in proportion to the crime being committed." To pull a physics analogy (I don't like doing this, but since we've already gone there...) it's like saying "Newtonian mechanics is always valid" or saying "Newtonian mechanics is only accurate for objects not moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and for larger than atomic scales." It SOUNDS like it's okay to say, well, Newtonian mechanics applies in so many fields, so you can always use it, or at least check reasonability with it.
You also conveniently ignore the examples of theft. Is protecting your property self-defense? Plenty of people will shoot intruders with guns. Is that reasonable "self-defense?" I would argue that it is not, yet the defendant would clearly state, "the intruder trespassed. I had the right to shoot him." Same goes for someone who breaks into your car or steals your wallet, or whatever it might be.
If proportionality matters, then no one is in a position to say that self-defense is always justified. Under English common law, for example, it is a precedent that the defendant is not capable of determining whether he or she applied force appropriately in self-defense, because the defendant will always claim that his or her actions were justified.
EDIT: I also chose to omit the treatment of "self-defense" on a global scale. For example, if a terrorist group were to kill thousands of people here in the U.S., is it reasonable "self-defense" to go and invade the country from whence they came?
|
On February 07 2011 14:23 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2011 10:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2011 08:31 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 05 2011 02:15 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases. Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. Again, I disagree (and I knew someone would pull this) Who defines the justifiability of self-defense? Is it the defender? If so, what's stopping anyone who retaliates "in self-defense" from claiming that they were justified? Is it okay for a man to shoot someone who breaks into his home? Is he to be charged with manslaughter or murder when that intruder then dies in the hospital? What if the intruder is underage? What if the defender is inebriated or under the influence of drugs, and kills the intruder outright? Is it okay for a police officer to shoot to kill a man on trial who becomes unruly? Is it okay for a country to wage war because of a small set of nationals who commit a "crime of terrorism?" Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you? Is it okay to shoot someone who doesn't steal a bag of potato chips, but perhaps steals your car? What about a homeless person who breaks into your Porsche because he sees food in it? Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you? Blanket terms like "self-defense is always justified" don't work in principle. Everyone's definition of justification is different. This isn't physics, where there are no blanket principles anyway. Everything in modern physics applies specifically under different conditions. Quantum mechanics applies to things at the microscopic scale, for example, while relativity applies to things moving at very great velocities. (I am a physics major, btw) Different standards are required for different situations. Also, to the OP: If government exists solely to protect the people, then should public schools exist? What about government healthcare systems, trade and commerce regulation, emergency services, government-sponsored infrastructure, government energy policies, environmental regulation, and projects such as NASA? Perhaps you can define parts of these things under "protection," but surely none of those things fall under the realm of government as you define it. Under your definition, the majority of government would simply be the military! The courts decide whether or not any of those actions of self-defense are justified. And as for things like "Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you?" or "Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you?" Do you expect me to just LET that animal attack me, or let that person kill me? Again, its proportionality that matters. If that animal has the capacity to seriously harm or kill me, and stopping it without killing it is far more difficult and likely to end with me being injured or killed, its as good as dead in my book. Same with the person. If I feel they pose a serious threat, i.e. are brandishing a weapon or are simply much physically stronger than I, then I WILL defend myself. I'm not going to just stand around and get stabbed or what have you. If I can defuse the situation peacefully, great, I will. But that isn't always an option. The courts will decide afterwards if I was justified, and if I was, cool. If not I'll be punished for murder or manslaughter or however the court decides. I was a physics major my freshman year too. I quit because I couldn't handle Calc 3, but I know enough to know that there ARE vast fields of study where Newtonian Mechanics, or Classical E&M hold true. Seems like a blanket statement to me. So, if the courts decide these matters, then clearly government needs to step in outside of the simple sphere of "protecting people." No, I don't expect you to just sit there, but there is a STARK difference between saying "all self-defense is justified" and "self-defense is ONLY justified when it is in proportion to the crime being committed." To pull a physics analogy (I don't like doing this, but since we've already gone there...) it's like saying "Newtonian mechanics is always valid" or saying "Newtonian mechanics is only accurate for objects not moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and for larger than atomic scales." It SOUNDS like it's okay to say, well, Newtonian mechanics applies in so many fields, so you can always use it, or at least check reasonability with it. You also conveniently ignore the examples of theft. Is protecting your property self-defense? Plenty of people will shoot intruders with guns. Is that reasonable "self-defense?" I would argue that it is not, yet the defendant would clearly state, "the intruder trespassed. I had the right to shoot him." Same goes for someone who breaks into your car or steals your wallet, or whatever it might be. If proportionality matters, then no one is in a position to say that self-defense is always justified. Under English common law, for example, it is a precedent that the defendant is not capable of determining whether he or she applied force appropriately in self-defense, because the defendant will always claim that his or her actions were justified.EDIT: I also chose to omit the treatment of "self-defense" on a global scale. For example, if a terrorist group were to kill thousands of people here in the U.S., is it reasonable "self-defense" to go and invade the country from whence they came?
I never said that all self-defense is justified, just that it is always justified if it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. I agree that you can't just take the defendant's testimony as absolute truth, but the only way you can take the defendant's testimony out of the argument is by saying that self-defense is never justified, which seems absurd to me. You cannot devise a system where any of the involved parties are non-biased, so you will always have to wait until after the incident to determine if the defendant acted appropriately, i.e. in a court of law.
When it comes to theft, I would say that self-defense is still justified, albeit with more restrictions on what constitutes proportionality. If they are blatantly only looking to take your property, and clearly mean you no physical harm, i.e. they're shoplifting, I do not believe there is much that would be justified beyond just standing in their way. The issue here is that it is almost never this clear to the defendant. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, how are you supposed to tell their motives, or if they are planning on using violence to those ends?
Global scale self-defense is different entirely. I think if said nation actually aided in the attack, then the invasion would be justified, but if it was simply a few ne'er-do-wells like the current war on terror, then a full-scale invasion is not justified, or even a good idea from a military standpoint. Why go with a full-scale invasion when a couple of Navy SEAL teams and a cruise missile or two could do the job just as well, if not better?
|
On February 09 2011 02:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 14:23 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 06 2011 10:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2011 08:31 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 05 2011 02:15 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2011 13:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On February 04 2011 04:49 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Excellent presentation with cute little pictures =P The only thing I disagreed with was the blanket statement that it is not ok to murder, enslave, or steal. In a perfect would it wouldn't be necessary to, but sometimes to protect your rights you must violate these principles. Self defense is always justified. War is murder, prisons are slavery, and fines are theft, but these are done so according to a code of justice, so we all buy into it that they are justified. So no, it's not as simple as a blanket statement because people break the rules and have to be dealt with. That's what law is for. Lol, no....self defense is not always justified. Killing someone for stealing a bag of potato chips is not a justifiable action, for example. Neither is beating up a child who hits you, or hell, even attacks you. This is fine in principle, but it's a little too naive to actually put into practice. There are a lot of situations in which these blanket principles just don't apply. Killing someone over minor theft would not be considered self-defense because it's disproportionate to the crime being commited. The only reason a blanket principle would not apply to a specific situation, is that the principle itself is not well enough defined. For instance, Force = Mass X Acceleration. It is true for most situations, until you near the speed of light, when the equation breaks down. This does not mean it is not an accurate equation for most situations, just that it is poorly defined for a small set of cases. Self-defense is always justifiable so long as it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. Again, I disagree (and I knew someone would pull this) Who defines the justifiability of self-defense? Is it the defender? If so, what's stopping anyone who retaliates "in self-defense" from claiming that they were justified? Is it okay for a man to shoot someone who breaks into his home? Is he to be charged with manslaughter or murder when that intruder then dies in the hospital? What if the intruder is underage? What if the defender is inebriated or under the influence of drugs, and kills the intruder outright? Is it okay for a police officer to shoot to kill a man on trial who becomes unruly? Is it okay for a country to wage war because of a small set of nationals who commit a "crime of terrorism?" Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you? Is it okay to shoot someone who doesn't steal a bag of potato chips, but perhaps steals your car? What about a homeless person who breaks into your Porsche because he sees food in it? Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you? Blanket terms like "self-defense is always justified" don't work in principle. Everyone's definition of justification is different. This isn't physics, where there are no blanket principles anyway. Everything in modern physics applies specifically under different conditions. Quantum mechanics applies to things at the microscopic scale, for example, while relativity applies to things moving at very great velocities. (I am a physics major, btw) Different standards are required for different situations. Also, to the OP: If government exists solely to protect the people, then should public schools exist? What about government healthcare systems, trade and commerce regulation, emergency services, government-sponsored infrastructure, government energy policies, environmental regulation, and projects such as NASA? Perhaps you can define parts of these things under "protection," but surely none of those things fall under the realm of government as you define it. Under your definition, the majority of government would simply be the military! The courts decide whether or not any of those actions of self-defense are justified. And as for things like "Is it okay to kill an animal that attacks you?" or "Is it justifiable to shoot or beat a mentally retarded person who screams at you that they're going to kill you?" Do you expect me to just LET that animal attack me, or let that person kill me? Again, its proportionality that matters. If that animal has the capacity to seriously harm or kill me, and stopping it without killing it is far more difficult and likely to end with me being injured or killed, its as good as dead in my book. Same with the person. If I feel they pose a serious threat, i.e. are brandishing a weapon or are simply much physically stronger than I, then I WILL defend myself. I'm not going to just stand around and get stabbed or what have you. If I can defuse the situation peacefully, great, I will. But that isn't always an option. The courts will decide afterwards if I was justified, and if I was, cool. If not I'll be punished for murder or manslaughter or however the court decides. I was a physics major my freshman year too. I quit because I couldn't handle Calc 3, but I know enough to know that there ARE vast fields of study where Newtonian Mechanics, or Classical E&M hold true. Seems like a blanket statement to me. So, if the courts decide these matters, then clearly government needs to step in outside of the simple sphere of "protecting people." No, I don't expect you to just sit there, but there is a STARK difference between saying "all self-defense is justified" and "self-defense is ONLY justified when it is in proportion to the crime being committed." To pull a physics analogy (I don't like doing this, but since we've already gone there...) it's like saying "Newtonian mechanics is always valid" or saying "Newtonian mechanics is only accurate for objects not moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and for larger than atomic scales." It SOUNDS like it's okay to say, well, Newtonian mechanics applies in so many fields, so you can always use it, or at least check reasonability with it. You also conveniently ignore the examples of theft. Is protecting your property self-defense? Plenty of people will shoot intruders with guns. Is that reasonable "self-defense?" I would argue that it is not, yet the defendant would clearly state, "the intruder trespassed. I had the right to shoot him." Same goes for someone who breaks into your car or steals your wallet, or whatever it might be. If proportionality matters, then no one is in a position to say that self-defense is always justified. Under English common law, for example, it is a precedent that the defendant is not capable of determining whether he or she applied force appropriately in self-defense, because the defendant will always claim that his or her actions were justified.EDIT: I also chose to omit the treatment of "self-defense" on a global scale. For example, if a terrorist group were to kill thousands of people here in the U.S., is it reasonable "self-defense" to go and invade the country from whence they came? I never said that all self-defense is justified, just that it is always justified if it is proportionate with the crime being defended against. I agree that you can't just take the defendant's testimony as absolute truth, but the only way you can take the defendant's testimony out of the argument is by saying that self-defense is never justified, which seems absurd to me. You cannot devise a system where any of the involved parties are non-biased, so you will always have to wait until after the incident to determine if the defendant acted appropriately, i.e. in a court of law. When it comes to theft, I would say that self-defense is still justified, albeit with more restrictions on what constitutes proportionality. If they are blatantly only looking to take your property, and clearly mean you no physical harm, i.e. they're shoplifting, I do not believe there is much that would be justified beyond just standing in their way. The issue here is that it is almost never this clear to the defendant. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, how are you supposed to tell their motives, or if they are planning on using violence to those ends? Global scale self-defense is different entirely. I think if said nation actually aided in the attack, then the invasion would be justified, but if it was simply a few ne'er-do-wells like the current war on terror, then a full-scale invasion is not justified, or even a good idea from a military standpoint. Why go with a full-scale invasion when a couple of Navy SEAL teams and a cruise missile or two could do the job just as well, if not better?
Exactly.
I never said self-defense is never justified. I said that you can't say something like "self defense is always justified." I didn't misquote anything. That was what was said.
The OP suggested that government exists only to protect the people. I don't believe that's true. In criminal court cases, for example, the government acts as a mediator to apply proper justice. You can't prevent everyone from crime. You can't protect children from getting bullied by sending government officials to watch over them at recess (I suppose you could...but why?)
People have different views when it comes to acceptable self-defense. Some will argue that you're not entitled to make a proper decision when intoxicated, for example, and that a killing "in self defense" when you're intoxicated is punishable in some jurisdictions. In fact, defendants have been convicted of murder/manslaughter in England in cases where they were intoxicated during the altercation and applied excessive force in defending themselves. Similar cases with sober individuals have passed off as "accidents" with no convictions, on the other hand.
Thus, the line is hazy. The definition of "appropriate force" comes down to the courts, yes, and that's precisely why it's very dangerous to say something like "self-defense is always justified." It isn't, and I think I've demonstrated that I can come up with dozens of hypothetical (and real) situations where it is clearly not justified according to current law, though it could be considered justified by an involved party.
EDIT: So on the global scale, a country is permitted to send in a specialist team in retaliation, to infiltrate a foreign country and eliminate "threats" outside of its jurisdiction, but not invade?
That's pretty two-faced. I don't think a country has any right to step outside of its bounds and apply any sort of force in a foreign country because of the actions of a small subset of said country's citizens. The only situation in which this is permissible is when that country permits the U.S., for example, to intervene.
War, on the other hand, is different. When a military organization acts, it is acting on behalf of a country. An invasion or an attack by a military should be considered an action of war. If Afghanistan did to us what we did to them, surely things would be drastically different. As it stands, none of the terrorists on 9/11 were even Afghans, they were Saudis...so I don't see where even the remotest semblance of justification for that war is (sorry I went off on a tangent haha)
|
I'm friends IRL with the OP, and have had discussions like this with him in the past, so when he said that the government's purpose is to protect the people, I am 99% sure he doesn't mean protection like in a Nanny State. He's more worried with the people's liberties being protected rather than their physical health.
Wherebugsgo, I think we're both arguing for the same thing, and our differences are simply misunderstandings. I don't think self-defense is always justified, and I agree there are specific instances which are not justified, but we can't just get rid of all self-defense because its misused here and there. Its a matter for the courts, and so since it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, doesn't make for very good discussion in an abstract sense.
On the issue of global scale self-defense, I saw that specialist team idea as a means to avoid all the hardship we've caused the local populace while still removing the terrorists. I see that a corrupt administration could eliminate peaceful, political enemies this way, but they could do that with a full-scale invasion too. I agree we should get support of the country which harbored those individuals as well, unless they seem to be in league with the leaders of said country.
Afghanistan is a perfect example of this. The people who plotted 9/11 were (or maybe still are?) in Afghanistan. While the government of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it, they also do not have the means nor the will to extradite the offenders. The best course of action I think would be to simply have special forces teams nab the terrorists in the night, hopefully with permission from the Afghan government. Much less hardship for both sides than a full-scale war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
