|
On January 29 2012 23:02 Hider wrote:
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
edit: my apologies  I made a stupid mistake. My fault entirely.
|
On January 30 2012 05:05 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 23:02 Hider wrote:
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500. I am not reaching you. Did I ever say that government should hire more than is needed? No. Why do you make up shit to argue with me instead of reading and comprehending what you are responding to? Try that instead ... What I said was: the statement that it is a simple truth that government can't create wealth (made by Liberal) is insanely stupid, not rooted in reality, not a worthy opinion, because it's just provable plain wrong.And I am sad that so many people seem to think it was a great post - because it really isn't. It's rhetoric based off a flawed understanding of reality - namely, that government can't create wealth. Governments create wealth all the time - just like the private sector does. Reread my text. Did I ever say something about Government always doing shit better? That they should hire more people than they need? No. What I said is that there is no law that says the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, and in fact, sometimes it is, often it isn't. I am calling you an idiot because of your example with the apples - as if it was a law that the government 'destroy' 8 apples. Well, make up a story if you want: it doesn't prove anything except that your arguments aren't rooted in fact. Fact is Liberal made a statement about a 'simple truth' which is not only wrong, but stupid and provable wrong. And why you don't understand this, is beyond me.
I wasn't talking to you.
|
On January 30 2012 04:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 04:46 Mordanis wrote:
Just a quick thought that I just had but don't necessarily believe:
Is unequal distribution of wealth necessarily a negative thing? Most psychologists seem to agree that wealth and income play a statistically significant role in subjective well-being, but a very small role. In a way, if wealth doesn't correlate very strongly with happiness, why shouldn't 5 people control the wealth of the world as long as everyone else is free to choose what to work in and everything else? Obviously there needs to be some system that ensures that people don't starve because they cannot access any food, but we don't even have that throughout the whole world. Can anyone give a good argument against this besides something to the effect of "it isn't fair"? Again, I don't actually believe this (yet at least), but I do think that people are far too occupied with the distribution of wealth. The problem isn't unequal distribution, it's 1) unequal opportunity for gain and 2) unnaceptable living conditions for our times. The argument about wealth distribution is an aside that has come up because the first conclusion is, "They have loads of money they don't need, so lets take it to help out those that are in horrible conditions in our country!" Show nested quote +
How do you define theft in an universal way? You cant use current laws in that definition as they change over time.
And even if your a proponent of minarchims, you could still acknowledge that you need some theft (= little government) to make governemnt protect the property rights.
I'm pretty sure that there's not a single definition of theft that includes "money taken for services rendered".
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
On January 30 2012 04:54 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 04:46 Mordanis wrote:
Just a quick thought that I just had but don't necessarily believe:
Is unequal distribution of wealth necessarily a negative thing? It is not. You need some inequality. But if your society was optimized, you made sure that as few as possible needed help from society to make do, and as many as possible contribute (because then you don't need so much from each person). Which is why things like public education and government funded infrastructure is important. But you need the wealth distributed unevenly as well, otherwise no one would have enough left over to make risky investments - and other reasons.
Optimizing? How do you define that. Do you have some kind of magic formula for the perfect society you would like to share with us?
|
On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
Murder is the act of illegaly taking someones life on purpose.
Which is why it isn't applied to soldiers for example, or when it's an accident.
Theft is illegally taking something that doesn't belong to you.
If there's no law you are breaking, it's not theft. May still be bad, but it's not theft.
Anyone that makes the argument that taxes = theft only need to move themself to a nation that doesn't have taxes.
|
On January 30 2012 05:14 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act. Murder is the act of illegaly taking someones life on purpose. Which is why it isn't applied to soldiers for example, or when it's an accident. Theft is illegally taking something that doesn't belong to you. If there's no law you are breaking, it's not theft. May still be bad, but it's not theft. Anyone that makes the argument that taxes = theft only need to move themself to a nation that doesn't have taxes.
So murder is entirely a relative term. If a law got changed, them the definition of murder would change as well (if the law changed what would be considered murder).
|
On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Optimizing? How do you define that. Do you have some kind of magic formula for the perfect society you would like to share with us?
Certainly.
By evidence, looking at the world today, the most successful states are those that are democratically run based off capitalism with a lot of government control, decent control over law enforcement, with good public education, little to no civil unrest (or oppression by the government), and little to no immigration (immigration leads to tension) and are absolutely secure against foreign powers by virtue of international treaties and combined military might. In addition, freedom og press and little to no corruption is vital. Finland, Australia and Norway are among the very best today.
|
On January 30 2012 05:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:14 aebriol wrote:On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act. Murder is the act of illegaly taking someones life on purpose. Which is why it isn't applied to soldiers for example, or when it's an accident. Theft is illegally taking something that doesn't belong to you. If there's no law you are breaking, it's not theft. May still be bad, but it's not theft. Anyone that makes the argument that taxes = theft only need to move themself to a nation that doesn't have taxes. So murder is entirely a relative term. If a law got changed, them the definition of murder would change as well (if the law changed what would be considered murder).
Murder is a legal definition. So yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
+ Show Spoiler +The elements of common law murder are:
1.Unlawful
2.killing
3.of a human
4.by another human
5.with malice aforethought
|
On January 30 2012 05:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:14 aebriol wrote:On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act. Murder is the act of illegaly taking someones life on purpose. Which is why it isn't applied to soldiers for example, or when it's an accident. Theft is illegally taking something that doesn't belong to you. If there's no law you are breaking, it's not theft. May still be bad, but it's not theft. Anyone that makes the argument that taxes = theft only need to move themself to a nation that doesn't have taxes. So murder is entirely a relative term. If a law got changed, them the definition of murder would change as well (if the law changed what would be considered murder).
Well, there are different degrees of murder and manslaughter...
|
On January 30 2012 05:22 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Optimizing? How do you define that. Do you have some kind of magic formula for the perfect society you would like to share with us? Certainly. By evidence, looking at the world today, the most successful states are those that are democratically run based off capitalism with a lot of government control, decent control over law enforcement, with good public education, little to no civil unrest (or oppression by the government), and little to no immigration (immigration leads to tension) and are absolutely secure against foreign powers by virtue of international treaties and combined military might. In addition, freedom og press and little to no corruption is vital. Finland, Australia and Norway are among the very best today.
Succesfull state = optimized state = No corruption, high level education, safe against foreign powers.
I assume low immigration isn't a goal in it self (for you) but it makes it possible for the state to be succesful.
Anything you would like to add your optimized stats (any other quantifiable characteristics?)
|
On January 30 2012 05:16 Hider wrote:
So murder is entirely a relative term. If a law got changed, them the definition of murder would change as well (if the law changed what would be considered murder).
By definition, yes. I'm surprised how many people don't know this.
Which is also why the DEATH PENALTY = STATE-SANCTIONED MURDER people are so hilarious.
|
I happen to think that the term "murder" has a very real meaning completely independent of any legal system. But I guess according to the logic of some people, morality is defined by the dictate of the government which reigns over them.
|
On January 30 2012 05:22 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:16 Hider wrote:On January 30 2012 05:14 aebriol wrote:On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act. Murder is the act of illegaly taking someones life on purpose. Which is why it isn't applied to soldiers for example, or when it's an accident. Theft is illegally taking something that doesn't belong to you. If there's no law you are breaking, it's not theft. May still be bad, but it's not theft. Anyone that makes the argument that taxes = theft only need to move themself to a nation that doesn't have taxes. So murder is entirely a relative term. If a law got changed, them the definition of murder would change as well (if the law changed what would be considered murder). Murder is a legal definition. So yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder+ Show Spoiler +The elements of common law murder are:
1.Unlawful
2.killing
3.of a human
4.by another human
5.with malice aforethought
Well from the point of a laywer you need to have a lega definiton. From the point of the philosoph (or how its spelled) you don't need the same defintion. Actually you can't have a relative definition as I will be arguing.
Assume you were in racist country. You wanted to define a human, and the "legal" definition was a white man/woman. So in this case its completely obvivious that the government is having a stupid law, and that you can't have a definition that is affected by the law.
But this principle is always relevant. A definition has to be constant over time. Why? Because what is the next day the law in our countries changed and every kill of a man would be considered a murder. Then your definition of murder would change.
So in these kinds of debate a relative definition isn't relevant.
|
On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
That takes any meaning or significance out of the word. You could make anything theft or murder if you take that approach. Purpose is completely relevant when defining the act. Purpose is a significant part of both morality and law.
Well from the point of a laywer you need to have a lega definiton. From the point of the philosoph (or how its spelled) you don't need the same defintion. Actually you can't have a relative definition as I will be arguing.
Assume you were in racist country. You wanted to define a human, and the "legal" definition was a white man/woman. So in this case its completely obvivious that the government is having a stupid law, and that you can't have a definition that is affected by the law.
But this principle is always relevant. A definition has to be constant over time. Why? Because what is the next day the law in our countries changed and every kill of a man would be considered a murder. Then your definition of murder would change.
So in these kinds of debate a relative definition isn't relevant.
You're derailing the point with convoluted hypothetical situations to make a completely irrelevant point. In the context of this discussion and just about every discussion on the issue, there is a common, roughly drawn acceptance of what "theft" or whatever other issue you're talking about, is.
|
On January 30 2012 05:34 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
That takes any meaning or significance out of the word. You could make anything theft or murder if you take that approach. Purpose is completely relevant when defining the act. Purpose is a significant part of both morality and law.
Murder = could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how you view this. If you murder 10.000 people because they according to you violate your reglion. Then its probably a good thing according to those people who agree with the murder. They might consider the murder legal in their country (or according to their relglion), because the law says so. Yet it is still murder.
Because if we need to change the definition depending on whether its good or bad, then its an impossible task, because values are subjective. People have different opinion.
|
On January 30 2012 05:34 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
That takes any meaning or significance out of the word. You could make anything theft or murder if you take that approach. Purpose is completely relevant when defining the act. Purpose is a significant part of both morality and law. Show nested quote +Well from the point of a laywer you need to have a lega definiton. From the point of the philosoph (or how its spelled) you don't need the same defintion. Actually you can't have a relative definition as I will be arguing.
Assume you were in racist country. You wanted to define a human, and the "legal" definition was a white man/woman. So in this case its completely obvivious that the government is having a stupid law, and that you can't have a definition that is affected by the law.
But this principle is always relevant. A definition has to be constant over time. Why? Because what is the next day the law in our countries changed and every kill of a man would be considered a murder. Then your definition of murder would change.
So in these kinds of debate a relative definition isn't relevant. You're derailing the point with convoluted hypothetical situations to make a completely irrelevant point. In the context of this discussion and just about every discussion on the issue, there is a common, roughly drawn acceptance of what "theft" or whatever other issue you're talking about, is.
No Im prooving a poiont by making an extreme example to illustrate that having a legal definition makes no sense in this debate.
|
On January 30 2012 05:25 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:22 aebriol wrote:On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Optimizing? How do you define that. Do you have some kind of magic formula for the perfect society you would like to share with us? Certainly. By evidence, looking at the world today, the most successful states are those that are democratically run based off capitalism with a lot of government control, decent control over law enforcement, with good public education, little to no civil unrest (or oppression by the government), and little to no immigration (immigration leads to tension) and are absolutely secure against foreign powers by virtue of international treaties and combined military might. In addition, freedom og press and little to no corruption is vital. Finland, Australia and Norway are among the very best today. Succesfull state = optimized state = No corruption, high level education, safe against foreign powers. I assume low immigration isn't a goal in it self (for you) but it makes it possible for the state to be succesful. Anything you would like to add your optimized stats (any other quantifiable characteristics?)
Uhm, yeah ...
1) You are trying to make it seem like I said something I didn't.
2) If I want to make a case, it would be an optimized state succeeds in making the quality of life for the citizens as high as possible with every individual being as important as every other individual - and those that comes after. Sustainability is important (so huge debt is not optimal).
3) Studies have shown that great wealth does not equal happiness, but having a lot less than those around you or your neighbours, family and friends, leads to unhappiness. Therefore equality in itself means less unhappiness among those that otherwise would have little. However, too much equality is bad for the economy - exactly where the right mix is, depends on culture and society.
4) Equality under the law, and that people run the country in the direction they feel is wise, instead of the direction they are paid to run it (little corruption), and stability and security, is important to succeed for everyone and not just those that pay to have influence.
5) A good start in life, so everyone gets the opportunity to try to succeed, is vital because it leads to less dependends on the state and more people contributing to society.
6) Security is important: so low crime rates, and security against other nations aggression.
But high or low tax rates, big or small public sector, big or small military, how much government control, etc etc etc, would differ depending on the states resources and possibilities.
And as I said, looking at the world today, I find it very easy to point to Australia, Finland and Norway and say - these succeed better than most.
One could also argue definitions ... for example, a nations primary responsibility is to its citizens, but secondary to all the people within it's border, and when a state is dependent on immigration workers, or slaves, or females, or any other group without equal rights, it's really not clear that the happiness of the citizens alone is what should be measured. But that can be argued back and forth ...
If you want something similar to what I am saying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
Numbers are for 2005, before the current economic downturn which probably changes a lot of the numbers. But the overall idea is rather simple: democratic governments with focus on regulated capitalism does better than anything else.
|
On January 30 2012 05:40 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:34 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
That takes any meaning or significance out of the word. You could make anything theft or murder if you take that approach. Purpose is completely relevant when defining the act. Purpose is a significant part of both morality and law. Well from the point of a laywer you need to have a lega definiton. From the point of the philosoph (or how its spelled) you don't need the same defintion. Actually you can't have a relative definition as I will be arguing.
Assume you were in racist country. You wanted to define a human, and the "legal" definition was a white man/woman. So in this case its completely obvivious that the government is having a stupid law, and that you can't have a definition that is affected by the law.
But this principle is always relevant. A definition has to be constant over time. Why? Because what is the next day the law in our countries changed and every kill of a man would be considered a murder. Then your definition of murder would change.
So in these kinds of debate a relative definition isn't relevant. You're derailing the point with convoluted hypothetical situations to make a completely irrelevant point. In the context of this discussion and just about every discussion on the issue, there is a common, roughly drawn acceptance of what "theft" or whatever other issue you're talking about, is. No Im prooving a poiont by making an extreme example to illustrate that having a legal definition makes no sense in this debate.
Again, your point is irrelevant to our discussion. This is not a philosophy class that is discussing the meanings of certain terms - we are discussing a very specific topic (the idea that taxes are or are not theft) and certain basic assumptions are made for this discussion because we already have a context for the discussion (U.S. culture).
|
|
|
Is this supposed to connect to the discussion or is it a question for the sake of a different topic?
|
On January 30 2012 05:40 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 05:34 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2012 05:11 Hider wrote:
Murder is murder, theft is theft. The purpose isn't relevant when defining the act.
That takes any meaning or significance out of the word. You could make anything theft or murder if you take that approach. Purpose is completely relevant when defining the act. Purpose is a significant part of both morality and law. Well from the point of a laywer you need to have a lega definiton. From the point of the philosoph (or how its spelled) you don't need the same defintion. Actually you can't have a relative definition as I will be arguing.
Assume you were in racist country. You wanted to define a human, and the "legal" definition was a white man/woman. So in this case its completely obvivious that the government is having a stupid law, and that you can't have a definition that is affected by the law.
But this principle is always relevant. A definition has to be constant over time. Why? Because what is the next day the law in our countries changed and every kill of a man would be considered a murder. Then your definition of murder would change.
So in these kinds of debate a relative definition isn't relevant. You're derailing the point with convoluted hypothetical situations to make a completely irrelevant point. In the context of this discussion and just about every discussion on the issue, there is a common, roughly drawn acceptance of what "theft" or whatever other issue you're talking about, is. No Im prooving a poiont by making an extreme example to illustrate that having a legal definition makes no sense in this debate.
Actually, you are just proving that you don't understand english too well ... murder is a term that's defined legally. I don't know what else to tell you ... you don't use "murder" if you killed someone in self defense ... it's not "self defense murder" it's "self defense killing" or whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
