| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:20 Vegetarian wrote: I guess you only said that he was mostly correct, but farvacola seemed to be under the delusion that absent a government people can not know what is right or wrong. Where did I suggest such a thing? | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:00 Monsen wrote: I find it hilarious that people actually think that owning guns enables them to stand up to an oppressive government. If you assume that such an oppressive government doesn't get stopped by the safeguards in your constitution it would still have to be backed by the military. Now in that absurd scenario I'm sure that the US military would pee their pants when faced with the combined might of overweight, untrained citizens waving their pistols and guns about. I've got news for you: it's the 21st century. When the government is coming for your rights/freedom/liberty whatever you want to call it, it doesn't send soldiers. All it needs is a tv station. See: patriot act. To be fair, there'd also be the ex-military types, defectors from the current military, and the occasional nutter that goes to urban combat seminars. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan; this army that would supposedly mop up a guerilla resistance in the United States hasn't actually mopped up a guerilla resistance in either of those states despite a decade of effort. | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:17 TerribleNoobling wrote: Rebel groups, engaged in a struggle to control the state apparatus, are really just competing states. The key definition of a state is an organization with a monopoly on violence and arbitrage in a certain geographic region - this certainly fits with territory under rebel control. I don't dispute that there are private criminals, individuals that do bad things - but they don't hold a candle to the organized crime that is the state. Narcomafia's practice retail violence; the state is the wholesaler. You are naming organizations but not events. When were the atrocities, on the scale of Mao's murder of tens of millions during the great leap forward? of the tens of millions imprisoned and worked to death in Soviet Gulags, or simply murdered by the NKVD or KGB for criticizing or being accused of criticizing the state? When did the East India Company ever do anything that remotely compared to what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia? All states systematically loot and pillage the society's they rule. They force people to buy things they don't want. They are disastrous to the economy, with their never ending rules and regulations and taxes. They enrich the politically powerful at the expense of those who are not powerful. The only good state is a dead state. Did you miss the proportionality argument I made. There is no company or other non-state actor with the power even close to the Soviet or Chinese government. So of course there won't be examples of that. I thought of writing up what East India Company did in India which would probably top Khmer Rouge causalties, but your definition of state makes East India Company into a state. Of course that means that the biggest non-state actors are small and by nature of that size and small access to power cannot compare to the states in atrocities inflicted. But that is the issue with size and available power not state vs non-state status. The rest of your post is nonsensical rant unsupported by anything, so I am not responding to it. Plus you are completely naive if you think that it is possible to have society without state. Whatever you think about states you cannot avoid them, especially not if you use your definition of state. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:20 Vegetarian wrote: I guess you only said that he was mostly correct, but farvacola seemed to be under the delusion that absent a government people can not know what is right or wrong. No, he did not. This discussion about morality was completely outside of the parallel discussion about states. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:30 TerribleNoobling wrote: Why do you guys assume, given a battle between the people and the government, that the military is going to side with the government? We don't. That's one of the prerequisites for your argument having any value. If the military sides with the people then we don't need civilians to have guns anyway because we'd have tanks, artillery, and air support. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:30 TerribleNoobling wrote: Why do you guys assume, given a battle between the people and the government, that the military is going to side with the government? Who cares? The fact we have guns makes that point irrelevant. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:22 TerribleNoobling wrote: Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy is useless because you cannot predict the impact of an action, since effects are also causes and we're not omniscient. Since it cannot advise you on how to act - which is the point of morality - there is no point in considering this approach. Stealing is always wrong. Property is owned by individuals. It is an act of aggression to take another's property without their consent. Simply because someone benefits more than another is harmed is no justification for aggression - and this line of reasoning implies that any and all acts of forced redistribution from rich to poor is justified (i.e. you have laid the moral groundwork for a hobbesian war of all against all). After all, there is generally a diminishing marginal utility to anything, money included (that is to say you would value the first $1 you have more than the 1001st dollar you have) and you can create a net positive any time you robbed anyone richer than yourself! As to your first point, from any utilitarian standpoint, stealing is not inherently wrong. If theft is necessary to your survival, and the material stolen is not necessary to the survival of its original owner, then that transaction creates a net positive. Please quote what you are reacting to so it is actually clear. Utilitarianism is useless only in the same sense as science is useless. You cannot know if the next experiment with the same setup will work the same. An yet science is a useful tool, because we assume that universe works in this way. Practical utilitarianism makes the same assumption. You can predict reasonably well. And if you predict wrongly, you can use that information to predict next event better. In reality perfection is nonsensical requirement. Working better than other approaches is enough. But I am not utilitarianist. Utilitarianism is, like all moral systems, just an attempt to approximate the "actual" morality we humans use. Some attempts are better, some are worse. Utilitarianism is pretty good one, but it has its flaws. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:30 TerribleNoobling wrote: Why do you guys assume, given a battle between the people and the government, that the military is going to side with the government? Nobody does. But if they don't then armed populace is irrelevant. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:30 TerribleNoobling wrote: Why do you guys assume, given a battle between the people and the government, that the military is going to side with the government? small example is gwangju massacre where the military killed civilians, students because the administration labeled the whole city as operation base for communist rebels. communication was cut in and out of the city, media reported the city was taken over by communists. the truth was it was a democratic movement/protest. not sure if the same thing can happen with internet but just saying, military moves depending on the information they have, fabricated or not. | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
You can predict reasonably well. No you cannot. Let's take a simple act. You see a man drowning to death. So you save him. That's good right? You saved a life. Surely you've made that person happy! Maximized his utility. But what if he was a psychopath? Or what if he was a great person, who happens to give birth to the person who ends up destroying humanity in thermo nuclear warfare? It's simply impossible to say what will result from anything. | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
On December 23 2012 04:55 jinorazi wrote: small example is gwangju massacre where the military killed civilians, students because the administration labeled the whole city as operation base for communist rebels. communication was cut in and out of the city, media reported the city was taken over by communists. the truth was it was a democratic movement/protest. not sure if the same thing can happen with internet but just saying, military moves depending on the information they have, fabricated or not. Woah! I had no idea that South Korea had a coup d'etat in the 80's. Hardly the only example of the military killing civilians, Tiananmen Square comes to mind or on a lesser scale Columbia in '68 (although that was police and more limited). | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
Did you miss the proportionality argument I made. So you will admit that I am right and you are wrong? That's fantastic! | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12026 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:02 TerribleNoobling wrote: No you cannot. Let's take a simple act. You see a man drowning to death. So you save him. That's good right? You saved a life. Surely you've made that person happy! Maximized his utility. But what if he was a psychopath? Or what if he was a great person, who happens to give birth to the person who ends up destroying humanity in thermo nuclear warfare? It's simply impossible to say what will result from anything. That is because you are expecting perfect predictions. In a world with limited information you need to make predictions based on that. Since you do not know anything about that person and chance he is psychopath is low so probabilistic decision is to save his life. Just because it does not give you perfect predictions does not mean it is useless. Your scenarios are pretty out there and very improbable, thus it is not really an issue to not take into account those probabilities when making a decision. Even with all those limitations you can still predict reasonably well, your example requires perfect prediction. I said reasonable. Your scenarios are improbable so ignoring them still makes the prediction reasonable. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:02 TerribleNoobling wrote: No you cannot. Let's take a simple act. You see a man drowning to death. So you save him. That's good right? You saved a life. Surely you've made that person happy! Maximized his utility. But what if he was a psychopath? Or what if he was a great person, who happens to give birth to the person who ends up destroying humanity in thermo nuclear warfare? It's simply impossible to say what will result from anything. And at the same time it is equally impractical to deal in ultimates. Which is also why any law system has multiple degrees of murder as some are "worse" than other despite the net outcome being the same. I get that you like Kant and all, but that still does not make morals objective. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:11 Simberto wrote: And another random anarchist appears and turns a thread about a completely different subject into an anarchism debate. With less then 20 posts before he started doing this, nonetheless. Good work there. It is really interesting that people still take those guys seriously. Right thanks for pointing it out, had not noticed that. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:07 TerribleNoobling wrote: So you will admit that I am right and you are wrong? That's fantastic! You are dishonest little troll. You are still taking things out of context and strawmaning people. I am not really surprised as that is exactly modus operandi of all anarcho-capitalists I met. I said that no matter if it is a state or not, organizations with a lot of power will have a lot of atrocities on their hands. Since states are organizations with the most power they have most atrocities on their hands. But proportionally they are not any worse than unchecked corporations or other organizations. And I actually provided you examples, but you, again dishonestly, included them all under states or dismissed them without reason. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:11 Simberto wrote: And another random anarchist appears and turns a thread about a completely different subject into an anarchism debate. With less then 20 posts before he started doing this, nonetheless. Good work there. It is really interesting that people still take those guys seriously. Actually he had 3-4 posts when he started. Probably registered to do that. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On December 23 2012 05:18 mcc wrote: Actually he had 3-4 posts when he started. Probably registered to do that. Nah, the account has existed since 2010, so he didn't just register for this crap, but his only two posts outside this thread that I can find are both firmly in the tinfoil headgear department. | ||
| ||
|
|
Big Brain Bouts
Rex vs INexorable
GgMaChine vs HeRoMaRinE
Reynor vs herO
Online Event
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Patches Events
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
