The Late Andrew Ryan:No. You confuse the terms "good" and nice with "moral". This is my entire problem, those with whom I come into contact with are good, fun, caring, and in their everyday lives very respectable. If this was not the case I would have no problem disconnecting myself with them. You can be nice but still be immoral. Think of a murderer who is polite, respectful, and kind to you but is still plotting the murder of others. This man is nice and kind but still immoral. Those around me are by and large nice people but they advocate force and coersion to attain their ends and I'm having difficulty figuring out how to deal with these people
No, I am actually saying you can be a moral person while supporting a state. I do not think it is always wrong to violate the NAP.
The Late Andrew Ryan: No. You confuse the terms "good" and nice with "moral". This is my entire problem, those with whom I come into contact with are good, fun, caring, and in their everyday lives very respectable. If this was not the case I would have no problem disconnecting myself with them. You can be nice but still be immoral. Think of a murderer who is polite, respectful, and kind to you but is still plotting the murder of others. This man is nice and kind but still immoral. Those around me are by and large nice people but they advocate force and coersion to attain their ends and I'm having difficulty figuring out how to deal with these people
for the sake of your inner peace, i would counsel you to reserve your disgust for those 'active' participants in statism. simple taxpayers who don't know better than to cast a vote; well, to explore how you feel about any given one of them, maybe ask them whether they would volunteer up money for the monopolist system if the taxman came and gave them special immunity from ever needing to pay taxes. If they go on like they want to voluntarily bankroll the state, feel free to feel funny about them, and start working on them. if their eyes start to get all dreamy like they're imagining being able to keep all their own property for a change, maybe they arent your enemies but have just adopted a statist advocacy position as a form of cognitive dissonance self-defence to lessen their pain at being coerced.
he didn't mean to hit me officer.........wake up america!
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: ok, but do you believe in 'evil' entities?
ok, but do you believe in 'evil' entities?
Yes, but only to my or someone else's perspectives. Statism is evil to me, and it may be evil to you, but that doesn't make Statism evil. It may not have been evil to the first cavemen who mastered it, who preferred a social contract of aggression rather than individualism, thus fending for oneself in the wilderness etc. I'm not saying it was a good or evil decision, I'm just saying I wouldn't comply to statism even back then because I would've SEEN it as evil.
Eric: The Late Andrew Ryan:No. You confuse the terms "good" and nice with "moral". This is my entire problem, those with whom I come into contact with are good, fun, caring, and in their everyday lives very respectable. If this was not the case I would have no problem disconnecting myself with them. You can be nice but still be immoral. Think of a murderer who is polite, respectful, and kind to you but is still plotting the murder of others. This man is nice and kind but still immoral. Those around me are by and large nice people but they advocate force and coersion to attain their ends and I'm having difficulty figuring out how to deal with these people No, I am actually saying you can be a moral person while supporting a state. I do not think it is always wrong to violate the NAP.
All the statists and Keynesians will look up and shout "Save Us!" and I'll wisper "No."
Stranger: Evil has cast a spell on them. You have broken from it, but the fact that they haven't yet doesn't mean they are evil themselves.
Evil has cast a spell on them. You have broken from it, but the fact that they haven't yet doesn't mean they are evil themselves.
I don't know if it's coherent to consider individuals evil. Evil consequences flow from decisions and ideas at odds with reality, but the ideas themselves are not evil, nor are the people who hold them - they are simply mistaken, though sometimes wilfully so.
Frederick the Great“I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right.”"Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand.”
The Late Andrew Ryan: In what cases is it ok?
Lets say a little kid falls out of a tree and breaks his neck on my property. He cannot move, and his parents run over to bring him to the hospital. However, since I acquired the property legitimately, I tell the parents they cannot come on my property. Do I think it is immoral for the parents to violate my property rights? No.
That is just one example, but I can imagine many. But I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I am an AnCap. But the NAP is not the way to go in my opinion.
TelfordUS:Yes, but only to my or someone else's perspectives. Statism is evil to me, and it may be evil to you, but that doesn't make Statism evil.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Eric: The Late Andrew Ryan: In what cases is it ok? Lets say a little kid falls out of a tree and breaks his neck on my property. He cannot move, and his parents run over to bring him to the hospital. However, since I acquired the property legitimately, I tell the parents they cannot come on my property. Do I think it is immoral for the parents to violate my property rights? No. That is just one example, but I can imagine many. But I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I am an AnCap. But the NAP is not the way to go in my opinion.
One does not have to support the NAP to find the objectionable, one could simply be a Propertarian or Scroogian-Commercialist-Reactionary. I don't consider people to be 'evil' in any case, and I would certainly understand someone attempting to retrieve their child but I also wouldn't have any objection if you had a 50' barbed wire fence and neglected to open the gate for them. The kid shouldn't have been on your property to begin with, after all. What happens to children I can see in no way to be legally more important than what happens to adults, if anything, just the reverse.
Snowflake: TelfordUS:Yes, but only to my or someone else's perspectives. Statism is evil to me, and it may be evil to you, but that doesn't make Statism evil. How can you use terms like evil subjectively but then turn around and use them in the objective sense: X is evil to me not that doesn't mean it is evil.For all your reliance on merely the *perception* of evil, you seem to also rely on the objective concept.Nietzsche you silly billy.
How can you use terms like evil subjectively but then turn around and use them in the objective sense: X is evil to me not that doesn't mean it is evil.For all your reliance on merely the *perception* of evil, you seem to also rely on the objective concept.Nietzsche you silly billy.
:3
By "evil to me," I mean destructive to my plan of living, as in I don't want statism. But that doesn't make the concept of statism itself evil. Just because I don't believe in it, doesn't mean the idea is covered in a blanket with the word "evil" in the stitches (that would just be bigotry!).
TelfordUS:By "evil to me," I mean destructive to my plan of living
TelfordUS:But that doesn't make the concept of statism itself evil
Edmund Carlyle: I don't consider people to be 'evil' in any case, and I would certainly understand someone attempting to retrieve their child but I also wouldn't have any objection if you had a 50' barbed wire fence and neglected to open the gate for them.
This is where we disagree. You think it is moral to prevent a kids parents from saving their child's life, while I do not. All you would need to do in the scenario is allow the parents on your property for 2 minutes. That's it. Imagine if you were the parent of the kid. Even though I cannot say with certainty, my guess would be that you would change your mind.
Speaking of useless terms... I find the need to use an-cap much less often nowadays. What alternative to the NAP do you suggest I consider?
For your sociopathic hypothetical, it is possible that no judge would hear such a case. What sort of punishment might be appropriate for minor trespass like this anyway? Some standard fine like $20-30 tops might be common, so the parents would just pay the fine and say, "Hey asshole, my kid was laying there dying."
Why does many a man write? Because he does not possess enough character not to write. ---Karl Kraus.
Snowflake: How can you use the word in this sense if you only advance a moral theory of subjective preferences.
How can you use the word in this sense if you only advance a moral theory of subjective preferences.
Because my personal laws and preferences don't extend to the personal laws and preferences of others. I don't try to dictate what's good and evil to someone else through force, and I expect others to treat me the same way.
TelfordUS:Because my personal laws and preferences don't extend to the personal laws and preferences of others.
You think it is moral to prevent a kids parents from saving their child's life, while I do not.
Again, why are children exceptional? Why would this not be identical to some wandering homeless man sneaking onto my property and the salvation army demanding entrance to save his life? The deification of the child I find to be one of the most absurd and easily exploited human failings. "For the children" is the excuse for probably 60% of the sadistic lunacy that passes for government in the past two centuries.
Snowflake: Perhaps you do not mean to and simply misarticulated a few times..
Perhaps you do not mean to and simply misarticulated a few times..
Yes actually, I think it's just HOW i'm arguing this, and not WHAT i'm arguing. I apologize.
TelfordUS: Snowflake: How can you use the word in this sense if you only advance a moral theory of subjective preferences. Because my personal laws and preferences don't extend to the personal laws and preferences of others. I don't try to dictate what's good and evil to someone else through force, and I expect others to treat me the same way.
What if they don't "do unto others"? How will your legal system work when I can stab you and say that I don't believe it is wrong?
E. R. Olovetto:Speaking of useless terms... I find the need to use an-cap much less often nowadays.
I have been swinging back and forth on this for a while. But I havent heard of anything better, so I just refer to myself as an AnCap.
E. R. Olovetto:What alternative to the NAP do you suggest I consider?
First I need to know if you believe in objective ethics or not. I don't want to get too off topic, so I can PM you on this point if you want.
E. R. Olovetto:For your sociopathic hypothetical, it is possible that no judge would hear such a case. What sort of punishment might be appropriate for minor trespass like this anyway? Some standard fine like $20-30 tops might be common, so the parents would just pay the fine and say, "Hey asshole, my kid was laying there dying."
I don't know what the punishment would be. I don't know if the parents would even be punished. But whether or not the parents are punished for their actions has nothing to do with whether or not they acted immorally. But really, do you honestly feel like the parents acted immorally?
The Late Andrew Ryan:Mmm. Thnks for the advice. I'm just having a hard time getting over how disgusting the whole situation is.
Yes, I've only been an Anarchist for a short while now. Maybe three months confirmed? They just had the VA Governor election here, and all of the local liberals (well, blacksburg is a dominate liberal town...) are crying that Bob McDonnell won.. which is disgusting. I've been tempted on several occasions to say something, but I have yet to do so.
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap