Questions Of Morality

Is it ever justified to initiate violence against a person who has not harmed/threatened anyone or damaged/stolen anyone else's property?

Is it ever justified to take another person's property by force if that person is not guilty of harming/threatening another person or damaging/stealing another person's property?

If a person is not a slave, which is to say they own their own body, is it ever justified to use violence against them in order to prevent them from doing harm to themselves?

Is it ever justified for you to use violence against an innocent person to take their property if you then hand that stolen property to a charitable organization that YOU felt needed the money more than the person you stole the property from?

Name an industry that historical world history demonstrates the State can run more efficiently than the private sector.

May Mao bless you and keep you; may Mao make his face shine upon you and expropriate your entire paycheck at gunpoint.

The answer to all four questions is yes if you are the United States. seeing as we have no problem committing any of those acts. That said I really don't get the point of this post. Trying to prove capitalism is the only correct economy?
There's a reason the private sector runs industries more efficiently than government ones. It's because they rip off their customers, their workers, and only care about making the most profit. So yes, they will be more efficient, but more people will be harmed just so they can make a buck.
"You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a blood-sucker" -Malcolm X
That said communism isn't a solution either, but I have a feeling the main reason you posted this is that you think the U.S. is headed towards communism. However, that's the complete opposite of what they are doing. Communism would take wealth from the wealthy and give it to the poor, as well as controlling many aspects of a person's life. Our government is heading towards fascism, not communism. They are increasing the gap between the rich and the poor(that's completely opposite of the main point of communism). They are trying control many aspects of our live's and that's fascism. Also, you don't need a dictator to install fascism.
Maybe you aren't worried about communism in the US as you shouldn't be, but every conservative I've talked to is so worried about it when in fact the exact opposite of communism is happening. Communism is just a catch-phrase Fox News throws around to scare conservatives.

reply to post by Ghost374


I am demonstrating that socialism is immoral and that voluntary markets produce prosperity.

Further, as the US has become more socialist, wealth disparity has increased.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Name an industry that historical world history demonstrates the State can run more efficiently than the private sector.

Military. mercs suck.

I guess it is somewhat ironic that the answer is violence. Government is exceptionally good at violence, and structure on when to use said violence.

um, wealth disparity decreases as socialism increases. The United States isn't anything close to socialism and so many conservatives are believing that to be so because of a lot of propaganda. We are so far away from socialism.

It's Fascism you should be worried about, not socialism.
There are many reasons why socialism/communism have failed in the past 200 years, and it's not because of any inherent flaws in their policies. It's because communism needs to be implemented in highly developed industrial nations. It's always been started in poor countries so it was always bound to fail there.
TPTB don't want socialism or communism because that would mean they would have to give up their wealth, and give it to people they've been ripping off for a hundred years. There's a reason TPTB have so much anti-socialism propaganda going around. There's a reason why the term Fascism hasn't been used in the media in a long time. That's because if you look up the definition of Fascism, that's what we almost are.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

May Mao bless you and keep you; may Mao make his face shine upon you and expropriate your entire paycheck at gunpoint.

I know you Americans are not to bright when it comes to history, but surely you know Mao is loing dead?
(Unless you were using Mao's name figuratively, in which case you're being stupid - just not quite as stupid as it seems at first glance!
Vicky

Well depends if you are talking about humans or serfs.

Are they serfs? Than you can do anything you want to them, that is the way of the Maoist right?

We must protect and preserve the collective. With this collective, there must be a ruling class that are above the serfs of course. Someone must be the director of the operation don't you think?

If they are human than this cannot apply.

But since there are only serfs on the planet to serve the collective, I would have to say anything goes for the collective.

All praise Mao and his brother Stalin.

edit to add-

May the FORCE be with Mao and his followers the progressives.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Name an industry that historical world history demonstrates the State can run more efficiently than the private sector.

Military. mercs suck.

I guess it is somewhat ironic that the answer is violence. Government is exceptionally good at violence, and structure on when to use said violence.

The military doesn't actually produce anything. That said, private security is a thousand times better than State security. Just look at our airports.

As for Mercs sucking, I would say they preform the job they were designed to do in a more efficient manner than the State. Of couse, they really are nothing more than a State industry since they would not exist without tax payer funding.

reply to post by Ghost374


History says otherwise.

Wealth disparity was far less before Medicare and socialist security, which take up the bulk of the federal budget and are both purely socialist programs.

Is it ever justified to initiate violence against a person who has not harmed/threatened anyone or damaged/stolen anyone else's property?

While ignorance is no defence to the law, it can reasoned into consideration of the conflict. This is a complex world and sometimes you do not find the line until after you have crossed it.

Is it ever justified to take another person's property by force if that person is not guilty of harming/threatening another person or damaging/stealing another person's property?

We all do what we can to survive, when the more civilised law break down the more primitive law return.

If a person is not a slave, which is to say they own their own body, is it ever justified to use violence against them in order to prevent them from doing harm to themselves?

This is a difficult and ethical dilemma. When the state of mind is in question protective measures do require a level of force to implement. There is still much about psychology and free will that does need to be learnt.

Is it ever justified for you to use violence against an innocent person to take their property if you then hand that stolen property to a charitable organization that YOU felt needed the money more than the person you stole the property from?

The concept of taxation has been with society for a very long time. It started as each member of the tribe had to pull their own weight for the community to survive and prosper. As cities grew financial methods where used to balance the the give and take between the individual and the community. As for where to draw the line has been an ongoing and difficult debate.

Name an industry that historical world history demonstrates the State can run more efficiently than the private sector.

Defence, not just armies, but social and legal protection. It is the concept of the state that unites the men and women during times of battle. Social security under industry is shocking and presents many serious conflicts of interest when left to private hands. For example how Coke a Cola sponsors a school, students wearing a Pepsi shirt are sent home. Regulation in the hands of industry also presents serious conflicts of interest. For example how Monsanto have basically written there own rules. Now bees are dying, seed banks disappearing, issues of pesticide interactions remain, super weeds appearing and more responsibility is given to financial rather than the social and environmental issues. GMO is a new complex endeavour, mistakes are to be expected, by not properly addressing all the issues our whole food industry and therefore our survival is at significant risk.

Capitalism has some great benefits as it promotes competition to help push us to achieve more with their lives. Who we are is based on competition, from the DNA processes that build us to our historical backgrounds that define us. However competition left unchecked quickly falls into conflict. As the referee walks away from the football match, the games can quickly turns into a melee, no one wins.

reply to post by kwakakev


A simple yes or no for each question will suffice.

I am unable to tell where you ultimately stand on any of those questions since you did not answer yes or no to any of them.

Also, I already demonstrated that private security is superior to public security services.

A monopoly on the use of force by one single institution leads to monopoly pricing and low quality services. This is true of police as it is true for shoe makers. There is no difference. The monopoly on the use of force by the State also leads to tyranny as a secondary effect.

For example, since the federal government has a monopoly on the military, it has lead to the civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Without a nationalized military, each state would have to compete with each other to fund their own national guards.

Thus we can say that the federal monopoly on military services has lead to at least 10 wars that never would have been fought if the federal government did not exist. I'm sure I'm missing several more wars in that list as well.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I was not aware that you wanted direct answers, it would be a lot simpler if everything was black and white.

Is it ever justified to initiate violence against a person who has not harmed/threatened anyone or damaged/stolen anyone else's property? No

Is it ever justified to take another person's property by force if that person is not guilty of harming/threatening another person or damaging/stealing another person's property? No

If a person is not a slave, which is to say they own their own body, is it ever justified to use violence against them in order to prevent them from doing harm to themselves? Yes . I do prefer the term 'force' over 'violence' as it presents a more restrained and targeted approach.

Is it ever justified for you to use violence against an innocent person to take their property if you then hand that stolen property to a charitable organization that YOU felt needed the money more than the person you stole the property from? Idealistically No, Realistically Yes. The law has been evolving for a very long time and there is still much injustice and lack of civilised mechanism to resolve issues of basic needs. I like to think it is an aim of the law to address these requirements.

I have performed some work in the private security services and I do agree that approach works well. With many different companies available it allows for more tailored services. It is not bound by problems of comprehension and human resources inherent with centralized management. I do agree that Monopolies are inefficient with competition as an important driving factor.

I can now see there was some miscommunication with the term 'defence' for the question state efficiency. I did not mean it as in the defence industry, but as the concept of defence in general. The state does reflect the culture of the community by establishing the rules and guidelines in which the population live. There are many conflicts of interest with establishing, investigating and enforcing these rules and a separation of powers important. The media also plays an important role with general oversight to these and other community issues.

The only state that I can think of that has tried a market based approach to the system of governance is America with the results failing as financial pressure was placed above public pressure. The culture of laws then started to reflect industry needs over the populations needs.

reply to post by kwakakev


To me, the answers are very black and white.

Society prospers the most when those moral values are not violated. When government, as well as the people, are expected to obey those moral values, the productive forces of the human mind are unleashed in ways that make the best violence driven social programs pale in comparison.

If people truly care about the poor, the sick, and the elderly, then they must believe in the non-aggression principle. Not only because it is morally just, but because it is the only way to increase the wealth and living standards of society as a whole.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I do see your point and it is a good call, a succinct encapsulation of basic morality.

If I could find any contention with it then it is in regards to people suffering significant mental health issues and having treatment against their wishes while in an unstable state. I agree that this should not be done violently, but the fact that any action against their wishes is taken could be viewed as violent. The basic tenant for a Doctors moral code is 'do no harm', however this is a grey area. Sometimes you have to cut off a leg to save a body or make matters worst before you can make them better. As a computer programmer I can understand your comfort with clear rules and regulations, but I can also see their limitations as the complexity grows and difficult decisions must be made.

I fully agree with society's prosperity based on a strong moral code. Most people know the difference between right and wrong and left to their own devices generally work to better themselves and the community. There are some cultural differences in the technicalities of moral behaviour between regions and population density can also have an effect on what is considered moral behaviour. I consider the best source for a universal framework for morality would be with the area of theology and in the common ground between all the major religions. This is an interesting topic and I will think on it some more.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Is it ever justified to initiate violence against a person who has not harmed/threatened anyone or damaged/stolen anyone else's property?

You are speaking about a preventative/preemptive assault... or assumed guilt.

The biggest headache to being a good guy, is always being the guy who gets hit first. After a while, you will tend to judge on presumed threat and act before you become a victim. That doesn't make it right... it just makes it human.

Is it ever justified to take another person's property by force if that person is not guilty of harming/threatening another person or damaging/stealing another person's property?

Private ownership of anything is a rather new concept. Prior to the Roman Empire, ownership was mostly based on your ability to maintain possession of your valuables. This is where that old axiom, 'Possession is 9/10 of the law' comes from. There was a time when being a good thief was an honored profession.

If a person is not a slave, which is to say they own their own body, is it ever justified to use violence against them in order to prevent them from doing harm to themselves?

This assumes the old majority directive; 'Harm not by will or neglect.' Nothing new here.

Is it ever justified for you to use violence against an innocent person to take their property if you then hand that stolen property to a charitable organization that YOU felt needed the money more than the person you stole the property from?

Robin Hood?

Name an industry that historical world history demonstrates the State can run more efficiently than the private sector.

Military. The hiring of mercenaries in place of a regular, national army of either conscripts or volunteers has always been foolhardy. Just ask the Romans.

Nice set of questions. Cheers

Originally posted by Ghost374
um, wealth disparity decreases as socialism increases.
...
It's Fascism you should be worried about, not socialism.

False. Actually with maximum state control there is maximum wealth disparity. The political class owns everything and everybody else is a serf.

This is regardless of what the political class chooses to dole out to the masses; in the end everything is theirs to dole out or keep for themselves as they choose. Now apply human nature and predict how the political class will behave. Hint: it's been the same every time so far in history.

Furthermore, pure fascism and pure socialism are identical in what it means for the average person. The only differences are in the structure at the top. Even those differences begin to vanish as the systems become more pure.

Think outside the box. A good rule of thumb is if you learned it in public school and it has anything to do with economics or government, it's probably false.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Society prospers the most when those moral values are not violated. When government, as well as the people, are expected to obey those moral values, the productive forces of the human mind are unleashed in ways that make the best violence driven social programs pale in comparison. If people truly care about the poor, the sick, and the elderly, then they must believe in the non-aggression principle. Not only because it is morally just, but because it is the only way to increase the wealth and living standards of society as a whole.

The problem with such a noble ideal is the basic human condition. To wit: People are not always entirely sympathetic to the needs of others. If this was not the case, there would be no wars, no crime, no famine... well, at least, not ignored famine.

We are a species that comes preloaded with a lot of self-interest. Dogs are much like us in this respect and is probably one reason why we get along so well. We understand the instinct of self preservation at all costs. And we understand greed... which is the desire to have something we may not necessarily need at the moment, but prefer to keep anyway.

The challenge for humanity is to rise above those most basic instincts and embrace the spiritual concepts of generosity and self sacrifice. But as you know, the physical manifest does not recognize any of those. It is an all or nothing deal. It's very primitive, very raw.

In fact, morality itself transcends all things physical. In the natural world, there is no caring for the stranger that doesn't include things like parental nurturing or symbiotic relationships.

You are not at all wrong to ask these questions because it is the challenge that has been placed before our kind to overcome these very things. The unfortunate reality, though, is that in the end, only a minority of our number will have succeeded... and even then, the majority will still not 'get it'.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by Ghost374
um, wealth disparity decreases as socialism increases.
...
It's Fascism you should be worried about, not socialism.

False. Actually with maximum state control there is maximum wealth disparity. The political class owns everything and everybody else is a serf.

That was beautiful.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by Ghost374
um, wealth disparity decreases as socialism increases.
...
It's Fascism you should be worried about, not socialism.

False. Actually with maximum state control there is maximum wealth disparity. The political class owns everything and everybody else is a serf.

That was beautiful.

Damn! And all this time I thought you were serious about morality.

In fact, you are just another political hack.

My bad.

reply to post by redoubt


You do make a lot of valid points redoubt, except for one thing. Most of these events happened during the dark ages. The laws where different back then, go back even further and things where even more savage. In the age of Man I currently see us at the Dim Ages soon to break into a new era of Enlightenment. Morality, responsibility and a better understanding of our place in the universe. With globalisation there have been a lot of culture shocks and religion has taken a beating, but still standing. Over time the systems of law and governance have improved, not perfect yet, but a lot better than what they use to be. The Earth is starting to unite a lot more cohesively, START treaty for example. Our planets moral cohesion does need to be better defined.