Questions Of Morality

Originally posted by redoubt

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.

That was an ad hom.

reply to post by kwakakev


Nice reply, thank you.

I addressed the OP here twice, in length, and all he/she/it had time for was crediting the political.

I got better things to do than play baby sitter to political dime pickers.

Best

Originally posted by kwakakev
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.

I think the laws and governance has devolved.

Coercively funded government creates global wars - global wars were not possible before the formation of coercively funded government.

reply to post by redoubt


Your logic is so bad that it is not necessary to even offer a refutation of it.

Hence, I didn't bother responding to it.

reply to post by mnemeth1

I think the laws and governance has devolved.

I expect that is because you are on the inside looking out. It sounds very much like you work in the system, you can see the problems. I am on the outside looking in, I have had my spankings and it kept me in line.

Coercively funded government creates global wars - global wars were not possible before the formation of coercively funded government.

These days are coming to an end, that is what the United Nations START treaty is about. All the major armies of the world are tired of playing toy soldiers and have banded together. China is the last main player yet to sign up, but I expect they are waiting for the global economy to get sorted out before they do.

reply to post by kwakakev


You mean treaties are going to stop global wars?

How so?

Didn't forcing Germany to accept the Treaty of Versailles and its tyrannical impositions bring Hitler to power?

Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required Germany to accept sole responsibility for causing the war and, under the terms of articles 231–248 (later known as the War Guilt clauses), to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay heavy reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. The total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion, £6,600 million) in 1921 which is roughly equivalent to US$ 385 billion in 2011

Had the US not entered WWI and forced Germany into the Versailles treaty, Hitler would never had gotten the political ammunition he needed to come to power.

Violence begets violence.

The State is violence.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I am not sure how many treaty's have been made over the years, perhaps tens of thousands. Some where con jobs, some where under duress and some where made on equal terms. I have not been through all the legalisation involved with START, but from the reviews and current understanding it looks like this one was made on equal terms. Sure, there maybe some conflict that fractures it as it is still young, but not without a lot of debate and negotiation to look for another resolution first.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I am not sure how many treaty's have been made over the years, perhaps tens of thousands. Some where con jobs, some where under duress and some where made on equal terms. I have not been through all the legalisation involved with START, but from the reviews and current understanding it looks like this one was made on equal terms. Sure, there maybe some conflict that fractures it as it is still young, but not without a lot of debate and negotiation to look for another resolution first.

My point is that treaties may be good or bad, but ultimately they are no security against global war.

What prevents global war is taking away the tools to wage it from power mad kleptocrats.

Dismantling the State is the only way to ensure global wars are never waged again.

Those tools are:

The power to tax
The power to conscript and enslave
The power to wage violence against the innocent

In order for a global war to be fought, the State must necessarily engage in war against its own people through taxation and conscription.

reply to post by mnemeth1

What prevents global war is taking away the tools to wage it from power mad kleptocrats. Dismantling the State is the only way to ensure global wars are never waged again.

Yes, I do have the power mad kleptocrats in my sights. The aim is to reform the state. Not sure if you have seen it yet: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by kwakakev


The State acts in exactly the same manner as a mafia.

It comes around to the productive members of society and takes their earnings at gun point.

Then it spends those earnings as it sees fit.

Is not what you are saying like hoping to reform the mafia?

Why attempt to reform violent looters?

Isn't it more just to simply rid the world of their presence?

reply to post by mnemeth1

Is not what you are saying like hoping to reform the mafia?

There are 3 main ways to do this, do nothing, riot or work through it. The first two options will get messy and could very much get out of hand. The third option will take a little longer but hopefully find a better balance between the opposing forces.

Why attempt to reform violent looters?

There are many reasons behind this, it is not clear cut goodies vs badies. To reform the system it needs to be exposed and handled gently. There are many serious issues going on, many people with a good understanding of what is going on. A lot of social infrastructure, a lot of lives. It is messy, but really nothing new for Earth.

Isn't it more just to simply rid the world of their presence?

There maybe some that fit that profile, but that is a matter for due course. Since releasing this a couple of weeks ago there have been a lot of positive changes take place. It is going to take time to dig through the detail and sort out the facts from the fiction and is still a long road ahead. This is part of the Enlightenment stage, accepting responsibility. With it comes liberty, freedom with responsibility.

reply to post by kwakakev


Yeah, but you seem to be advocating more centralized government, which history shows us is the exact opposite of what creates peace and prosperity.

Wouldn't ending violent looting begin by reducing the looting?

reply to post by mnemeth1


There are some issues that affect the globe and need to be managed as such. There are other issues that affect nations and require their own systems. State, local and other communities all require there systems of governance to properly manage the different cultural issues. One thing strikes out when travelling around, no two places are the same. Diversity is present and propagates not just across Earth, but throughout the universe. Trying to fight against diversity is a losing battle, by embracing and supporting it is the same as giving a strong moral code to the community. The main issue here is sustainability. The Earth will find it one way or another, I am working towards the way that makes the most of the potential that is available.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Wouldn't ending violent looting begin by reducing the looting?

Yes, that is what I am advocating for. It has taken many years for the looting to reach the stage it has. It is going to take time to turn this trend around. Any sudden and dramatic effects can have significant knock on effects, expected and unexpected. This is a very delicate time for Earth. Stories from around the galaxy indicate that things can go horribly wrong during times like this with the remaining population reduced to barbarians. Slowly and steady, one step at a time.

reply to post by Vicky32

I know you Americans are not to bright when it comes to history, but surely you know Mao is loing dead?

Americans are actually really good at history. We just like to write our own.

Since we are playing the sweeping generalization game, Kiwi's must not understand context.


On the OP's OP.

Dear Statists,

Don't hurt others. Don't cheat. Don't steal.

We all learn this when we are little. Morality is lost when you turn your back on these ideas. At some point you forgot and fell in line to a system that does the opposite. You hurt others. You cheat people. You steal. You have nothing to stand on but the fact that you and your kind are pointing a gun at my head. I only obey your commands under extreme duress. I condemn your behavior, but I appreciate your allowing me to speak these truths. Please change your ways, our species is dependant on it. May God, if there is one, have mercy on your lost, lost soul. For your sake, I pray that there is no God.

Your peaceful neighbor,
DINSTAAR

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by Vicky32

 

I know you Americans are not to bright when it comes to history, but surely you know Mao is loing dead?

Americans are actually really good at history. We just like to write our own.

Since we are playing the sweeping generalization game, Kiwi's must not understand context.

DINSTAAR [/qu
You write your own, yes indeed!

Hollywood is especially adept at that... there are too many examples to bother giving!
However I must say, you do sound somewhat of a Randbot!
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


What is a "Randbot"?

Someone who hates violence?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Vicky32

 

What is a "Randbot"?

Someone who hates violence?

No, a Randbot is someone who spouts #e.. er who spouts the words of Ayn Rand almost without thought... Rand showed no particular dislike of violence, provided it was directed against her ideological enemies...
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


So basically you think someone that wants to be left alone and is against the use of violence is an evil person.

reply to post by Vicky32


Ayn Rand.... meh... she's got some great ideas and the fact that she reaches people with a libertarian message is useful, but she is a flaming hypocrit.

I don't read Ayn Rand for this reason....

She and I part ways on many issues, but this one is the dealbreaker. She is an intellectual elitist. Its not that she is elite, but that she feels entitled to her ideas as if she, herself, were the savior of mankind and all should pay their dues. Her ideas on intellectual property are gastly.

As you mentioned, she is more than willing to use the violence of government for her own use. Her idea that IDEAS themselves in published materials can be monopolized is strange and erroneous.

Objectivists miss wide on ethical and practical realities.

Randians are dogmatic, botlike (like you say), and just as delusional about the role of the state as any other statist. To think that a government of a specific kind (thier own words) can exist without going outside the preset barriers is wildly insane. Ayn Rand said it can work, so Objectivists believe it so. All the while, ignoring thier own sense perception that this type of system cannot benefit the individual.

As it is not in the nature of horses to meow and climb trees, it is not in the nature of any government to stay within its preset boundries.

Like the idea that we must end violence and corruption by giving the most violent, corrupt people the power.

Ayn Rand does a lot for the liberty movement, but her ideas are blindly taken to heart with the dogmatic fury that other religions have exhibited throughout history. Objectivists, mostly, are exclusive, elitist, and by no means as intelligent as they think they are and are, I believe, a detriment to the liberty movement.

I hope this clears up my relation to Rand and her ilk.