It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Truth = Peace?

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You are the reason war still exists.


Private Property and greed are why we still have wars.

With Love,

Your Brother




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I am defending them, and their position is that the initiation of violence is wrong.

If you want to demonstrate how Rothbard and Locke are wrong, then you have to demonstrate why the initiation of violence is legitimate.

If you agree with my position that the initiation of violence is always wrong, then you are an anarcho-capitalist and there is no argument between us.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Lies are why war exists.

Not property or greed.

If you want to claim property or greed are the cause of wars, then you must explain why libertarian property rights are logically wrong and how acting in ones self-interest while adhering to the non-aggression principle leads to violence.

Clearly they do not.


edit on 23-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Mutual initiation of violence through sports.. boxing, martial arts, paintball etc?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by hastur
Mutual initiation of violence through sports.. boxing, martial arts, paintball etc?


perfectly acceptable.

it is a voluntary interaction.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Not every one is like that and those that are usually end up doing the taxing under the threat of violence. Guess what the world is full of places like that. Actually almost the whole world is like that and these people have many serfs to do their "surviving" for them.

If it happens everywhere wouldn't you say that is truth and reality? And also since it seems to follow similar patterns wouldn't it most probably be natural?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Not everyone is like that because those people are lying to themselves.

Hence, why I wrote this article.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How are they lying to themselves? The believe that robbing you is an easy way to make their wealth grow and it's true. Where are the lies?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How are they lying to themselves? The believe that robbing you is an easy way to make their wealth grow and it's true. Where are the lies?


The belief that they are entitled to the fruit of another mans labor more than the man who labored to produce it is a self-rationalization that must take place before a person can engage in violent theft.

This is a direct violation of the non-aggression principle, in which case it can be demonstrated to be against what we know to be true.

A person must believe they are more entitled to another persons property than the actual property owner, and that would be believing a lie.

edit on 23-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How are they lying to themselves? The believe that robbing you is an easy way to make their wealth grow and it's true. Where are the lies?


The belief that they are entitled to the fruit of another mans labor more than the man who labored to produce it is a self-rationalization that must take place before a person can engage in violent theft.

This is a direct violation of the non-aggression principle, in which case it can be demonstrated to be against what we know to be true.


Your the one who is lying to himself if you believe that giving a tyrant a copy of the non-aggressión principle will stop him. And even worst off if you think that having discovered "Natural Law" will actually change the real natural law of the world "Survival of the fittest".



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


If someone is violating the non-aggression principle, people have a right to defend themselves against such an individual.

Further, it is only when such an individual has convinced enough people to believe his lies and follow into doing harm against their own neighbors that he can become a tyrant in the classical sense.

Of course, if the actions of many are still against what we know to be true, it does not make their actions morally right or just.


edit on 23-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you agree with my position that the initiation of violence is always wrong, then you are an anarcho-capitalist and there is no argument between us.


The initiation of violence is always wrong. Not because I follow the capitalist doctrine of greed and worldly wealth, but because my treasure is love for mankind.

I am not an anarcho-capitalist, I am a follower of Christ.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


What religion you believe in is immaterial.

If you don't believe in the initiation of violence against the innocent, then by default you must be an anarcho-capitalist.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Unless the person was grossly negligent in their actions, then they are innocent of intent.


That is the crux of the problem……

“Grossly negligent” isn’t a logical term
That is because “gross” isn’t a logical value.
Yes/No is logical values.
You are, or you are not negligent.
There is no mushy area in between.

If your negligence caused something, it is irrelevant on how negligent you are because the result is the same.

To say that someone is grossly negligent because they did something that they knew could result in an accident would imply that a pilot is grossly negligent for crashing a plane because he knows that trying to fly a plane in the air may result in a crash.

Basing gross negligence on the variance from guidelines on how stuff should be done is irrelevant because guidelines are arbitrary. Some civilizations may have a guideline that flying vehicles are banned because they have a tendency to crash. So that makes the fact that a repair company didn’t follow the repair guidelines on a part of the wing kind of irrelevant because by other standards, the plane shouldn’t be allowed in the air in the first place because flying one in the first place is “gross negligence”.

You can’t logically base innocence on “gross” anything. It is a yes or no question. A fact that there was an accident means that there was negligence somewhere, and that there are people that are responsible.

So the question becomes…….. If there is someone that is going to suffer violence/damage/loss as a result of someone else’s negligence, and the only way for them to stop the other person from causing them violence/damage/loss is a violent defense, then are they justified in using violence to defend themselves?



Bottom line is that it would be irrational for the person who was harmed to initiate violence against the other over an accident, so the non-aggression principle still applies.


And that is the second crux of the problem……..
How do you know it’s an accident until after the fact?
When you see a situation playing out before your eyes, and it is reasonable to assume the result will be many deaths, you can’t assume that they are doing something on accident or by intention. When you see that heavy vehicle pulling across the railroad track with the high speed train coming, how do you know it’s by accident, or intent?

How do you know if you are justified in using your gun to shoot the truck driver dead to save the lives of the people on the train?

Irrelevant of his intention to derail/destroy the train, you shooting him dead to stop him from doing it, and will save many lives.

To accept the premise that there can be an accident means that there isn’t absolute truth/knowledge which means that you can’t know if it was an accident or intentional until after the fact. Which means that by the time you determined that you had justification to defend yourself against it, it is too late to do anything about it. To defend yourself from it before it happens, then that means that you can’t assume intent, because you can’t know the intent of every person that “causes every accident”/”commits every crime” until after the accident has already happened.

So, there is no logical way for your construct to be valid.

The concept of accidents, or self defense in an “absolute truth” world is illogical because to admit their existence is to disprove the absoluteness of the truth. If it is impossible to have absolute truth then it is impossible to know if you are defending yourself from an innocent or guilty person.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
What religion you believe in is immaterial.


I did not say anything about religion.



Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you don't believe in the initiation of violence against the innocent, then by default you must be an anarcho-capitalist.


This is a lie. You do not acknowledge the truth of the violence innate in capitalism.

That is your choice. You will see the pains of it soon enough.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


Yes, if a person sees that an accident is about to cause harm to another, they are legitimately entitled to use force to prevent that accident from occurring if possible.

The same is not true of property though, since property can always be replaced.

They are not entitled to initiate violence though for any reason.

This isn't rocket science here, its mostly common sense.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Demonstrate how violence arises from voluntary interactions.

Your claim is baseless.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by daskakik
 


If someone is violating the non-aggression principle, people have a right to defend themselves against such an individual.

Further, it is only when such an individual has convinced enough people to believe his lies and follow into doing harm against their own neighbors that he can become a tyrant in the classical sense.

Of course, if the actions of many are still against what we know to be true, it does not make their actions morally right or just.


I never said it was morally right or just just that it's real. Of course people have a right to defend themselves but natural law states that the fittest will prevail be that the person that initiated the violence or the inocent.

The problem is that "Natural Law" as discovered by Locke et al isn't natural and it isn't a law. It's a good idea but it doesn't have to be followed. Unlike the laws of physics a person can be ignorant of it or even choose to act in opposition of it. You can't say the same about gravity or thermodynamics.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No. Truth leads to independents. Which can in many ways lead to more war.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


It's not an idea, it is what reality is.

Choosing not to believe reality does not change what reality actually is.




top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join