Living Student

This is probably a good place to end our conversation. I wish you the best in all future discussions here and everywhere else.

Exactly

You think that my example proved that sometimes minor rights violations shouldn't be responded to at all? May I remind you that, in my example, I did respond and that there was no mention of wether or not the outcome of my response was good or bad? How then would that example show that no response is sometimes good? No response IS of course sometimes good, but thats beside the point. Are you really unwilling to admit that in cases such as these, persuasive argument and reasoning is useful and better than retalitory force most of the time? That there are not many instances similiar to mine which such agrument and reasoning would be beneficial while retalitory would certainly be less beneficial or even harmful? My position amounts to a moral sanction of force? What are you smoking? hunh? No, I pronounce them free to engage in the first, but not in the second. Perhaps you are using free in a way I'm unfamilar with?? Yes, they are at the mercy of my judgement. I am capable of doing them harm and I am capable of being wrong. So what? You can say the same of every man. My position amounts to a moral sanction of force? I'm advocating whim worship as the cornerstone of my poltical theory? What are you smoking? I'm sure you'll object to my obvious ridicule of your claims. But you have to recognize that they are ridiculous. Please correct me if I am wrong. Here is my summation of your positon 1. You recognize that I propose to leave men free to use force morally for purposes of immediate self-defense and retalitory (i.e. non-immediate self-defense) 2. You know that man is falliable. That men may be irrational or may err. 3. You conclude that I support their irrationally. 4. You propose to have an institution with a monopoly on the use of force. The government. The government won't be irrational or make mistakes. Sure, we probably have to leave immediate self-defense to regular-folk, but not anything more than immediate, because we don't to be left to the mercy of their judgment, our lives at their descretion and their whim-worshiping. The government will do this for the people. If that is your view, as I am fairly confident it is, I have to say that... 5. You are going to have to learn to trust people whether or not they deserve it. They are the only game in town and you are not going to be able to construct a transcendental institution impenetrable to their bad thinking. The best option you have is education and an open market. Government as a profit-making bussiness and not a protected caste which makes any potential dissenter an outlaw de jure as opposed to by reasoned arguement and judgements of each individual

Professionally? No. But I am competent to act as an enforcer of laws. Yes, I do take it personally that a complete stanger would not accept that I am competent to act as an enforcer of the law.

It does show that there are many instances in which we have it at our interests to appeal to the criminal's rational faculty. It is a case in point. A scenario which is extremely common. You might call them small domestic issues. I wasn't trying to prove that we should attempt to appeal to a criminal's rational faculty regardless of circumstances. But that there are many instances which one might be wronged (stolen from, defrauded or physically attacked) and have it in his interest to resolve the problem by appealing...like I said at first. To address the second half of your post: Perhaps I misunderstand, but I believe you did. This is wrong. Retalitory and defensive uses of force are the the only civil kinds as oppposed to initiatory force. But each individual should be free to use both defensive AND retalitory force. I understand that you ... But it is not my duty to provide you with the proof that I am doing so. I should be glad to do so under most circumstances, but again, its not my duty to make sure everyone else is knows that what I am doing is right. Its quite satisfactory that I know it.

Now for the real substance ... This the only thing you said that I have any real positive interest in discussing. If someone is being abused or attacked in someone way and I step in to protect them aren't I acting as a policeman? I'm not defending myself or lets say anyone I know. Is it just the punishment part that you reserve for the government? Why is it that the government officials can do certain things and I cannot? What do I need to be recognized by you as capable for the same work they do? Certainly not just the badge and the uniform? I really don't know what you think on this subject and would be interested if you cared to comment.

I feel very misunderstood (and I am) It may not be necessary; however, I'd like to ask anyone who responds to my posts to be sure they are responding to the things that I am actually saying. A few points: My older brother and I recently had a small fight over property rights of our living area. I made the mistake of using a curse word close to him and he, having anger problems, couldn't handle it without initiating the use of force to remove me from the premises. Well, I'm outside. What is it in my interests to do? Call the cops? Hardly. I reasoned with him and 30 minutes later I was inside explaining to him why I thought he was wrong. This is what I mean. I could have called the cops or threatened him some sort of legal action, but it wasn't in my interests. Waiting a little for him to cool down and reasoning with him was. So, in this instance, what did I do to undermine reason? How did I sanction my brother's behavior? My next point: Please. I believe I (or we) had established a context. I was talking about how one deals with wrongdoers and assuming that force had already been initiated against us. You can ask me about my premises in the future instead of REACHING for grounds to find me wrong. My objection above applies to this paragraph also.

I respectfully disagree. Wrong. There are many instances in which one might be wronged (stolen from, defrauded or physically attacked) and have it in his interests to resolve the problem by appealing to the rational faculites of the wrongdoer in place of retalitory force. That said, one could reasonably (and you did) find fault with my first statement. I still stand by it regardless. Yes, there are instances in which one is able to solve the problem by reasoning with the wrongdoer and yet finds it still preferable to use force; however, in daily circumstances, its "always" better not to use force when it is not necessary to solve the problem. Notice the scare quotes both here and in my original post. I do allow for exceptions to this rule. Regardless, the point of my statement was to say that in a system of multiple governmental institutions, the process of solving disputes is fundamentally the same as it would be if there were just one such institution. Let me rephrase what I meant --- A person should have right-to-life respected both in his production and trade of food AND his production and trade of protection services. You are correct. I do say that is not my view. I confess I'm a little bewildered by this assesment. What floating abstractions are speaking of? My arguement is simple. A person should have right-to-life respected both in his production and trade of food AND his production and trade of protection services (and other governmental goods and services) Different people will have different wants (as far as food goes and certainly as far as governmental goods and services go) Who decides how much money I want to spend on my government? How many police officers and how much of their time? What will their policies be? How professional are they? Do I care to spend money to protect my neighboors? This list of choices available to citzens is endless. And so long as this endless list of choices is available to individuals, people willing to sell them and people willing to buy them, there should not be a "monopoly" on governmental institutions. If it were a natural economic monopoly, great, but I suspect that is not what you mean by monopoly in this context.

I respectfully disagree. With one government or with more than one, the way to resolve disputes should "always" be an appeal to rational faculties of men, and when that is not possible, the use of force is appropriate. This is a straw man. Of course those that uphold individual rights should have a monopoly on the use of force. But those people or their institutions can differ in more than one way i.e. in more than wether or not they uphold individual rights. And once this is recognized, one has to see that more than one government is necessary and good. Who decides how much money I want to spend on my government? How many police officers and how much of their time? What will their policies be? How professional are they? Do I care to spend money to protect my neighboors? This list is endless. Government is the most important business, without it, no other human ambiton is secure, but aside from this point, government is just like any other business. Meaning, that it belongs in the free market. If I don't want black people to protect me, I have a right to hire rights-respecting men to cater to my mistaken thinking. If I think those fellows down the road or in the Capital are decent enought, but not as competent as the professionals half-way across the world or even myself, then everyone should leave me alone until I threaten to step on their foot, at which time.... as I said above, the way to resolve disputes is always the same.

This has to be a joke... There has to be something missing? Please tell me this is a joke.

1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info 2. Aristotle (60%) Click here for info 3. Stoics (55%) Click here for info 4. Epicureans (51%) Click here for info 5. Kant (48%) Click here for info 6. Nietzsche (48%) Click here for info 7. Jeremy Bentham (47%) Click here for info 8. Thomas Hobbes (47%) Click here for info 9. Jean-Paul Sartre (46%) Click here for info 10. Plato (46%) Click here for info 11. John Stuart Mill (46%) Click here for info 12. Cynics (45%) Click here for info 13. David Hume (44%) Click here for info 14. Aquinas (41%) Click here for info 15. Spinoza (41%) Click here for info 16. St. Augustine (34%) Click here for info 17. Prescriptivism (30%) Click here for info 18. Ockham (18%) Click here for info 19. Nel Noddings (8%) Click here for info

If every citizen voluntairly enters into a contract giving money for certain industries of that country, it wouldn't be socialism. At least not in the most important sense of the word, as well as the sense which was used at the beggining of this thread. This statement about the rights of the citizens necessarily being violated wasn't addressed or disputed until now, which I find odd in a conversation about wether or not war would be justified. That statement is correct. When you talk about socialism, or taxs, or subsidies in this context, you must mean that force is being used to accomplish some goal other than the protection of rights. (And then necessarily the violation of rights) Thats the important meaning. Countries don't vote freely to implement socialist controls. Any (sucsessful) vote for such controls is followed by rights-violations of someone. And just as importantly, if they did, how would they then be socialistic?

There is just grounds for war. There is always justification for war when any foriegn government initiates force against some individuals, no matter what the nationality of the individuals. Even if this were not true, in the case which has been presented, the rights of any individual in any country who would like to trade freely with a citizen of that corrupt government are being violated, because he cannot do so.

To accept stolen goods or not to accept stolen goods. That is the question. The Automobile-comsuming community of Country A is put in the same situation of anyone with access to free music off the interenet today. The same situation as anyone who has the option of getting something cheaper because it was ripped off. This whole issue isn't about much else.

About # 2, it is important for one to learn not only why it isn't important, but also to understand how one was able to think it was.