No sense of humour! No black and white!
Obama = Serius Bizness!
Well, taking the heat out of the discussion a bit, I agree that the remark on black and white was made in a kind of anger. So I apologize for that, because yes there is black and white.
Only that I even take it a bit further. Yes, war is a conglomeration of murder. Murder is evil and wrong. Unequivocally. Murder is a crime. Yet, a crime is something that needs an action to be done. Crimes can only be commited by individuals through acting. Individuals act and they are responsible for their actions, not concepts like group, be it states or the mafia. Yes, individual people tend to justify their actions by all kind of arguments, like “I am a soldier, I have to obey”. These justifications presuppose that the concept (state in this example) can really force you do do something, hence is able to make you act and therefor has the responsibility for your action. If you believe that, you implicitly agree to the collectivist view that there are entities, in this case the state, that is able to act on its own behalf.
Cheers
Your first question almost answers your second one. You use a metaphor by saying state meaning people that act in a certain way, like the military- which is another concept.
A group is a category of mind, a useful though, but nonetheless a category. Like a wood is not an entity but a category for a bunch of trees. How you define what attributes an object must posses to be part of the category doesn’t change anything substantial. A category is a useful aggregation of objects with common, defined attributes.
If we accept, and that is the basic distinction between individualists and collectivists, that only an object can act, than we can not contribute any action to a group. Concepts can not act. Because we are concerned with human action specifically, I mean human action when I talk of action further on.
To make your argument, you presuppose that a group, or the members of a group, can actually force you to act in some way. This presupposition is a fallacy. Other humans - and, well, in fact a lot of other powers, like animals, wind, rain, snow, earthquakes etc.- can act on you, no question about that. Another human being can kill you, harm you, carry you from A to B, talk to you, you name it. What is impossible though is, that anything outside of yourself can make you act. Nothing can make you do anything. The environment can diminish your choices to almost none, but you are always the one that chooses how to act.
The only reason a robber puts a gun on your head is exactly because he knows he can’t make you act. All he can do is to try to make you choose what he likes you to choose -well, given him your money in this case. If he could make you act, he wouldn’t need such actions like threatening you with a gun in the first place.
The reason why freedom is called inalienable is exactly this. You are free because you are the only one that can make you act. This is the reason that you can not even sell yourself into slavery. You are the only one that can make you act. You can not give up this control, even if you wish to. So any action you choose is your responsibility and no one elses.
On these grounds, your presupposition is refuted. You can not be forced into the military. You can be imprisonned for sure, or executed for sure, but you can not be forced to act.
Now let’s look who commits crimes. If you deny to obey to the requests of members of the group called military you have not commited a crime so far. The moment you kill someone without your own life being threatened by him immediately, you are commiting the crime of murder. If you, on the other side, decline to obey and they put you in jail, those doing it commit a crime, though not murder. Remember no one can force you.
I think you know already the answer to taxation. Taxation is theft, you have every right to avoid being taxed. If you agree to pay the tax, because the threatened consequences seem not worth paying the price to you, it is still a crime like it is a crime to put a gun on your head to rob your purse. It is the action or at least the immediate threat of it that consitutes a crime if that action is targeted to take away your property -which includes your live.
If you do not pay and nothing happens, no one commits a crime. If you are looked up, than every single human being that agresses against your property rights commits a crime.
The question about aid to crime is fuzzy because of the fuzziness of the term aid. What do you mean by aid? If you are physically aggressing against a third party, yes that is a crime. If you are standing on a street corner watching out for the police, no, this is no crime yet. If you get part of the booty, this is still no crime yet. You just do not have aquired ownership on what you got, because you can not rightfully aquire ownership on stolen goods.
You implied this with this discussion, is this correct?
If a person tries to organize crimes, gets a share of the booty, but does not commit a crime, the problem is that his wealth is illegitimate and should be returned to its rightful owner. He should not be punished for organizing it.
Yes.
Who is to decide what punishment he should receive? And what does this punishment add to the compensation of the victim. Mind the only business in a crime is between the victim and the culprit, not the society or state ot whatever groups claims to have an interest.
How would you cope with the right of a vicitm to simply forgive a culprit?
Yes, but you gave Bush a free pass, by saying that his actions where not the ones that killed, then you claim that Obama should be judged on his actions.
Seems to be a pretty big disconnect in your thinking, when you claim the President doesn’t actually command, and then anxiously listen to Baracktrack’s speech, and tell us to judge him on his actions. His actions, according to you, are irrelevant. It is the soldier who kills, not Obama or Bush. It is the soldier who creates peace, not Obama or Bush.
You can’t have it both ways. TBH, I can’t understand how this guy brain washes people and turns them inside out. I listen to him, and he sounds like an idiot lecturing small children.
I gave noone a free pass, how could I? And can you explain how Bush killed? And can you explain how that is different from what I said about Obama?
Look, why don’t you keep your attributes by yourself. I listen to to speeches, but I do not listen anxiously. This shouldn’t be the place to test your capabilities of being a demagogue. Peace is not created it is the absence of crime. Like darkness is not created but is just the absence of light.
I do not mind either how Obama sounds to me or to you - how would I know how he sound to you anyway- but I think if you wnat to achieve something more than catering to your own beliefs than it might be a good thing to listen to what your foes say and what impact those speeches have on people that are not as well educated as youreself.
I gave you a lot of point to start a serious converastion, like the one about cooperation. It seems you start to argue with your own prejudices, which I do not like to be the mirror for.
So don’t be afraid if I consider you, on this topic, as not willing to rational consider facts but rather try to cater to your own gut feelings.
So eventually I leave it there
What rational facts? If you don’t believe the President is actually in charge of anything, and that their subordinates bear the moral responsibility for executing those commands, then why would it make any difference what Baracktrack says or does?
We agree on all sorts of stuff in this thread. What I don’t agree is that there is value in ruminating on what Obama says or does, if it’s already pre-decided that he’s not responsible if he orders an Air Strike in Afghanistan that kills people and destroys property.
That’s what I think you have not communicated clearly. Why the President is not culpable, but we should still pay attention to him.
You can say whatever you want about me. I’m a worm, a jerk, a mote. I’ll buy all of it.
But the basis of your argument seems to me to be either confused or disingenuous.
Ok now that we both have torn ourselves down to the basis of being worms or 5% brainers, let’s start over again one more time. Maybe I am presenting my argument in a confusing way. So let me clarify it as good as I can.
You are right, it does not really matter what the president says or not, if we evalute in legal terms. I am fully with you that all his talk is very probably doublespeak.
What I am really interested in is the impact this talk has on those that are not aware of this but have a decent belief in those values like fredom, peace and prosperity. Those people are drawn to him because he caters their deepest beliefs - while only in small dosis give them the bitter pill too-.
To convice those people to our case it needs more than just mocking Obama. We need to take him serious, because, as all statists, he is a serious thread. Not because he is african american, a democrat or from Illinois, but because he is able to talk to the hearts of those that still have that glimpse of freedom in themselves. Why do you think he is all the time talking about liberty? Because he knows that this is the word people connect with their inner beliefs. Now, the way to convey these people away from him and toward freedom, real freedom that is, is to show how he betrays them and their beliefs day by day. And this can not be done through saying “I told you before” but by comparing his actions to what he does. I am sure he will do enough to make such a strategy a success.
The argument about responsibility was really just a sideline, though I do believe that crimes have only two parties involved, the victim and the culprit. And there is no excuse whatsoever for anyone that commits a crime. And sure orders, commands or such things can not take away the responsibility from myself for my own actions.
Hope that makes it a bit clearer.
Have a great day
I was surprised how much Obama talked about “responsibility” and “childish games”. What he is trying to say is that we have to be responsible TO OUR GOVERNMENT, not to ourselves. This coming from a man that endorses socialized medicine and social security. How can I be responsible if you won’t let me?
At one point I thought he was going to say " dust ourselves off and pull ourselves up by our bootstraps", but he didn’t. He sounded a lot like Bush talking about god and scripture and defeating our enemies.
By childish games he means property rights; the quintessential child argument is " he took my stuff " and " I had it first “. Obama will be the Dad that comes and takes the toys away, so there will not be a problem, and he can decide who gets what when. Stop arguing wether the state has a right to take your stuff, but be vigilant that the state takes the Right Stuff. To really be transparent in government is to say you are the master of slaves. Politicians cloud this with” the state is spending your money in wrong ways" instead of “the government owns your labor, life and property”.
The last minute of his speech about the cold winter and liberty was really good, but other than that, not that impressed by the Great Statist Orator.
As for you others on the forum arguing about responsibility, remember: No single rain drop is responsible for the flood! **(**sarcasm)..
You can see my position on it.
Because teachers who come to school drunk are very dignified individuals.
Here’s a gemstone from the O’reilly show:
[quoteuser=“Bill O’Reilly”]
…There are some dissenting voices among actors. Recently, I spoke with Demond Wilson for an “Icon” segment about “Sanford & Son.” Mr. Wilson now does a lot of work with the poor and had some questions about all the money being spent on the inauguration.
DEMOND WILSON, ACTOR/ACTIVIST: I want to know why $150 million is necessary of taxpayers’ money to have an inauguration. A hundred and fifty million dollars could have gone into the private sector and, with the condition that America is in right now, and done a lot more good than a celebration.
[/quote]
Right on, Demond!
http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/jessica-alba-rips-bill-oreilly.html