The reason I was asking this is to work out whether you would think of pubicly appealing to the morality that you reject in favour of cloistered judaism as a way out.
No, I don’t think I would. Morality has no power.
And why is that? Do you think that because a majority of people agree with something, it is moral/just/right?
No, I don’t think anything has to be moral or just or right for me to obey it. I might disagree with the majority but if they’ve got the votes then I’ll play by the rules of the game. Likewise, if I can get their laws overturned, they have to play by my rules. That’s the way the game works.
You didn’t answer my question. I asked “is it moral/just right” which is basically a Yes or No question, and you answered with “I don’t think it has to be moral/just/right.”
And are you aware that there are cheaters in this game of yours? Laws can’t always be overturned. Anyway, I’d like a “yes” or “no” answer to my question.
Why does it matter?
Whatever bloom wants for himself is by definition, “moral” or “just” to him. He’s not interested in the progress of the human race. He’s even too short sighted to see that Austro-Libertarian policy recommendations would make life better for everyone, himself included. Even if he can no longer be a slaveowner.
Intense curiosity.
No, I’m not interested in the progress of the human race, you are correct. I don’t worry with problems of that size. I worry about things I have control over. I have control over me. My calculations show me that I stand to gain more from keeping things the way they are now than I would by radically changing things. Ergo, I tend to try to maintain the status quo. If my calculations ever rendered a different result, I would change my views.
So what’s your justificiation for puttng me in jail because I disagree with your views?
I wouldn’t put you in jail for disagreeing. I’d put you in jail for breaking the law. It doesn’t require moral justification, only legal justification. The law says what it says, if you break the law and get caught, you get punished. End of story. You don’t like it? That sucks but it doesn’t change anything.
The only kind of speech that’s illegal that libertarians could theoretically border on would be advocating imminent lawless action or a violent overthrow of the government. If all you ever do is disagree there’s no legal grounds for putting you in jail.
^but if it were illegal to like, use swear words, then bloom would have no problem putting you in jail. Cus its the law.
Unlikely. Most forms of speech are protected under the first amendment, swear words included. But I suppose that in our hypothetical country where swear words are illegal, yes I’d be for upholding the law. But again, it’s an unlikely scenario here.
**
poppycock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
lol @Machiavelli.
I wish there were more people like bloomj31. He’s not saying anything that most other statists think or, at the very least, act like without being aware of it. If there were more like him it would become obvious that government is utilized for the express purpose of furthering the goals of a few, and that would hasten its demise.
I find great entertainment at his selection of The Prince as a book to keep, given that it seems to have been Machiavelli’s purpose to present obviously bad advice as a way to undermine that style of government.
Well played, Mr. Machiavelli.
@Porter,
I don’t think you give statists the credit we deserve. I think most of us understand exactly how government works and that’s why we favor it.
However, I think you’re wrong in saying the government is used to express the goals of the few, I think it’s used to further the goals of the many (ofcourse some people are benefited much more than others.) I think that’s why there’s majority support for it. If people are good at nothing else, they’re good at calculating self interest.
I also think that Machiavelli’s goal was to write a treatise to impress the Medicis so he could come out of exile and move back to Florence.
I think he was one of the first to attempt a value free understanding of political science. I try to be as amoral in my reasoning as he is in the Prince. That’s why it’s always the only book I take with me wherever I go; every now and then I need to be reminded of how things work.
Indeed, most anarchists wrongly assume that they are the only ones that know how government functions.
bloomj31: Whatever I think will benefit me the most is what I’ll support.
I’m of the same opinion. I think bashing your face in with a 2x4 is wholly beneficial towards me. You won’t be able to write anymore. And that would be nice. Maybe not for you, but certainly for me. So that’s what I’ll support.
**
You understand that the government takes resources from Pt A to Pt B by using violence. If thats the credit you want, it isn’t an intellectual badge of honor. It doesn’t take a huge amount of brainpower to realize that power gets things done. Anyway, full credit.
**
You don’t think it has something to do with the state-approved-curriculum we’re all exposed to? Or the partnership between government and media? Are you claiming outright that its impossible for people to think they are supporting one thing, and getting another?
**
What is it with you and this divorce between reasoning and ethics? Look, we agree ethics are subjective, but we use reason to advance our ethical goals. Its a parlour game to merely describe how mass murder occurs. You may as well start describing projectile physics. Its every bit as amoral and relevant to the process.
**
You should study game theory then. Its a lot more interesting and thorough. It might cause you to realize the folly of giving all the power to one body of men, and hoping for beneficial outcomes.
@Daniel Waite, I like your attitude. Maybe you’d win in a fight against me, but I’m irrelevant, you kill me, I’m just one man.