On another thread that I post on, there was some discussion on the Rand Paul thing, and I posted my views along with some of the other posts from this thread, and got this response (that quoted what Cork said):
"Truth is, and again I’m sure you’ll agree with me on this, markets are morally neutral. When the civil rights law was enacted, it wasn’t bad business to exclude black people in large swathes of America. In fact, it was bad business to integrate, because racism was so deeply ingrained in the moral fabric of the society (and lest we forget, market forces brought slaves to the region in the first place). So your suggestion that the institution of government is reason for the rampant racial abuse in the pre-civil rights era south is deeply misguided. Please JT, take off your capitalism tinted glasses for one second and admit that.
The question is, did banning this form of racism help us in getting from where we were there with regards to race, to where we are now. I think it clearly did. "
I was thinking more of the murder of defenseless civilians, the dropping of bombs on villages, the torture of prisoners…stuff that most people wouldn’t do, without either a conviction of rectitude or a devotion to obedience.
The fallacy of conflation. This person thinks that any profit-oriented enterprise is a “market force”…but profit-oriented enterprises comprise voluntary and non-voluntary transactions. Only the former are “market forces.”
This person asserts what bloom does: that morality follows from law, not law from morality.
I compose my posts in a text editor first, then copy and paste.
I’ve also found that the Preview function works when using the Opera browser, so I post/preview using Opera.
You can’t switch from ‘value-free’ to ‘value-laden’ as you please.
I fail to see how/where I am doing that.
In a so called ‘value-free’ analysis ‘crime’ is just one more arbitrary action which can be useful or not (from a personal/subjective point of view)
No, we can apprehend the difference via experience what exchanges arise voluntarily and which are the result of the initiation of aggression. See Human Action and mountains of other work by Austrians.
“See this is why Conza brought up psychic profit, because people don’t ‘gain’ just monetarily. Apparently you didn’t understand. Economics fail.”
Yes, exactly. And this is why he keeps trying to shift the burden of proof.
“The point of the hypothetical was that to bloom, there is no downside to killing people if you can get away with it. To use the terminology Conza brought in, he suffers no psychic loss from murder.”
General question; if he doesn’t “suffer” from a psychic loss, then surely he must experience a psychic profit - otherwise he wouldn’t do it.
So really… when he says he would gun down children for diamonds - he’d actually “profit” psychically from it.
Correct?
Btw, moderators - I posted a response to a post (like 8hrs ago) & and it went into moderation. Possible link, so it was automatic. Anyway, where is it?
I heard in Canadian papers National Post that Rand Paul is:
a) Against the war in Iraq, but would take longer to bring soldiers back home than his father.
b) Supports the war in Afghanistan.
c) Would have voted against the Civil Rights due to the intrusion on private property, just like Barry Goldwater did, but went on to say that he admired Martin Luther King.
Rand Paul and Civil Rights
A rookie mistake feeds a left-wing smear.
By JAMES TARANTO
Rand Paul was 1 when Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now 47, he is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Kentucky, his first ever foray into politics. To his evident surprise, the hypothetical question of how he would have voted in 1964 has been drawing a lot of attention.
Politico’s Ben Smith characterizes as “evasive” this response Paul gave when asked the question by National Public Radio (we’ve corrected Smith’s transcription errors):
“What I’ve always said is, I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would have–if I was alive at the time, I think–had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism,” he said in response to a first question about the act.
“You would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?” asked an interviewer.
“I think it’s confusing in a lot of cases in what’s actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic),” Paul replied. “A lot of things that were actually in the bill I’m actually in favor of. I’m in favor of–everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there’s a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights–and indeed the truth is, I haven’t read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn’t been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I’m going to vote for the Civil Rights Act.”
Honesty, this is just a ridiculous statement, serving in the armed forces does not equal “killing other people in cold blood when ordered to”. While it may be true that many who serve in the armed forces are psychopaths, any violent profession is going to attract strange people, but it simply does not follow from that that every single soldier is a murderer and to suggest that is ridiculous.
Esuri: First, they don’t have to go out of business; losing revenue is big price to pay for stupidity. Second, the world has changed since the 1950’s, and it had nothing to do with the civil rights act of 64. Legislation follows social change; it doesn’t cause it. Also, states can pass it if they so choose.
That was a pretty bad response from someone that I expected more from. Sorry, give more details or insight about your case. That was pretty bad.
For instance, the millions of people who compose the armed forces. They kill other people in cold blood when ordered to.
False.
Actually the idea of soldiers as cold hard warriors is a little hollywood. In firefights, most people are useless. People are scared shitless of being killed, and don’t really want to kill someone else, so why pop up and shoot?
True.
Honesty, this is just a ridiculous statement, serving in the armed forces does not equal “killing other people in cold blood when ordered to”. While it may be true that many who serve in the armed forces are psychopaths, any violent profession is going to attract strange people, but it simply does not follow from that that every single soldier is a murderer and to suggest that is ridiculous.
I think that the statist position on this issue actually ends up denying business owners the ability to actually claim to not be racist. Currently, any business owner that would claim to not be a racist, could be countered with the argument that there is no way in knowing if you are hiring people of different races because you don’t see race as an issue, or if you are doing it for the sole or main purpose of because that is what the law says.
I would see it in a similar light in that you cannot claim that gov’t services that people receive from your tax money is equivalent to charity
I get accused of trolling from time to time, but I think this is one of those instances where it’s obvious I haven’t said anything in order to get a rise out of anyone. I made a comment about the Rand Paul thing (and things have played out just like I thought they would) and Snowflake ended up asking me a question with an obvious answer from my point of view and it upset some of the people with a more moralist persuasion than myself but that’s not my fault. I stand by what I said about the Rand Paul statements, I stand by my answer to Snowflake’s question.
I agree that psychopaths have come to power throughout history, but I’m not sure about “making the system do what he wants.” Leaders can’t just hypnotize people or turn them into robots. Tyrants and dictators can’t retain power without active support from their subordinates and passive support from the masses. And there have been plenty of subordinates throughout history willing to kill in exchange for money or favors from the tyrant. Aren’t these people also psychopathic?
You’re right.
If bloom truly does not suffer psychic loss from murder, then you’re right - there’s something really wrong with him. I doubt this is true, even though he has indicated so.
I don’t really know anything about psychopathology or whatever, so I should probably not be having this debate. I’ll take your word for it. Sorry I am debating without understanding the definitions.
You may be right. I’m just trying to give bloom the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he does not deserve it.
