Can't argue w/that Printer,I'm personally NOT responsible for any fatherless kids out there, and as a centrist Dem. I do believe that people should be responsible for their choices, however as a pragmatic it's pretty clear to me that we live in a imperfect world in which people WILL and DO FK up and as a society we extend help within reason.ccguns
Is a reversal of Roe v Wade decision next?
- Thread starter CunningCanuk
- Start date
It's a fantastic dream but the great fallacy in your argument is that it depends on humanity. Historically speaking people are kind of shit. We rape, murder, conquer, destroy, profit under different banners of moral authority or righteous predestination and this is all while we DO have laws, codes, consequences and even some sense of morality.
I guess I just don’t believe in the individual enough to accept your idea as feasible let alone ideal. I’m not trying to compare the two but functional communism is a beautiful thing…insert people (with their ego, desire, innate need to form hierarchy) and it fails every time.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I have no objection to peaceful people organizing amongst themselves and being communists. It's not for me though.
I have much against them insisting others become communists against their will. I am justified in defending against that.
Voluntary human interactions as a norm doesn't guarantee there will be no bad people, it just points the way to Peace. Live and let live.
I reckon it all boils down to wether your model of 'voluntary human interactions' feels like it would provide a more clear path to peace and not a greater devolution of already strained society. I do not. Hence I feel justified in embracing what is established and work within its construct to bend it to my own moral compass.
chores to do, I’m out
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
I wonder who would “apply justice” and who would determine what is just. To me having people like that necessitates a hierarchy.
You've been trying to keep Mr. Happy up since Trump left office. Maybe its time to cum
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Thanks for conversing politely Carl. Chores. Yup, they don't do themselves. Only you should decide what your chores are based on that which you value or you don't.
HGCC
Well-Known Member
You can't pick and choose the laws that govern society, you take the whole lot by being part of it, you accept its against whatever and opt to do it anyway. Weed and such is always interesting to debate, but part of our society is that the benefits outweighed the costs so we choose to accept that we might be punished, but are willing to do it anyway. You could say the Phillipines represent a different sort of society, quite a bit less willing to break that social rule within that society.
Private property is murky. You pay taxes and it can be imminent domained. Your rights are really only protected and exist due to the power of the state, otherwise some stronger person can just take your shit.
I think nearly any business would be an example, but will go with a bar. You enter of your own free will, they have various rules of behavior/dress that you choose to abide by. If you want to wear shorts but they insist on dress pants, well you are operating outside of that society and they can boot you. The rest of the people within the bar can't stand hairy legs, they are good with that social norm. If the masses weren't, then they could leave and choose another barciety. They have bouncers to kick people that break the no legs rule, as a whole that group agrees to it. You can choose to slyly show some ankle, flout that rule, and maybe get away with it, maybe get kicked out, maybe a warning.
Edit: well Carl said it way better, serves me right for not reading till the end.
Last edited:
Wattzzup
Well-Known Member
I’m so glad you’re in the minority in this country.
If you went back in time and applied his ideologies across the country, one thing is for sure, people here wouldn't be speaking English today, because the lack of kindness-funded development would have caused our takeover and pillaging long ago.I’m so glad you’re in the minority in this country.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That's absurd. Of course I do and will continue to decide how I govern myself.
If there were a law demanding I assist in the capture of a runaway slave, I would refuse to obey that law.
If there were a law saying I had to turn in my Jewish neighbors or unvaxxed neighbors, I would refuse to comply.
If there were a law telling me what I can grow, consume or smoke, I'd disobey that law too.
Good luck in your quest for testicles. Good people disobey bad laws.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm so glad I don't give a fuck about pleasing people who demonstrate irrational and contradictory behavior just so I can fit in.I’m so glad you’re in the minority in this country.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You are describing revokable privileges not rights. The power of the state doesn't mean the state is right, it only means it's willing to use violence against otherwise peaceful people.
Further it exempts itself from actions that if you or I did the same thing would be criminal. That's so on the surface fucked up...I can't endorse that.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I appreciate that you are thinking about justice, even if your proposed solution is incompatible with justice.
A forcible hierarchy is not justice and never can be. That is true because a forcible hierarchy relies on the use of offensive force, which is the same thing criminals rely on.
The fact that you are ignorant how a more peaceful and voluntary world might arbitrate disputes doesn't mean those possibilities don't exist,
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
What language would we be talking? I am curious.
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
Without hierarchy there is no way a Justice Cadre can exist.
It punches a hole in your sociopo-something ideas.
Seriously, who is charged/privileged to assess justice? It cannot be undifferentiated people.
