Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.  (Read 13708 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2010, 06:48:46 PM »

Well, its about fuckin' time you've arrived at The Conclusion. 



Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2010, 07:32:26 PM »

So by redefining "voluntary" to an absurdity, one becomes something other than a voluntaryist.  I get it. 

The important part is the part about not initiating force.  So I presume, you're still a "non-initiation-of-forcist."

You seem to not grasp the point. Let me pin it down to this particular issue. Is cannibalism ethically acceptable if it is not coerced? How about sexual relations between someone of an extremely young age (pre-teen and younger) and someone much older (teens and up)? Basically, the question is this: does something being merely voluntary make it moral? If so, why? If not, why not? What is the standard of normativity?
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2010, 07:32:54 PM »

Well, its about fuckin' time you've arrived at The Conclusion. 





I'm a slow learner.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2010, 07:41:09 PM »

So by redefining "voluntary" to an absurdity, one becomes something other than a voluntaryist.  I get it.  

The important part is the part about not initiating force.  So I presume, you're still a "non-initiation-of-forcist."

You seem to not grasp the point. Let me pin it down to this particular issue. Is cannibalism ethically acceptable if it is not coerced? How about sexual relations between someone of an extremely young age (pre-teen and younger) and someone much older (teens and up)? Basically, the question is this: does something being merely voluntary make it moral? If so, why? If not, why not? What is the standard of normativity?

Umm...yes, yes, yes, because there's no force or coercion involved, lack of force and coercion.

What was it I didn't grasp?

If I recall correctly, our first-ever dust-up was about how happy you were that the state (I.E., people who'd been robbed) was paying for someone's sex change.  If your view has not changed, how was that moral?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 07:43:09 PM by What's the frequency, Kenneth? »
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2010, 07:46:45 PM »

Umm...yes, yes, yes, because there's no force or coercion involved, lack of force and coercion.

What was it I didn't grasp?
How do you prove that claim? What is the standard?

Quote
If I recall correctly, our first-ever dust-up was about how happy you were that the state (I.E., people who'd been robbed) was paying for someone's sex change.  If your view has not changed, how was that moral?

The last time I checked, I never supported such a thing.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2010, 07:50:59 PM »

Umm...yes, yes, yes, because there's no force or coercion involved, lack of force and coercion.

What was it I didn't grasp?
How do you prove that claim? What is the standard?

I'm not the one who started the thread with a claim.  If you recall, I asked questions, which you redirected to questions, which I answered.  My standard is initiation of force.

Quote
Quote
If I recall correctly, our first-ever dust-up was about how happy you were that the state (I.E., people who'd been robbed) was paying for someone's sex change.  If your view has not changed, how was that moral?

The last time I checked, I never supported such a thing.

Though you did.  I may or may not take the time to dig up the thread, but you know perfectly well you did.
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2010, 07:55:02 PM »

Umm...yes, yes, yes, because there's no force or coercion involved, lack of force and coercion.

What was it I didn't grasp?
How do you prove that claim? What is the standard?

I'm not the one who started the thread with a claim.  If you recall, I asked questions, which you redirected to questions, which I answered.  My standard is initiation of force.
I wouldn't say that's sufficient in certain cases. Is it morally permissible to be a racist so long as you do so 'voluntarily'?


Quote
Though you did.  I may or may not take the time to dig up the thread, but you know perfectly well you did.

I'd like to see, I don't remember particularly. Maybe it was the post about an MtF in jail, wasn't it?
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2010, 08:07:52 PM »

Umm...yes, yes, yes, because there's no force or coercion involved, lack of force and coercion.

What was it I didn't grasp?
How do you prove that claim? What is the standard?

I'm not the one who started the thread with a claim.  If you recall, I asked questions, which you redirected to questions, which I answered.  My standard is initiation of force.
I wouldn't say that's sufficient in certain cases. Is it morally permissible to be a racist so long as you do so 'voluntarily'?

Quote
Though you did.  I may or may not take the time to dig up the thread, but you know perfectly well you did.

I'd like to see, I don't remember particularly. Maybe it was the post about an MtF in jail, wasn't it?

Sure, it's permissible to be racist, but I don't have to deal with the scum who are.  The thread had nothing to do with jail.  It had to do with a British girl suing the government for the "right" (to get it paid for) and winning, IIRC.
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2010, 08:13:27 PM »

Um, nope, I don't believe I ever brought that one up. But I think I remember the article about it...

Also, on the whole permissible thing, then why don't you just call yourself a moral nihilist as you can come to the same conclusion of NAP without any ethical argumentation? The reason I bring this up is because either NAP is an ethical statement or merely a statement of consequentialist origin (more akin to an economic law). If it's the former, then it's part of a larger system of ethics which describes all human interactions. If it's the latter, it merely is a subset of economics. The problem with the latter being true is that it doesn't explain why other social orders have been successful without NAP. One example would be Chile under Pinochet, which even Milton Friedman in an interview used it as an example that capitalism was only a necessary condition for a free society, but not one that is sufficient. He recognized ethics was in the mix that gave society its capability to form economic orders (essentially, social order precedes economic order). 
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2010, 10:32:00 PM »

You seem to not grasp the point. Let me pin it down to this particular issue. Is cannibalism ethically acceptable if it is not coerced? How about sexual relations between someone of an extremely young age (pre-teen and younger) and someone much older (teens and up)? Basically, the question is this: does something being merely voluntary make it moral? If so, why? If not, why not? What is the standard of normativity?

I have always been under the impression that being a voluntaryist is not meant to be the be-all end-all definition of a person.  If you are a voluntaryist, at a minimum, you consistently reject aggression and fraud as part of your personal ethics.  That doesn't mean it's all that defines you or your ethics.  An atheist voluntaryist and a Christian voluntaryist might have very different views about the ethics of non-aggressive cannibalism, for instance.  It might appear they're more similar ethically because both would reject violence as a means of controlling the non-aggressive actions of others.

From an atheist POV, an already dead human body is just a hunk of meat, and one of the most nutritious things a person can consume as it has all he nutrients a person needs.  Anything beyond that is just about what seems distasteful.  It seems gross to me, but I see no reason to care if someone does it unless they expect me to watch.  In some historic cultures it was a dishonor NOT to eat your dead relatives.  It would be akin to us not having a proper burial for a loved one.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 10:33:47 PM by Dalebert »
Logged

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2010, 09:03:45 AM »

Basically, the question is this: does something being merely voluntary make it moral?

Yes. Otherwise, I am forcing my morality on others.

I may think something is wrong, but my using coercion to interfere in an entirely voluntary action is just more "wrong".

Two wrongs do not make a right. The ends do not justify the means.

Quote
What is the standard of normativity?

Right now, that standard is whatever the man with the badge and gun says it is.

Just because it's normal doesn't make it right, or just, or moral.

That is why I asked you, and ask again, who has the gun in your scenario? What function of society is provided through coercion?

Because if there isn't one, then you're a voluntaryist.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

davann

  • Guest
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2010, 11:03:22 AM »


I wouldn't say that's sufficient in certain cases. Is it morally permissible to be a racist so long as you do so 'voluntarily'?


Yes. Just as it is morally acceptable for those Midwesterners to treat their women the way they do. Those are their culture's morals. What would be immoral is for someone outside that society stand back and pass judgement on their behavior based upon standards of their own morals.
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2010, 11:14:05 AM »


I wouldn't say that's sufficient in certain cases. Is it morally permissible to be a racist so long as you do so 'voluntarily'?


Yes. Just as it is morally acceptable for those Midwesterners to treat their women the way they do. Those are their culture's morals. What would be immoral is for someone outside that society stand back and pass judgement on their behavior based upon standards of their own morals.
Fundamental disagreement.  There are universal morals.

Would it be okay to have a society that cuts off baby's heads and eats them?  If you were in a boat exploring an island and came upon natives who hurled their infants into the air and caught them on spears and ate them, would it be immoral to stop them and save the infants?  OF COURSE FUCKING NOT.  How can you argue moral relativism when people are getting hurt?  And then you go and stand on your high chair and cry the whole "evil jews are not accommodating enough to Islamofascists" routine.  Talk about irony.

It is wrong to hurt people.  I don't care what the fucked up culture believes, there is nothing wrong with me standing here and talking shit on Islamofascist culture that punishes women for not wearing burkas and racist cultures that oppress people with different skin colors.  It is WRONG to beat women because they let their ankle slip.  It is WRONG to racially oppress groups of people based on their skin tone.  It is WRONG to toss infants into the air and catch them on the tips of spears.  It is UNIVERSALLY MORAL to call out these illegitimate practices and seek an end to them.

Your beliefs that are so accommodating to racism are not surprising however.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2010, 11:18:44 AM »

There are plenty of non-aggressive behaviors that I would like to change, particularly if people I care about are engaged in them.  I feel that using violence to change those behaviors is inherently counter-productive and therefore, irrational.  It might be the immediately satisfying thing, but it seems like an act of desperation that may feel good right now but backfire in the long run.  It's like forcing in a screw that is likely the wrong size for the job or that you've started going in at the wrong angle.  Force will get it in there, but the thing is more likely to break later.  You fixed things on the surface, so to speak, but you didn't address the root of the problem.  You may have forced someone to stop the behavior you opposed, but you didn't convince them and make them not want to do it in the future.  Instead, you probably built resentment that will make it more difficult to actually change their hearts.

Violence intended to stop racism has probably extended its life.

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Why I am not a Voluntaryist.
« Reply #29 on: July 22, 2010, 11:21:42 AM »

Yes. Otherwise, I am forcing my morality on others.

Then it's not morality. More or less that means you would better fit in the camp of moral nihilist more so than moral subjectivist.

Quote
I may think something is wrong, but my using coercion to interfere in an entirely voluntary action is just more "wrong".
Im/morality is not a matter of degrees, but kind.

Quote
Two wrongs do not make a right. The ends do not justify the means.

I never said they did, but you seem to assume that is what I mean. I don't see ends nor necessarily means as divisible in moral arguments as often both are either the same object of moral arguments or one of them (means or ends) relate to the other as an inherent property. Either way one slices it, morality based on purely consequential grounds runs into weird situations (see the train argument made in utilitarianism).



Quote
Right now, that standard is whatever the man with the badge and gun says it is.

Then why doesn't it enforce the moral standard in most of the US that racist  slurs are bad and those that use them are low lifes? I never seen a cop ticket a race supremacist, but I've seen people give them a tongue licking that made one look like a complete jerk.

Quote
Just because it's normal doesn't make it right, or just, or moral.

You never read my original post did you? I suggest doing so to grasp the context my points.

Quote
That is why I asked you, and ask again, who has the gun in your scenario? What function of society is provided through coercion?
Your question is false as it assumes only force can be used to maintain social institutions. Who points the gun at most people as to not be racists? Who points the gun at most people as to not be rapists? The last time I checked it was no one as even cops are outnumbered by 'criminals' by a wide margin at least in the US. Nor could there ever be enough to maintain the illusion to any degree.

Quote
Because if there isn't one, then you're a voluntaryist.

False conclusion as I recognize there are social institutions and states which are not voluntary (just as me being a human on a certain continent is not voluntary, it's merely fact).
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Why I am not a Voluntaryist.

// ]]>

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 34 queries.