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
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Tricky Question

Poll

See Post

Yes
No

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Tricky Question  (Read 13239 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mike Barskey

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
    • My own web site
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #30 on: December 10, 2006, 03:53:27 PM »

Roycerson and Brent are right, and of course context is important. If the murder was in self-defense (if the politician was directly - even partially - responsible for attacking my friend's rights, e.g. through enforcing taxation or a smoking ban or a military draft or national service) then my friend was morally justified in defending himself. However likely it is that a politician is anti-freedom, statistical probability does not make a member of a group the same as everyone else in the group. So if the politician was not actually responsible for attacking my friend's liberty (or the liberty of someone my friend chose to defnd), then the murder would be immoral and I would turn him in*.

I voted No.


- Mike

*Of course, to whom would I turn my friend in? The government, which is corrupt and immoral. Instead of turning him in, should I make it publicly known that my friend murdered under such-and-such a specific situation and let people decide for themselves how to react to him (ostracize or accept him)?

Taors

  • Guest
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2006, 04:07:45 PM »

That'd still be snitching, snitch.
Logged

Mike Barskey

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
    • My own web site
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2006, 04:17:57 PM »

That'd still be snitching, snitch.

Well, I'd be comfortable with my snitchiness as it would be the moral thing to do. And I'd have to live with the rest of society's reaction to my snitchiness. But I would sure be bitter if society in general accepted my friend for murder but ostracized me for snitching on him!

- Mike

Smitty507

  • Guest
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2006, 04:19:09 PM »

A politician is a theif and a murderer, simple as that.  Why should he be given impunity?

So how about those Libertarian candidates, eh?   :shock:

They are the same as anyother politician.
Logged

Taors

  • Guest
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #34 on: December 10, 2006, 04:20:01 PM »

That'd still be snitching, snitch.

Well, I'd be comfortable with my snitchiness as it would be the moral thing to do. And I'd have to live with the rest of society's reaction to my snitchiness. But I would sure be bitter if society in general accepted my friend for murder but ostracized me for snitching on him!

- Mike

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. All I know is (growing up on the mean streets of Shepherdsville, KY) is that snitches usually die.
Logged

Mike Barskey

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
    • My own web site
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #35 on: December 10, 2006, 04:26:02 PM »

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. All I know is (growing up on the mean streets of Shepherdsville, KY) is that snitches usually die.

I don't doubt you, even though I've never heard of Shepherdsville. But I made a mistake. When voting to not turn in my friend, I was assuming today's American (corrupt) culuture. But when I said I was ready to live with society's acceptance or astracism of me due to my snitchiness, I was dreaming of a libertarian society. Thinking about it now, I answer the same but realize that it is far more likely to be ostracized (i.e. killed) for snitching, and I'd simply have to be more aware of my surroundings and be prepared to defend myself for my beliefs. Sucks, though.

- Mike

Taors

  • Guest
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #36 on: December 10, 2006, 04:35:06 PM »

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. All I know is (growing up on the mean streets of Shepherdsville, KY) is that snitches usually die.

I don't doubt you, even though I've never heard of Shepherdsville. But I made a mistake. When voting to not turn in my friend, I was assuming today's American (corrupt) culuture. But when I said I was ready to live with society's acceptance or astracism of me due to my snitchiness, I was dreaming of a libertarian society. Thinking about it now, I answer the same but realize that it is far more likely to be ostracized (i.e. killed) for snitching, and I'd simply have to be more aware of my surroundings and be prepared to defend myself for my beliefs. Sucks, though.

- Mike

Yep. Any way you look at it this scenario fucking sucks.
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2006, 01:25:38 AM »

Roycerson and Brent are right, and of course context is important. If the murder was in self-defense (if the politician was directly - even partially - responsible for attacking my friend's rights, e.g. through enforcing taxation or a smoking ban or a military draft or national service) then my friend was morally justified in defending himself. However likely it is that a politician is anti-freedom, statistical probability does not make a member of a group the same as everyone else in the group. So if the politician was not actually responsible for attacking my friend's liberty (or the liberty of someone my friend chose to defnd), then the murder would be immoral and I would turn him in*.

I voted No.


- Mike

*Of course, to whom would I turn my friend in? The government, which is corrupt and immoral. Instead of turning him in, should I make it publicly known that my friend murdered under such-and-such a specific situation and let people decide for themselves how to react to him (ostracize or accept him)?

That doesnt work.  The moral arguments are all bullshit because there is no higher authority in todays system than the judicial system.  The people (aka Society) will not ostracize or accept him, they will simply turn him over to the powers-that-be.  By doing that, you have included yourself in the systems machinery. 

You must choose to be involved in the system, or not.  Involvement equals opening your mouth, because you understand the ramifications of that information.  It was yours, privately, and it doesnt matter if you tell your neighbor or the cops because you have started the ball rolling.  By choosing "no" you have decided to withhold information.  AT ALL COSTS. 

That means one thing:  making sure the information goes no further than it has already gone.  You didnt commit the murder.  You are in no way responsible for the actions of two other people.  The murderer made his choice and acted upon it, for better or worse.  Then, to make matters worse, he confided in you.  That transfer of knowledge comes with a price, and the credibility of the murderer is in question.  You have been pulled into a situation that WILL have a negative impact on you, if and when that info comes to the surface on the radar of the government.  Thanks a lot, friend.  And make no mistake, that info will come to light eventually, but now it has your name mixed into it. 

Which means it's time for damage control. 
Logged

Mike Barskey

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
    • My own web site
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2006, 01:37:49 AM »

You are right, Bill: when a person tells you about their illegal activity, you are instantly implicated and must include that in your decision how to act.

But moral arguments are never bullshit. What if the highest authority in today's system was a dictator? Does that mean that no person under their reign should act on their morals? Hardly. If so, it means that as soon as one person in the world acts immorally it starts a snowball chain of events that is irreversible and ends with the destruction of humanity.

- Mike

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2006, 01:59:55 AM »


But moral arguments are never bullshit. What if the highest authority in today's system was a dictator? - Mike

Depends on the moral argument.  This is a case specific scenario. 

I don't see it playing out in the real world as described by these participants, myself included. 

Its highly unlikely the events would culminate as described, resulting in a decision of such importance resting squarely on your shoulders.  Most likely, the guy would be busted because he fucked up somewhere along the line, and never would have told anyone. 

Secondly, if he did tell you its likely he told someone else and now the damage control I mentioned earlier shifts gears because you are not the only one who has that sensitive info.  Now it becomes a simple case of CYA, may the best man win. 

I personally would be very pissed at someone if they shared that info with me, and due to the way this kind of shit plays out, its equally possible I might just render that person harmless and drag his ass to the cops.  Hate to do it, but they endangered me for no goddamn reason.  Rule #1.  Protect the self.  If some halfwit goes around endangering you by sharing some really nasty secrets, whats the chances he will stop dragging you into his fuck-ups in the future, or also not include you in the next time he tells the story?  Its probably zero to expect that level of sophistication from a dimwit who shares that kind of info so easily. 

What good could come from sharing such a secret with an innocent man?  Its not like sharing a joint or sneaking away from a fender bender, both I've done and would simply lock away in the vault. 
Logged

AncapAgency

  • The Ancap Agency
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
    • The Ancap Agency
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2006, 05:08:02 PM »

However likely it is that a politician is anti-freedom, statistical probability does not make a member of a group the same as everyone else in the group.

Be careful about that.  While it is not valid to claim that all members of a group based on involuntary characteristic are "the same" (e.g. skin color, sex, national origin, etc.), it MAY be valid if group membership is based on a voluntary characteristic.  So, if we say "all murders are people who've killed someone" that is completely valid--it's part of the very definition of the class, i.e. "Murderers."  And thus, if we say that a group of people who are grouped by their having successfully joined the group of people who use the false-legitimacy of government for the purposes of utilizing institutionalized initiatiatory force in order to grab power for themselves in order to do the same, the generalization DOES hold, albeit perhaps to different degrees (e.g. the town councilman usually engages in little more than petty theft, whereas the Feral GovGoon makes grand larceny a matter of daily routine).

Logged
Mediation--Casual Labor--Security Consulting--Firearms Training--General Services

Mike Barskey

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
    • My own web site
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2006, 05:28:52 PM »

AncapAgency -

I agree and understand, so perhaps I just worded my sentence poorly. I meant that even if you are the person in the world who personally knows the most US politicans, you do not know *all* the politicians; hence, if all those that you know are anti-freedom, it is still possible for one of the unknown politicians to be pro-freedom.



But even so, my original sentence is technically correct:
Quote
However likely it is that a politician is anti-freedom, statistical probability does not make a member of a group the same as everyone else in the group.

From the *probability* that a member of a group has a same characteristic as every other member of the group, you cannot *conclude* that every member of the group has this characteristic. It is probable (by the definition of "probability") but it is not definite.

But thanks for point this out. Seriously. I think accuracy and exactness are important.

- Mike

AncapAgency

  • The Ancap Agency
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
    • The Ancap Agency
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2006, 10:19:46 PM »

you do not know *all* the politicians; hence, if all those that you know are anti-freedom, it is still possible for one of the unknown politicians to be pro-freedom.



You misunderstand--how can a POLITICIAN, who is, by definition, not only an agent of GOVERNMENT, but actually a DIRECTOR of Government, which is an entity BASED on initiatory force, be INNOCENT of the initiation of force?

While I know you (I'm assuming here) want to give credit to the rare exceptional sort of politician like Ron Paul, and while I personally wouldn't put someone like him up against the wall come the Revolution, I have to say that even he is not free of responsibility.  Even he compromises the principle, and subsists on stolen money, and props up the false aura of government legitimacy.

As I said, I recognize the vast difference between such as Ron Paul and the rest of the class of politicians, nevertheless, strictly speaking, it applies to him too.  Again, I'm not reserving any rope for him, and for my part, I'd definitely grant him an amnesty, but the amnesty would still be necessary, IMO.
Logged
Mediation--Casual Labor--Security Consulting--Firearms Training--General Services

Lindsey

  • Rock Star
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30370
  • I like Mars.
    • View Profile
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2006, 10:48:49 PM »

This may have gotten lost in the spewing of this thread, or I may have forgotten to ask it.  Either way I'm not going back to find out.  What about the Libertarian politicians?  Are they still evil? 
Logged
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
         -George W. Bush

Taors

  • Guest
Re: Tricky Question
« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2006, 10:55:00 PM »

Technically.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Tricky Question

// ]]>

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 38 queries.