Do we have a responsibility for the well-being of others?

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:41 am

sjc wrote:

The problem with you guys, among many, is that you are only arguing politics and economics directly as abstract entities.

Prove it.

sjc wrote:

I'm arguing their effects on society as a whole.

Liar.

sjc wrote:

You ignore the human side of it, or simply quality of life issues.

Liar.

sjc wrote:

You believe that wealth, along with possessions, ALONE makes you better off than everyone else.

Liar.

I pity you for having to lie so much. I pity you for having to delude yourself into believing that you're really saying what you claim you are.

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:05 pm

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

No, no one is forced to pay attention to him. But this is a lesson for people like him and anyone else who thinks that there needs to be a government for people to deal with troublemakers. Aren't we taking care of it by expressing our dislike for his nonsense? It might even lead to a refusal to deal with him.

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

But, this will be ignored. This will be met solely with insults and evasions. So I'm issuing another challenge--this one to the only moderator in this section who is active: cheap, if sjc posts anything in this thread which is composed of insults and evasions, I wish for you to delete it. And keep deleting his posts in this thread until he finally posts something that addresses the topic, rather than solely contains whining, crying, insults, and evasions. You want a civil area? You want intelligent discussions? Fine--take action to ensure them. You signed up to be a moderator; you chose that obligation. If you do not want this to turn into sjc-insults-everyone-because-sjc-has-no-argument, then you'd best exercise whatever power you have.

I'm on fucking vacation. Deal with it yourself.

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:15 pm

sjc wrote:

To be fair, cheap should also delete any and all the insults that you just issued as well. Come to think of it, he can't since it would be a complete conflict of interest since he is also involved in your campaign as well.

You mean that because I'm also an anarchist, I can't delete his insults?

That's not a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest would be me taking action against YOU in this thread after this exchange.

Read a book.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:00 am

cheapsuprise wrote:

I'm on fucking vacation. Deal with it yourself.

You're not on vacation until you remove yourself as a moderator, and you're still listed as one.

Hint: this is as much a lesson for you as it is for him. Wonderful how I can deftly combine the two.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:17 am

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

You're not on vacation until you remove yourself as a moderator, and you're still listed as one.

Hint: this is as much a lesson for you as it is for him. Wonderful how I can deftly combine the two.

Come on Knight, that wasn't nice.
As frustrating dealing with sjc is, there is no rule against beeing an ignorant asshole on these boards.
In fact, as far as I can tell, there hardly is any rule at all, so everything is left to the moderators' judgement, so I hardly see how you can have any reason to tell them how to do their job.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

cheapsuprise wrote:

You mean that because I'm also an anarchist, I can't delete his insults?

Its a conflict of interest for you to take an official stance in any way in this discussion

Quote:

That's not a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest would be me taking action against YOU in this thread after this exchange.

Read a book.

Which he had made a demand of you to do AGAINST me to do thus violating his beliefs. I had said that it would be a conflict of interest if you took any official part in this discussion. I had also said that to be fair you would have to do the same to him otherwise. You had at least some small bit of honor and told he to stuff it. And I see that he has now turned on you, as I said he would.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Come on Knight, that wasn't nice.
As frustrating dealing with sjc is, there is no rule against beeing an ignorant asshole on these boards.

Lucky for you guys. And luckily there is no rule against being a pussy or else I wouldn't be here either. Smile

Quote:

In fact, as far as I can tell, there hardly is any rule at all, so everything is left to the moderators' judgement, so I hardly see how you can have any reason to tell them how to do their job.

Its just him getting upset because he can't get his way. After all his personal liberty is more important than anyone else's.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:55 am

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

You're not on vacation until you remove yourself as a moderator, and you're still listed as one.

Hint: this is as much a lesson for you as it is for him. Wonderful how I can deftly combine the two.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Come on Knight, that wasn't nice.

Nice or not, I'm simply using the rules to my advantage.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

As frustrating dealing with sjc is, there is no rule against beeing an ignorant asshole on these boards.In fact, as far as I can tell, there hardly is any rule at all, so everything is left to the moderators' judgement, so I hardly see how you can have any reason to tell them how to do their job.

I can when I'm reminding them of their wishes. And since cheap has a desire to see civil, intellectual discourse, I'm merely reminding him of his wish and that he has the power to make his wish come to fruition.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:57 am

sjc wrote:

Its just him getting upset because he can't get his way.

No, it's me reminding a moderator of the position he signed up for.

sjc wrote:

After all his personal liberty is more important than anyone else's.

Anything else is slavery, which means that you endorse slavery. How does that feel, sjc? Why haven't you bought some big, strapping blacks to pick cotton for you?

Now whine, cry, evade, insult and run away, sjc.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:02 am

sjc wrote:

The problem with you guys, among many, is that you are only arguing politics and economics directly as abstract entities. I'm arguing their effects on society as a whole.

Not sure if you would include me here since I'm not an anarcho-capitalist or a self-identifying libertarian but I always include societal effects in my arguments on politics and economics. However, I think it is important to remember that while some economic systems try to address economic inequalities and social needs directly that such a thing is not required of all economic systems. Most prosperous countries are this way where they have wealth redistributive programs that are not a direct part of the economic engine. They are however burdensome add-ons to the engine that will often slow growth and produce market distortions and often negative unintended (even though often obvious) social consequences.

sjc wrote:

You ignore the human side of it, or simply quality of life issues.

Nobody ignores the human side of it. You are simply appalled with the concept of liberty and freedom for all including the freedoms of being allowed to fail or live in misery based on your own actions and also the freedoms of others to ignore the plights of others and not to be coerced into to helping others. The fact that you rely on others and that you think you could not make it on your own are probably big contributors to your passionate feelings on this issue. You probably feel great humiliation when you hear stories of people with much more challenging disabilities than you have being very successful. In America there are many examples of such people.

sjc wrote:

You believe that wealth, along with possessions, ALONE makes you better off than everyone else.

Nobody says this. This is probably something you are projecting onto others and born of your own envy of what other people have. The large homes, new cars, and big screens of others probably pisses you off.

sjc wrote:

The more the better while making sure that others get less.

This is one of the most annoying economic fallacies and demonizations of "the rich" there is. While people like you who envy others and are jealous fixate on what others have most people do not do that. If you had any idea how the economy works and how wealth is created you'd know that people with money want to be in a vibrant economy where everyone is doing well and there are many great investments to make.

sjc wrote:

That is a shallow way to live and I pity you all for it.

Bullshit. You don't pity anyone for living well. The "shallow way" they live in your mind isn't real at all. They have more than you and you hate it so you create this fallacy and attach it to others to bring them down below you in your own mind which is where you want others to be. You have a superiority complex that is not satisfied by unaltered reality.

sjc wrote:

Of course the one I pity the most, on here, has always been and will aways be KnoB.

"Knob" has stolen SJC's bullseye off my back.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:30 am

Saitou wrote:

Nobody ignores the human side of it. You are simply appalled with the concept of liberty and freedom for all including the freedoms of being allowed to fail or live in misery based on your own actions and also the freedoms of others to ignore the plights of others and not to be coerced into to helping others.

see this is why libertarianism makes sense and neo-conism (is that even a word Laughing

) does not.

you neo-cons believe that my money should be taxed and thus are forcing me to support a war that I do not support, however you object to forcing rich people to support poor people. this reeks of hypocrisy to me. maybe you can help me see your side here. I'm listening. Wink

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:13 am

Saitou wrote:

Nobody ignores the human side of it. You are simply appalled with the concept of liberty and freedom for all including the freedoms of being allowed to fail or live in misery based on your own actions and also the freedoms of others to ignore the plights of others and not to be coerced into to helping others.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

see this is why libertarianism makes sense and neo-conism (is that even a word Laughing

) does not.

you neo-cons believe that my money should be taxed

Because I think a government is necessary I support taxes to fund its "necessary functions". I am not confident that I can make a moral argument for taxation. I do think that libertarians who don't support any taxes at all have a moral high ground on me that but what I think should be done is not contingent only on what is most moral. Yes, I WILL NOT, always take the route that is most moral.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

and thus are forcing me to support a war that I do not support

If you support democracy in any of its forms there will be cases where things happen that some do not support. Fortunately for me (and in my judgement, my family, every American citizen, and most of the rest of the world)--since I think you are terribly wrong in not support our war efforts--the war is happening despite many not supporting it.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

however you object to forcing rich people to support poor people.

I admit to being on both sides of this issue. I support taxation, laws, and democracy so therefore I do support some force being exerted upon others. I support government spending upon things that some of the taxpayers might not approve of. However, as I said before, I cannot make a moral argument for taxation. So I don't justify it as moral because of a moral obligation I think can be thrust upon others. To an extent I do support people (rich included) being forced to give up some liberty for different things including assistance for the poor. However I "justify" such actions not on the grounds of morality as much as on my vision of what society should be and on the results of such policies that I do support.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

this reeks of hypocrisy to me.

And so it would be if I made absolute moral arguments to support each case but I don't. While I think morality is very important I don't think absolute moral authority must be required for everything.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

maybe you can help me see your side here. I'm listening. Wink

You're already on my side since you support taxation and spending on education. If you think I'm being hypocritical or confused you might have to wonder if you are even more so than I. Wink

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:30 am

Saitou wrote:

Nobody ignores the human side of it. You are simply appalled with the concept of liberty and freedom for all including the freedoms of being allowed to fail or live in misery based on your own actions and also the freedoms of others to ignore the plights of others and not to be coerced into to helping others.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

see this is why libertarianism makes sense and neo-conism (is that even a word Laughing

) does not.

you neo-cons believe that my money should be taxed

Because I think a government is necessary I support taxes to fund its "necessary functions". I am not confident that I can make a moral argument for taxation. I do think that libertarians who don't support any taxes at all have a moral high ground on me that but what I think should be done is not contingent only on what is most moral. Yes, I WILL NOT, always take the route that is most moral.

isn't this utilitarianism? see this is what I am as well, and thus when arguing about thing like welfare, education, war, etc, it is not relevant wether it is coercion or not, but what will work and what won't. thus when you argue with sjc and imply that coercion is bad, well obviously to me and you it is not the coercion that matters as much as the fact that the results of some liberal policies don't do as intended. thus I fail to see why you would mention coercion. (I can see why knight would as that fits what he believes and is consistent.)

Quote:

hillbillyatheist wrote:

and thus are forcing me to support a war that I do not support

If you support democracy in any of its forms there will be cases where things happen that some do not support. Fortunately for me (and in my judgement, my family, every American citizen, and most of the rest of the world)--since I think you are terribly wrong in not support our war efforts--the war is happening despite many not supporting it.

who says I don't support democracy? I simply don't think we should be the worlds police. if we really want to help the iraqis and others, why not simply help fund an internal resistance movement instead of invading with our own army?

also why aren't we attacking other dictators. why are we supporting dictators if we really care about freedom. somehow I suspect this "we're fighting for freedom" is a crock. kinda like the whole "the civil war was to free the slaves" nonsense.

Quote:

hillbillyatheist wrote:

however you object to forcing rich people to support poor people.

I admit to being on both sides of this issue. I support taxation, laws, and democracy so therefore I do support some force being exerted upon others. I support government spending upon things that some of the taxpayers might not approve of. However, as I said before, I cannot make a moral argument for taxation. So I don't justify it as moral because of a moral obligation I think can be thrust upon others. To an extent I do support people (rich included) being forced to give up some liberty for different things including assistance for the poor. However I "justify" such actions not on the grounds of morality as much as on my vision of what society should be and on the results of such policies that I do support.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

this reeks of hypocrisy to me.

And so it would be if I made absolute moral arguments to support each case but I don't. While I think morality is very important I don't think absolute moral authority must be required for everything.

I can't really argue with that. my morals are also flexible.

Quote:

hillbillyatheist wrote:

maybe you can help me see your side here. I'm listening. Wink

You're already on my side since you support taxation and spending on education. If you think I'm being hypocritical or confused you might have to wonder if you are even more so than I. Wink

I am not dissing coercion in one breath while supporting it with the next. maybe you aren't a hypocrite. but this means it's not the coercion so much as the results of an action that concern you. if this is the case then you and I think alike at least in this regard.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:01 am

hillbillyatheist wrote:

isn't this utilitarianism?

Yes.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

see this is what I am as well, and thus when arguing about thing like welfare, education, war, etc, it is not relevant wether it is coercion or not, but what will work and what won't. thus when you argue with sjc and imply that coercion is bad

Coercion is bad when weighted on a moral scale.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

well obviously to me and you it is not the coercion that matters as much as the fact that the results of some liberal policies don't do as intended. thus I fail to see why you would mention coercion. (I can see why knight would as that fits what he believes and is consistent.)

I am entirely sympathetic to Knight's position and recognize it has moral superiority to my own. When people speak out against the coercion of taxation I'm not appalled by their position. If I chime in on something SJC says and it's based on the morality of the positions I'll often sound like Knight.

Quote:

hillbillyatheist wrote:

and thus are forcing me to support a war that I do not support

If you support democracy in any of its forms there will be cases where things happen that some do not support. Fortunately for me (and in my judgement, my family, every American citizen, and most of the rest of the world)--since I think you are terribly wrong in not support our war efforts--the war is happening despite many not supporting it.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

who says I don't support democracy?

I wasn't saying that you actually didn't. I was merely pointing something out.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

I simply don't think we should be the worlds police.

That's fine. That's also not my position where Iraq is concerned. My support for that war is based on a long term strategy of reshaping the middle east. I support the imposition of more freedoms in that region. I'd like to see western countries support efforts to bring more freedom to the region.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

if we really want to help the iraqis and others, why not simply help fund an internal resistance movement instead of invading with our own army?

I don't think they would have actually accomplished the goal.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

also why aren't we attacking other dictators.

I'd prefer they fall on their own but if there is sufficient national interest in attacking other dictators I'm all for it.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

why are we supporting dictators if we really care about freedom. somehow I suspect this "we're fighting for freedom" is a crock.

If you single out an individual reason and say, "that's what this is all about" it'll be a crock. The number one reason is US national interest mostly security but also economic.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

kinda like the whole "the civil war was to free the slaves" nonsense.

Some people supported the war in part for that reason even if that's not what it was all about.

hillbillyatheist wrote:

I am not dissing coercion in one breath while supporting it with the next. maybe you aren't a hypocrite. but this means it's not the coercion so much as the results of an action that concern you. if this is the case then you and I think alike at least in this regard.

To clarify, I do think coercion is wrong and therefore should be used as little as is necessary. Now guys like Knight believe that government isn't necessary so he'll never agree with me that any is necessary. I don't think I can convince him government is necessary and I lose a moral argument for coercion before it starts so you're not likely to see me debate him on this stuff.

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:12 am

Saitou wrote:

Because I think a government is necessary I support taxes to fund its "necessary functions". I am not confident that I can make a moral argument for taxation. I do think that libertarians who don't support any taxes at all have a moral high ground on me that but what I think should be done is not contingent only on what is most moral. Yes, I WILL NOT, always take the route that is most moral.

But then you've admitted that your stance simply isn't morally proper at all, much like the theist admitting that his/her position is irrational by saying "I take it on faith". You've admitted that your stance is that of a thug: that initiatory coercion is perfectly acceptable. And since immoral actions should not be allowed/performed, it thus follows that what you propose should not be instantiated.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore