Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 23. (Read 28705 times)

Violates the NAP? Ok then, here's your answer to why murder is wrong: "Murder is wrong because it says so in the bible. ". It's a non-answer too.

Agreed, he's putting my life at risk. He might be willing to take that risk, but why should I have to?

Coercion is always wrong because if violates the non-aggression principle.

I should note here that 'putting your life at risk' is not the same thing as 'threatening your life'

The juggler is putting your life at risk, but if he is skilled enough will not kill you, or him.

The man with the ax is threatening your life.

I agree that coercion is wrong most of the time. But not all of the time. Which I think my example proves. Somewhere there's a balance between what you should coerce people to do or don't do, and what you shouldn't. I can't define that line, and it does change, but I believe it's there.

Now, please explain to me why coercion is always wrong. Why can't I force someone to stop putting my life at risk?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Just defend your statement and stop deflecting.

If either one of you will give me a moral framework within which to work, I will gladly explain to you why coercion is wrong. I will not attack any argument you make because I agree, murder is wrong. I would like to see why you think so, however.

You mean you want me to make an argument for why murder is bad so that you can attack my murder argument while ignoring the defense of your own claim from many pages ago?  No thanks.

I would like an answer to my question if you don't mind. 

I've told you once, I don't want to have to tell you again, troll elsewhere.

Now, if you're willing to have an intellectual discussion, please justify why murder is wrong so that I can properly frame my response as to why coercion is wrong.

Really? I can endanger everyone and you won't do anything to prevent it until you're royally screwed? Please justify how you think this is right.

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, now put up or shut up.

Stop deflecting and man up.

They (the market) actually already do. That's how we have republics, democracies, socialism, communism or any other type of -ism or governing. The basic premise of the law is force legalized. Which is to say, your version which you execute upon another man (for reasons justified by you) is merely competing with another man's version of the law. The question is, if you're right, then yours should be the ipso facto standard. Unfortunately that doesn't suffice. Truth doesn't make things happen, implementation does. That requires real force applied to real objects (including people in some instances).

Saying that we can compete for the definition of the law is to apply force your way, or their way, or some other way. In the final analysis and outcome of things, it isn't so much that you may be right (no harm, no injury, do as ye will) it's who has the superior force.

You and your collective force (mutual solidarity) must merely have superior strength, not superior truth. We can't break the laws of nature (as far as I know), but we can violate each others basic human rights. For that -collectively- we must have a standard, and then, and only then can we compete for services (governmental or otherwise) under that premise and principle.

Competing jurisdictions would work well if the boundaries to those 'jurisdictions' couldn't be invaded or penetrated by external forces. If that were possible, we could all start our own societies and see who comes out on top. Sadly, this is near impossible

As has been asked now 5 times, Justify why you believe murder is wrong.

So you're in favor of one person's irresponsible behavior killing many others, that's perfectly acceptable to you? 

As has been asked before, how do you justify this?

Then you're better off swimming.

Still waiting on your argument as to why murder is wrong. You said before you could prove it. Time to do so.

And what if he doesn't because he thinks the razor sharp knives are no threat to the life raft?

Excellent, even better example because it's risky behavior instead of straight up violence.

Life-raft scenarios always breaking down aside, No, but you can attempt to convince him that now is not the time, and that when they reach the island (presumably the one Aye-Yo posited) then he can juggle. It's in his best interest to put the knives away, too, so it's likely he will.