Topic: What do you believe is moral? - page 11. (Read 17785 times)

Because I negotiated for its trade, gave up something of mine that I have spent a lot of time and labor on, and was the one who purchased it? Because, as long as whatever I'm doing on it doesn't affect my neighbors, it's none of my neighbors' business regarding what I do with it? Because I am actually involved with purchasing, and later maintaining that land? A better question is, why do you believe people who come together and call themselves "government" should have absolute dominion over my land, even when they have nothing to do with it? Why does the Queen of England have absolute dominion over a large chunk of land on the other side of the planet, just because a sailor stuck a flag on its beach? Why can I claim absolute dominion over your land just by being hired to work for the government?



I gave up something of value in exchange for something else of value. Why does it matter if that something of value is land or a doll? Why doesn't government claim absolute dominion over Barbie dolls, and charge property tax on those? You'll have to explain to me why land property is different from doll property.


The entity that owns what's inside the walls actually built what was inside the walls. They spent their own time and labor on it. At the same time, they don't own and have no right to control what's actually between those walls. There are some basic rules against doing things that will damage those walls and what's inside, but just because the inside of the walls belong to someone else, doesn't mean that someone else can dictate to me what I do with my money, my body, and the stuff residing inside my apartment. It's that thing I mentioned where your landlord can't force you to pay for someone else's health insurance or pool, remember?
So, with land ownership, I'm fine with government claiming what's above my land, below my land, and around my land, just like your inside of walls example, but they shouldn't be able to claim ownership of the land itself or what's on it. Even their claim of land ownership is specious, since they didn't actually do anything to build our create it. Even more so, they shouldn't be able to claim ownership to my body and to my time, labor, and money, as they do with restrictions on what I can do on my own property, how I spend my money, and taxation.

I know they do, and I know they are able to get away with it. My point is that they shouldn't. Partly because it's not ethical, not any more than the earlier bully and jungle gym example, and partially because such power apparently always leads to extreme corruption without a possible fix.

Why do you believe it is your right to have absolute dominion over the land you just purchased?

Let's back up a bit and see where you've gone wrong. You might say, "I purchased the land, and therefore own it." Where you're going wrong is in the usage of the word "own". To you, it means absolute dominion, as if you just purchased a Barbie doll. Just because the same word is used, does not mean the same type of transaction occurred. You must think about that.

If you bought a condo, do you own what's inside the interior walls of the condo? No, you don't. Another entity does. It works in layers. Same with land ownership within a preexisting nation. Why is it this way with condo ownership? Why is it this way with land ownership? The reasons are pretty simple. To maintain and preserve the quality of the property in such a way that the product as a whole (the sum of all condos in the development, or the sum of all property within the nation) remains viable.

You'll have to forgive me, I don't remember your island example. I may not have read it if it was in a thread I wasn't involved in. And no, I'm not adding fantasies to any realities. I know exactly how the real world works. That's why I'm complaining about it. Please don't fall into the same stupid bullshit line as crumbs, where your replies to "shit sucks and should change" is nothing more than, "but that's the way things are."


Yes, of course I know that there are third parties involved. That's why I am asking about those third parties. Questions like "where does the private transaction between myself and the prior owner of the property accords the government some special rights to butt in and say, 'I have ownership too!'" I'm not asking how things are in this world, I'm asking why are they like that, why do people think they are ethical and just when they are seemingly not, and what can we do to change them. If your answer is that they are ethical and just, and that nothing should change, then you have nothing to add to the discussion, and we're done.

The onus is on you to show where the extra rights come from. The only rights I care about are the previous owner's legitimate claim to the property he is selling to me, and his willing to give up that claim to me in some provable manner, such as with a signed document. By the way, it doesn't matter if this document is recorded by a government institution, some private institution, or just something that only he and i have that we signed with our PGP keys. From that point on, it's up to me to secure my property, either by showing proof that the previous owner has given it to me, or if need be by secure doors and walls, or by force. Please point out where the private transaction between myself and the prior owner of the property accords the government some special rights to butt in and say, "I have ownership too!"
[/quote]

I already explained it in the island example in a prior post in this thread. You are the one adding in your fantasies to the realities of this world. Your notion that "ownership of land" means sovereignty is just that, a fantasy.

I can't imagine how it is that you believe that an agreement between you and the prior owner means what you think it does within the context of this world. There are other parties involved, and you and the prior owner know it. Perhaps on the terminator of planet Mercury, you and others can enact your fantasy precisely because there would not be other parties involved.

Ultimately, your views are a product of your inability to acknowledge the existence of already existing third parties (or a singular third party). Again, my island analogy serves as an example, where I illustrated this rather clearly.

The onus is on you to show where the extra rights come from. The only rights I care about are the previous owner's legitimate claim to the property he is selling to me, and his willing to give up that claim to me in some provable manner, such as with a signed document. By the way, it doesn't matter if this document is recorded by a government institution, some private institution, or just something that only he and i have that we signed with our PGP keys. From that point on, it's up to me to secure my property, either by showing proof that the previous owner has given it to me, or if need be by secure doors and walls, or by force. Please point out where the private transaction between myself and the prior owner of the property accords the government some special rights to butt in and say, "I have ownership too!"

Strange. From my point of view, I've found FirstAscent to be honest, but just really dumb.
[/quote]

Funny - everything you've posted here recently smacks of dumbness. For example, your naive assumptions that property transfer of land from one owner to you (recorded by a government institution) accords you the up until transfer nonexistent rights that should somehow materialize upon the transfer. Please point out where it is stated that your purchase of land from the prior owner accords you these rights you so vehemently believe in.

If you want to call me dumb, then let's have at it.

Please point to any intellectually dishonest material I have posted. I challenge you to. At best you'll find that your own interpretation of what I have posted leads you to believe that I'm intellectually dishonest because of your own preconceived biases (and lack of knowledge in certain domains).

You've been challenged. Put up or shut up.

i dont think hes a troll. hes vastly more intellectually honest than firstassent. now that's a troll.
[/quote]

Strange. From my point of view, I've found FirstAscent to be honest, but just really dumb. He honestly believes the things he says, even if they are extremely shortsighted, simpleminded, or even unethical. He may have a lot of cognitive dissonance, but he believes in his own understanding of the world wholeheartedly. He may be an evil bastard, but at least he's upfront about it.
Crumbs, on the other hand, seems to be all over the place, constantly derailing discussions and questions with red herrings, claims of supporting certain points followed by claims of always having supported the opposite, and is very intellectually lazy, avoiding discussions about possible solutions to problems or alternative ways of doing things by always replying with "that's not the way things work iRL," and even resorting to petty insults when pushed for real answers. I can't tell if he's an evil bastard of not, but he's definitely a dishonest asshole, and is apparently very open about it.

i dont think hes a troll. hes vastly more intellectually honest than firstassent. now that's a troll.

agreed. the state has a much better claim to the roads than they do wilderness areas they have deemed national parks.


its perfectly analogous to the bully and the jungle gym. the unused half of the jungle gym is the unused wilderness areas. the bullies fist is the tazer. when the bully says ill beat you up if you play on the jungle gym thats the same as the ranger saying ill taze you if you build a house here. if the analogy is sound, and you agree that the bully does not have the moral high ground than it should follow that the park ranger is not morally justified in tazing you for building a house on unused wilderness land.


Yes i suppose this is true. I do not believe in objective standards of morality. my sense of morality is purely a product of my own subjective preferences. I prefer that peaceful people not be electrocuted and i would prefer that you prefer this also.


If the child legitimately earned those cookies out in the market than the mother has no right to take them away. That would be stealing. HOWEVER, the mother does own the roof over the child head. So if the child absolutely refuses to give up the cookies than she does have the right to kick him and his cookies out of the house. Of course the mother cant be allowed to have dozens of children and then kick them out of the house for refusing to comply with unreasonable demands resulting in their untimely demise. So the demands must be reasonable, and so long as the child complies with the parents reasonable demands the mother must have the duty to provide food, shelter, hygiene, water, love and mental stimulation.

still this little rant is not all that relevant so lets try to stick with the question of does officer yogi have the moral right to taze me for building a house out in the wilderness.

He's an ex-Soviet, communist immigrant who's native tongue is Russian, who grew up in the severely brainwashing propagandist statist socialist state, where the concept of "property" and "good work" hasn't existed for almost a century. It's all "why should I do it, when someone else can do it for me" over there. Not entirely his fault. That he is a troll, and a lousy one at that, however, is entirely his fault.

Thank you crumbs. Thanks to you, I had a very satisfying and stress relieving Iaido and Kendo class tonight, and am now way more relaxed and content. Now back to the discussion...


Let's stick to the topic here. You are paying for things in your apartment that you don't want to pay for. You are claiming you are forced to pay for them, and that this is no different from how one is forced to pay taxes for things. I asked if you are actually getting the services you are being forced to pay for. Obviously you are, since you are the one seeing the manicured lawn and the doorman that money pays for. I asked if you were aware of these costs before choosing to buy this property. I suspect that was disclosed somewhere in your purchase agreement. I asked why you don't move if this is something you don't want to pay for. You didn't really answer. Every state has a ton of properties that don't come with lawn services and doormen. The point is that (1) you had a choice to live where you live and voluntarily picked the place yourself, (2) you are actually getting the services you paid for, even if you are being forced to pay for them, and (3) you are very free to move around and pick a different place to live that is either cheaper, or offers other services for you to buy. None of those apply to a government, which doesn't give you a choice where you are born, forces you to pay for services you never need, and restricts you in where you can move to, in the case of USA even continuing to charge you for services when you are living on foreign territory.
This is why being forced to pay apartment fees is not at all the same as being forced to pay taxes.


Please answer this question. If you must "explain iRL" to me, which I thought was the whole point of the question, then please do. Then, maybe strain some brain cells and explain to me why you support this iRL the way it is, or why you think it should be changed.




Which still doesn't answer why, just because I was dragged here against my will and when I was too young to make decisions on my own, that the US government now owns me, or is forcing me to own whatever it is I am being forced to pay taxes for. Again, why is it that your father can't move you into a house, and then force you to assume ownership of that house, including all the fees that come with it,but my parents can can move me into a country, and then force me to assume ownership of that country, including all the fees involved with that. Or an even better question, why do you think that this is just and should remain that way?





I ask because I am not content with theft and murder. So when I see someone, be it a person or an organization, stealing from people and murdering people, it bothers me, and I speak up about it. I see taxation as theft, and I see war as murder. You asked why I'm debating this, or why I'm bothering with wanting to change things instead of just accepting iRL like you do. That's your answer. It's OK if you don't see taxation and war and theft and murder, though. People didn't think there was anything ethically wrong with slavery and communism, either.



Not a trick question. I think the correct answer was thieves. The follow-up question is what makes thieves different from organized government?
As for the gun business. What happens if I refuse to pay taxes? Will I just be left alone? Or will someone come to take me away? What if I prevent them from taking me away? Will they just leave me alone? Are you really claiming that any of us can simple stop paying taxes, and live in peace without the IRS or their enforcers bothering us?



Assuming that you aren't going to be left alone if you simply don't pay taxes, are you OK with the people who work for the government coming to either force you to pay, or take you away, at the point of a gun if need be.

Why can't you write coherent sentences?

Understandable as in laudable, or understandable as in "I understand why Dahmer did it"?  Or just meh?


Show me such a man, and i'll make him curse the day he was born!


Yes.


They're smart.


No.  Some of them ask too many questions, but ... maybe or?  Yes.  Wait, wat?

[...a huge pile of question marks...]


Here's a useful tip: If your post contains more question marks than periods -- consider revising.

What would you like to know? (limit: one thing.  No cheating) 
If you can couch your thoughts in 20 words or less, no pig latin, no more than three syllables a word, you'll get an answer, same time tomorrow.  But, ffs, please be specific.

I bet this is another one of your trick questions, you silver-tongued devil you!  Is the correct answer gob'ment?  BTW, imprisonment is *always* forced.  And stop it with the gun business already.  Unless you're running shine & it's the prohibition, i doubt most folks at IRS even carry sidearms.  Anyhow, all they ever want from you is dollars, and we all know how worthless that fiat shit is, right?  


What such people?  The cleaning people who get rid of your worthless fiat?  Do you at least tip them well for their service?

Here's something I've been thinking about:

It seems quite understandable to me why people would choose to argue in favor of (personal) freedom and a free society (whatever that might mean). Even if their visions of how such a thing might work or be achieved can be perceived as naive, idealistic or flat out impossible by some.

What I don't understand are people who would choose to argue against a free society. Are they convinced they have figured out that it definitely can't work? Why? Are people inherently evil and not to be trusted? Do they believe it to be impossible to organize society on a large scale without coercion? Do they argue out of reflex? Do they subscribe to the notion that ends justify means? Do they imagine themselves to be in a seat of power one day and ordering people around? Do they feel like level-headed rationalists by pointing out to starry-eyed dreamers that only the system we have right now can be expected to work? What's going on there?

Not trying to troll here, seeking some honest answers. I can see why one can be distrustful of notions of a free society. I agree with an approach of questioning the validity of any and all alternatives. But what I see all over these forums and have seen in many other situations in life is not an approach of "open-minded skepticism" but more of an "a priori rejection" of all things freedom-related.

Seriously, isn't it more fun to invent and dream into existence things which might work (be creative), instead of inventing and coming up with arguments why something can't work (being destructive)?

Well, not sure if I even expect a serious answer, so I'm just going to leave this here.

I don't want to live in 49 of those states, are you telling me how to shop for apartments?


You didn't answer my question. And we are not discussing about how things are, we are discussing what's wrong with them, and what should be changed. Well, the rest of us are, anyway. You seem to be content with just repeating that "that's the way things are" and making fun of anyone who suggests they should be different.