Topic: What do you believe is moral? - page 3. (Read 17785 times)

I doubt you can even convince yourself -- give it up & get back to ditchdiggery

And if you work on the other side of town? If you have no friends who can deliver food to you? It seems that perhaps you haven't thought through the consequences of of just how violent and coercive your suggestion is.

You simply claimed that nonviolent enforcement exists?  That was all you were trying to do?  There was no implicit claim that it could be used to enforce more than a few laws that you custom-crafted for it?  You're being, as you put it, "intellectually honest"?
Further, you failed to define nonviolent enforcement, something i have asked you to do in bold font.  And further still, you have provided just one example -- i have asked for a sampling.  


Stop being absurd.  If one of the conditions is "mom *wants* to go," then what, exactly, is being enforced here?  

Yes!


Yes!


Yes!


*Screeech* And you veered off from "nonviolent" for "forced kidnapping." >.< I mean, I would have said "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't step outside of your property," which, again, many of us would agree to, but I guess our two minds work differently, yours apparently having quite a bit more of a tendency towards violence than mine. 

Agreed. I pretty much ignore crumbs, because, unlike others on here, he is just all kinds of bonkers. I's half convinced he is just a troll, really. But, despite my attempts to ignore him, sometimes the things he says are just so stupid and badly thought out that I can't help but comment. I try to convince myself that I am doing it for the benefit of other readers who may be misled by his *ahem* opinions, but I think I'm only convincing myself.

there is no need for more than one example. one example is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate the existance. if you said i dont believe in rocks. and i said look i have a rock right here in my hand. you wouldnt say, yea but thats only one rock, you have to show me more than one rock before ill believe that rocks exist.

anyway deal with the comment that i sent to you not rassah. here it is again incase you missed it.

What, in particular, bothers you?  You failed to define your terms -- i politely asked you to define them again, in boldface this time.
Again you have failed.  
I asked you to give me a sampling of examples.  You offered me one, and started bawing when you couldn't deal with a counterexample.  
Grow up, will you?  I'm trying to be courteous, but you aren't making it easy.

Edit: Now then, we have already established that taxation can be enforced by nonviolent means HERE, Correct?  Are you going to be "intellectually honest" & concede the point?

You mean like:

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to Disney World."

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to Disney World nor Florida."

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to a lot of places."

"If you don't pay your taxes, you can't step outside of a cell."

that is a good example.

this is maddening rassah. his reply to


was


stefan was right, we really do live in a mental zombie apocalypse. i dont want to block people but trying to have a rational discussion wit these people is like trying to herd cats. they are just everywhere and no where at once. seamlessly redefining the context, aim and purpose of the discussion with each new post, claiming that they have a better understanding of what point you are trying to make than you do. its maddening.  

it doesnt have to deal with the scenario you presented because i never made the claim that non violent enforcement could be used to deal with that scenario. you never asked me to demonstrate the capabilities of non violent enforcement you asked me to demonstrate that it exists.

Since we only need to think of one example showing one situation where one rule might be enforced by non violent means to demonstrate that non violent rule enforcement exists lets make a more specific and more explicit example. Lets say that the kid sincerely desires to go WITH his mother to disney world but only on the condition that the mother is in voluntary attendance. (this will preclude things like kidnapping). now the mother says, if you break the rules than i will not voluntarily take you to disney world.

Is this example sufficient to demonstrate that such a thing as non violent rule enforcement exists? if not why not?

Ah, kind of like, if you get arrested for possession of marijuana, you can't get a federally subsidized student loan.

This is actually a pretty nice scenario to demonstrate the difference between government and volyntarism, from which you may be able to derive better opinions on "morality."

Let's say in this scenario, bob lives near where he works, and doesn't actually need the car for day-to-day use.

In a volyntarist society, Bob will refuse to contribute to the gas, forcing the driver and other passenger to pay more, and will be forced to pay a much larger sum to compensate the driver on the rate occasions that he does need to use the car. Bob may decide that it's cheaper to only pay for the car when he needs to, or that it's cheaper to calculate how often he needs to use the car throughout the year, and make constant small payments to distribute his costs. Or bob, along with the driver and other passenger, may realize that the car is costing them too much for the little use they get out of it, and decide to switch to something else, such as two cheaper scooters, which the driver and the passenger can ride independently, and bob can borrow for a fee.

In a government/statist society, the driver and the passenger decide that the car is needed, and agree to force bob to pay for his share of the gas, even though bob rarely, if ever, needs to use the car. If bob refuses to pay, which he likely would due to not needing to use the car nearly as much as the other two people, they will claim that they are authorized to use force to make him pay, going as far as to keep track of all his finances, to see if he has the money to pay. Their justification for this will be that he can also use the car, should he need to, despite the fact that he is being forced to pay for way more use than he actually needs, or uses. As a result, Bob is forced to give up money for things he doesn't want, money that is in effect being "stolen" and used by others, and the car use remains fully funded, hiding the fact that the car may be way too expensive for what the "market" actually needs, preventing new ideas and vehicles from being used.

The last part is fairly relevant when comparing the rail and alternative transportation options of USA and Europe - In US, the roads and gasoline are subsidized so much (by forcing everyone to pay for them) that all other alternative methods of transportation are not able to compete. As a result, we are all forced to rely on driving everywhere, with no possibility of exploring other options like rail and public transportation.

Wheee  We's both happy!

You have failed to do the following:

a) To define "nonviolent enforcement" (not to be a prick, but nonviolent is one word)
b) To address how nonviolent enforcement will deal with the scenario i've presented you with.  If you feel that scenario is not plausible, explain why.

yeayeayea i know you got me. i personally wouldn't consider a situation where failing to give someone money resulted in the redaction of privileges to be taxation. to me taxation necessarily involves rights violations. this puts my definition at odds with wikipedia but im ok with that.

Are you familiar with the concept of "positive reinforcement?" Or do you believe that the only way to control people is to force them and punish them when they get out of line?

im really confused about how this is relevant to the question of whether non violent rule enforcement mechanisms exist or not. did i fail to demonstrate an example of one such non violent enforcement mechanism? if so than explain why.

Didn't you suggest that punishment could be nonviolent?  As in "nonviolent enforcement"?  Where be the brutality in that?  The punishment could be your ostracism  So, where the brutality be?

Edit:  No likey taxes?  Leave country -- no payee taxes.  How much less violent can shit get?

And when Woodles answers "no prob, ma, i'll just take your moneyz & go by myself with Spanky"?
*If you don't consider scenarios other than the one which favors your point, others (like me) will.