|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
Then you are entitled to stop them doing so. Everyone should be allowed to go where they please. If they make it impossible for others to live there aswell that is initiation of force and justifies retaliation. You should not be able to stop peaceful people roaming where they please, however.
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
|
Why you even arguing if you believe there's no moral justification for anything anyway?
-------------------- "Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally). Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
Then you are entitled to stop them doing so. Everyone should be allowed to go where they please. If they make it impossible for others to live there aswell that is initiation of force and justifies retaliation. You should not be able to stop peaceful people roaming where they please, however.
Do you even realize the logical fallacy you just engaged in?
You say that it is justifiable to engage in retaliation when somebody imposes their will upon you. What if a large and organized force engages in hostilities towards you? You would have to organize a large and disciplined force to combat them. In order to do this you would need resources. The resources that would fund this effort would be either taxed or volunteered by the people who are affected by this hostile action. In order to do this you would need an organized effort by like-minded people. These people who are affected could be considered a "group". This "group" occupies a certain segment of land.
And given how hostilities tend to occur in this world, it would make sense to have a common defense already prepared that would be able to handle a contingency such as an invasion. In order to support a common defense you would need to levy taxes. In order to levy taxes you would have to have a clearly defined area with a clearly defined population where you can levy those taxes. Right there we have a certain group of people on a certain piece of land. This could be considered a nation that has a population, resources, and territory. The concept of borders will quickly follow. Moral justifications play no part in survival.
How do you think an anarchist hippy commune which was full of people who "despise borders and rules" would have stood up to Hitler's advancing armies? By not organizing for the mutual defense of a population of people and territory, you are setting yourself up to be conquered, trampled upon, enslaved, and killed.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
Why you even arguing if you believe there's no moral justification for anything anyway?
Moral justifications have nothing to do with survival.
Survival is necessary. It must be defended and planned for. In order to do this, it makes sense to band together with other people in order to make a strong group that is capable of a strong defense.
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
|
Quote:
RandalFlagg said:
Why you even arguing if you believe there's no moral justification for anything anyway?
Moral justifications have nothing to do with survival.
Survival is necessary. It must be defended and planned for. In order to do this, it makes sense to band together with other people in order to make a strong group that is capable of a strong defense.
It's because of the worlds rigid faith in political power that people like Hitler and War exist.
-------------------- "Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally). Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
It's because of the worlds rigid faith in political power that people like Hitler and War exist.
It is because this world is populated with an intelligent, selfish, and imperfect race that we have men like Hitler and tragedies such as war.
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
|
Quote:
RandalFlagg said:
It's because of the worlds rigid faith in political power that people like Hitler and War exist.
It is because this world is populated with an intelligent, selfish, and imperfect race that we have men like Hitler and tragedies such as war.
"It's not our fault we like to use violence to try and solve the worlds problems, I am an imperfect human, it is natures fault, not ours".
-------------------- "Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally). Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
"It's not our fault we like to use violence to try and solve the worlds problems, I am an imperfect human, it is natures fault, not ours".
It is our fault. But it is stupid to deny our natural proclivities.
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
|
"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name!" Emma Goldman
-------------------- "Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally). Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
I was looking through your ratings and saw this:
hot girl on the shroomery =]
Are you hot? If so, I will gladly capitulate and proclaim you the debate victor.
"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes you have caused!" - RandalFlagg
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
|
I suppose being a chauvenist male pig is another thing you blame on human nature.
-------------------- "Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally). Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
I suppose being a chauvenist male pig is another thing you blame on human nature.
Yep.
Edited by RandalFlagg (02/28/05 03:13 PM)
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
Firstly, if you give people true freedom they are much less likely to engage in hostile acts.
When I said retaliation I could better have said "policing". I still envisage that there would be a police service which could sort this thing out, obviously funded through taxes of some sort.
This is all beyond what I intended to argue, though, I have accepted from the start that this paradigm may be totally unfeasible, and if it ever became feasible the world would be so different that we couldn't really speculate on the specifics. It would take a world of people who have seen the horrors of, say, nuclear holocaust to set such a thing up. Even then it would probably fail many times.
There is no need to be split into groups, given what you have said, though. A single police force for the world would suffice.
Like I said, I was only intending to debate the moral justification of borders. Do you deny that they are morally wrong on principle? So far you have claimed that they are necessary, but that is not the issue at hand.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
Firstly, if you give people true freedom they are much less likely to engage in hostile acts.
I disagree. Without threat of force people are much more likely to take advantage of other people. In order to protect freedom, it is necessary to restrict other people's freedom to hurt their fellow man.
When I said retaliation I could better have said "policing". I still envisage that there would be a police service which could sort this thing out, obviously funded through taxes of some sort.
If there are taxes, there has to be a body that collects them. If this body is collecting them, it needs to know WHO to collect them from. If it has a certain population that it collects from, these people will inhabit a certain area of land. If they have a certain area of land, they have territory. If they have territory, they will have borders.
It could be said that this population is tied together. It is a nation....a "group". It will have its own identity. It will have its own culture. It will be different from its neighbours. Because of this, conflict will arise. It is inevitable.
I have accepted from the start that this paradigm may be totally unfeasible. It would take a world of people who have seen the horrors of, say, nuclear holocaust to set such a thing up. Even then it would probably fail many times.
It would fail every time as long as human beings were involved.
There is no need to be split into groups, given what you have said, though. A single police force for the world would suffice.
The only way to keep all of the various factions in this world in line according to one rule of law would be to institute a horrific and stifling dictatorship.
Given all of the different people, in different areas, facing different problems, and thinking different things, do you actually think that they would all subject themselves to an all-encompassing authority? I know I wouldn't.
Like I said, I was only intending to debate the moral justification of borders.
Borders are a matter of survival. Morals have nothing to do with it.
Do you deny that they are morally wrong on principle?
Survival supercedes morality.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
It's not our fault we like to use violence to try and solve the worlds problems, I am an imperfect human, it is natures fault, not ours".
Do you deny that human history is replete with violence, war, greed, selfishness, conquest, and power?
Every corner of the world, every group of people, every race, and every society that has ever existed has engaged in war and territorialism. To assert otherwise is to ignore history.
Given humanity's track record, it is not unreasonable to assume that Man has these traits in his nature.
....cutie....
Edited by RandalFlagg (02/28/05 03:54 PM)
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
I disagree. Without threat of force people are much more likely to take advantage of other people. In order to protect freedom, it is necessary to restrict other people's freedom to hurt their fellow man.
Policing is a threat of force. There have been studies on this sort of thing, if you don't believe me I may take the time to find them.
Quote:
If there are taxes, there has to be a body that collects them. If this body is collecting them, it needs to know WHO to collect them from. If it has a certain population that it collects from, these people will inhabit a certain area of land. If they have a certain area of land, they have territory. If they have territory, they will have borders.
It could be said that this population is tied together. It is a nation....a "group". It will have its own identity. It will have its own culture. It will be different from its neighbours. Because of this, conflict will arise. It is inevitable.
I am envisaging that the whole world is taxed as one state. This tax pays for police service and benefits for those who can't provide for themselves (this doesn't include the unemployed, apart from frictional unemployment).
Quote:
It would fail every time as long as human beings were involved.
Most times, nearly every time, but you can't say it will fail every time. I know it is possible to live without conflict, I live without conflict on my small scale, why can't it be achieved on a larger scale? I am a successful pacifist, I have never hit anyone nor given anyone a reason to hit me. Nine times out of ten I would rather run than fight, even if it was a fight I could easily win. Pride be fucked.
I think that people can potentially live without blowing each other up. Like I said, it would probably take a world that has been scared shitless by horrible wars.
Quote:
The only way to keep all of the various factions in this world in line according to one rule of law would be to institute a horrific and stifling dictatorship.
Ah-ha, but what would happen would be that communities were far more autonomous. The global government would be for the police force, benefits for the disabled and perhaps emergency funds for disasters. On a community level, pretty much everything else would be decided. People could meet face to face and discuss what they would like to happen in their community. It would basically be an anarchy on a small scale with a central government to ensure things don't get too fucked up.
Quote:
Survival supercedes morality.
THey are two totally different realms. Morality is an impossible to prove concept about what we should do. Survival is about how we carry on living.
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
|
Ignore history that was taught to you by whom?
I think what is unreasonable is the belief that human behaviour cannot change.
-------------------- "Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally). Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
Policing is a threat of force. There have been studies on this sort of thing, if you don't believe me I may take the time to find them.
Yes, it is. But, you said people should have "True Freedom". By that I thought you were advocating no state.
What did you mean by "True Freedom"?
I am envisaging that the whole world is taxed as one state. This tax pays for police service and benefits for those who can't provide for themselves (this doesn't include the unemployed, apart from frictional unemployment).
what would happen would be that communities were far more autonomous. The global government would be for the police force, benefits for the disabled and perhaps emergency funds for disasters.
On a community level, pretty much everything else would be decided.
You are advocating a world-wide socialist government (which would never work) and communal anarchist societies (which would never work). When you mix together two things which don't work, you get something that definately won't work.
I know it is possible to live without conflict, I live without conflict on my small scale, why can't it be achieved on a larger scale?
Because not everybody is like you. Not everybody thinks like you. Not everybody wants to live like you. I suggest you get out in the real world and see some of the scumbags that occupy this earth with you. You won't hold rosy anarcho/socialist/pacifist ideals anymore.
I think that people can potentially live without blowing each other up. Like I said, it would probably take a world that has been scared shitless by horrible wars.
The only thing that keeps the peace amongst large populations is the threat of a smackdown if they get out of line.
Morality is an impossible to prove concept about what we should do.
Exactly. Therefore I do not attempt to make moral justifications for things.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
Ignore history that was taught to you by whom?
Myself. I have read extensively.
I think what is unreasonable is the belief that human behaviour cannot change.
If you want to cling to the hope that people will change, then go ahead. I will not hold my breath.
Man has been on this earth for many many years. We have not become peaceful yet and I don't think we will. We should strive to make things as good as is possible, but we should not ignore reality. We should not ignore what people are and what they do. It is pointless to hold rosy utopian hopes for a race that is steeped in violence and selfishness.
|
|