Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

Do you belive the police in say... The united states prevent zero crime?

I would guess that the police in the united states probably prevent greater than zero crime.

I would also guess that the police in the united states create greater than zero crime.

I am not in a position to say which of those is the larger quantity.

If you re-read the second half of my previous response, I think it anticipates the direction you're probably going with this.

[Criptfeind]

My morality is doing good things. For her statement to be right my morality must be wrong.

Nah, not at all. Vec simply said a law coinciding with a person's morality does not make the law moral, hence law is only moral to said person if it is based on the person's morality. That different people have different moralities is not relevant to her statement.

She said that doing something moral for a non moral reason is not moral. Thus not going on a crime spree because you don't want to get caught is in fact not moral. Saving someones life because they owe you money. Not moral. Giving money to the poor because it makes you feel less class guilt. Not moral. Obeying the rules of society so society will protect you with the same rules. Not moral.

Yeah, he's right.  That's what I mean by systems of law being totally divorced from morality.  They're not the pejorative terms of "immoral" or "amoral," necessarily, but they are by necessity extramoral.

So. A moral action based on practical (in the sense that the more moral people are the better society works) is 'extramoral'.

Also. I was aware of Moral, Amoral, and Immmoral. But apparently there is more? I had assumed all actions fell under one of the three.

Do you belive the police in say... The united states prevent zero crime?

N

Thus you at least admit that it is not binary.

Next up. In a world that the amount of crime police stop is more then the amount they cause, is getting rid of them because they cause crime still a piller of your view on libertarianism? Y/N

[scriver]

Yeah, he's right.

Im in ur head, lernin ur logiks.

[LordBucket]

In a world that the amount of crime police stop is more then the amount
they cause, is getting rid of them because they cause crime still a
piller of your view on libertarianism? Y/N

The fact of police crime was never my motivation to get rid of police in the first place. Even if police crime was zero, and crime prevented by police was greater than zero, I would still not endorse a legal mandate of the existence of police, nor the theft of tax money to fund them.

However, if individuals chose voluntarily to act in the capacity of policemen, I would not object to that.

[Criptfeind]

So:

 you will stop using police corruption in your arguments for libertarians and for your response when people talk about the feasibility of such because there would rampant crime?

Basically you will no longer say

To the people who say that "oh, but without laws and police we'd have crime" I respond that yes, that might be true...but even with laws and police you still have crime anyway. But, by having police you also create police brutality. With no police there is no police brutality.

Or:

You refuse to answer the question?

[scriver]

The fact of police crime was never my motivation to get rid of police in the first place. Even if police crime was zero, and crime prevented by police was greater than zero, I would still not endorse a legal mandate of the existence of police, nor the theft of tax money to fund them.

However, if individuals chose voluntarily to act in the capacity of policemen, I would not object to that.

And who would pay for these policemen?

[Criptfeind]

That hardly matters. Scriver. The answer is no one and there would not be any. Just skip that question and go to what prevents crime.

[alexwazer]

**Disclaimer -- I need sleep, so if anything seems like it doesn't make sense, don't look further, it's because it doesn't make sense.**

Yes. Those are the possible answers. And in a society based on personal choice, individuals would choose.

Well, you do realize that the current governement systems are a result of exactly that? Human societies didn't create those governements out of nowhere and for no reason.

In a society based on personnal choice, some individuals (a minority) will abuse others, these others (the majority) will seek some kind of protection. Either the minority will hold enough power to subdue the majority or the majority will find a way to create a power base meant to protect them. Both end results can be found in today's world with a few different flavors, some bitter than other. Absolute libertarianism is basically just resetting the societal counter to zero and hoping for the best. It might work well, but it can also fall apart as conflicts escalate into feud or civil war, or a small group eventually takes control of the power for their own interest.

[Vector]

She said that doing something moral for a non moral reason is not moral. Thus not going on a crime spree because you don't want to get caught is in fact not moral. Saving someones life because they owe you money. Not moral. Giving money to the poor because it makes you feel less class guilt. Not moral. Obeying the rules of society so society will protect you with the same rules. Not moral.

Yeah, he's right.  That's what I mean by systems of law being totally divorced from morality.  They're not the pejorative terms of "immoral" or "amoral," necessarily, but they are by necessity extramoral.

So. A moral action based on practical (in the sense that the more moral people are the better society works) is 'extramoral'.

Also. I was aware of Moral, Amoral, and Immmoral. But apparently there is more? I had assumed all actions fell under one of the three.

Yup.  An action that would be called moral with a moral motivation, performed for reasons of filling out a game-theoretic model of costs and benefits, is not moral.

It doesn't matter if your idea of which acts are moral and which acts are not agree with mine or not.  "I do precisely what is best for me at all times and do not reference any external framework as to what is right" is the lack of a moral system.  I'm not going to condemn it, but it cannot be called moral.


The framework of laws, which encourages this sort of behavior, must be called extramoral because it functions outside of morality and levies force in order to get the results it wants.  Someone acting according to their model of morality will ignore the extant framework of rewards and punishments in order to do what is right.

[Criptfeind]

It doesn't matter if your idea of which acts are moral and which acts are not agree with mine or not.

Really? Because it seems that is the crux of the issue here. I define morality as doing something good.

If a system of force is in place to make people do good things I believe that system of force is moral.

The idea that the use of force invalidates the morality of a action is what I do not agree with. (Not getting into how I believe morality itself can be used as force.)

[Vector]

Insert Godwin reference here.

[LordBucket]

you will stop using police corruption in your arguments for libertarians
and for your response when people talk about the feasibility of such
because there would rampant crime?

There is no contradiction.

Police brutality is not the motivation for eliminating police. The motivation for eliminating the police force is that a legally mandated police force funded by extorted tax money is not consistent with the valuation of personal liberty.

Nevertheless, police brutality doesn't make it any better. It's not my motivation. It's not the "libertarian philosophy" motivation. But it is nevertheless a problem.

[Bauglir]

But if a legally mandated police force funded by extorted tax money is a lesser imposition on liberty than the expected imposition by increased crime from the lack of such a police force, then it is consistent with the valuation of personal liberty. Which is the whole point of why I can say I value individual liberty, and also having a police force (provided measures are taken to minimize corruption in that force, and so on).

[LordBucket]

ut if a legally mandated police force funded by extorted tax money is a
lesser imposition on liberty than the expected imposition by increased
crime from the lack of such a police force, then it is consistent with
the valuation of personal liberty.

No, actually....for a reason brought into the light by scriver's post here.

It's very rare when having these discussions to get down to the basic beliefs from which our world views come. And I think in this case we might might able to do that, if you'll bear with me for a moment.

let's consider the following thought experiment: let's imagine that someone kidnapped you and nine other people, tied you all up...then put a knife in your hand and told you that if you didn't stab one person to death, he would shoot the other eight.

Personally, I would not.

This decision might result in more "net" free will being violated. However, the violation would be performed by somebody who wasn't me. I am not responsible for the choices of others. I am responsible for my choices.

Wrong. He has already made his choice, and made that choice clear to you. It is your choice that can save the others. Inaction makes you equally responsible for their deaths as action would have made you for the one person's. You can't cherry pick the consequences of what you do or do not do.

We have two different belief systems here. I assert that no possible action taken by a third party can obligate me to action, nor create "karma" if you will, for me. To me, in the above scenario, I am not responsible for the death of those 8 people. The person who killed them is. However, apparently scriver would perceive me as "equally responsible" for their deaths, not for killing them, but simply for failing to stop it.

I value individual liberty, and also having a police force

See, that's the thing. If you value having a police force, and so you fund a police force, I have no problem with that. However, if you  value having a police force, and so you steal money from me to fund one...that's when it becomes a problem.

is a lesser imposition on liberty than the
expected imposition by increased crime

I'm not valuating that way. It seems unreasonable to me to steal money from everyone to try solve a problem. Magnified greatly by the repeatedly mentioned fact that it doesn't actually solve the problem, and tends to create more.

If I choose to not steal money to fund police to try to combat crime, I perceive no fault in that. Scriver, apparently...does. Whereas if I do steal money to fund police to try to combat crime, I perceive fault in that. You, I suspect, perceive it as "lesser of two evils." And in fact it might be. But I don't think "the lesser of two evils" is the most ideal basis for a society.

If you really believe that individuals are responsible for the actions of others that they fail to prevent, then who to rob and who to kill order to minimize the net total of robbery and death becomes simple math. With that worldview it makes sense to impose on people, extort taxes and imprison dissenters. But if you don't believe that...if you believe that individuals are responsible for their own choices and noone else's...then those sort of choices don't make sense.

[Bauglir]

It's the least of all evils I can think of as possible responses, which is more than two. That's probably not your point. I actually think it's a net good, but there's no possible action, in any real context, that has no negative consequences of any kind. The lesser of two evils may not be ideal, but it is an inevitable necessity. And, for that matter, kind of a meaningless phrase when the least evil may be a great good with a small evil attached.