Of course the Civil war and the Confederate flag was not about slavery

[ChesusRice]

How many bears have put your friends in prison ? How many cops acting as agents of an aggressive state ? All any bear ever did to me was steal my picnic basket Boo Boo.

Hey
Move to fucking Somalia
They have no goverment
Either that or have the patience to wait for your puberty to finish up

 

[Rob Roy]

But it is also less capable.
It's easy to grow government, esp. when gov't assumes a role of disbursing money to citizens for living.
However once that policy is in place, discontinuing it is not a humane option. It's a one-way thing ... unless those who want a return to small government acknowledge and approve of the hardship such a retrenchment would bring.

The trick would have been to resist the urge to fund relief measures. Because once they are in place, there is no morally acceptable way to turn them back off. cn

B-b-but we've always re-distributed other peoples money...we can't stop now !

 

[budlover13]

Hey
Move to fucking Somalia
They have no goverment
Either that or have the patience to wait for your puberty to finish up

OR, stay here and fight for your rights.........

 

[Rob Roy]

Hey
Move to fucking Somalia
They have no goverment
Either that or have the patience to wait for your puberty to finish up

Well hello there. Yes your logic sounds like this. " I only beat my wife on tuesdays, in Somalia they beat their wives every day. So there woman if you don't like this ass kicking move your ass to Somalia. Oh wait a minute, your wife is a blowup doll. Sorry, never mind.

 

[cannabineer]

B-b-but we've always re-distributed other peoples money...we can't stop now !

Humor aside ... exactly. I cannot see a morally sound way to stop it once started. The trick would have been, don't start. The republic is committed. Unless you welcome massive civil hardship. In that, I see definite and sustained harm. cn

 

[Rob Roy]

Can you provide a comprehensive, durable and fully-defined definition of "harm"? Unless that can be codified, and the codification protected from those who would amend it ... we remain in the realm of vague political theory. cn

Good question. I see harm as being hard to define, but I'll take a stab at it. Essentially it involves unwanted and a nonconsensual interaction with another person, ie their body, their property etc. and limiting their freedom to exercise control over those things. I don't get into the minutiae like when Chesus Rice acts like impolite as actual harm, but others might see that as harm, I'm not that thin skinned.

 

[budlover13]

Humor aside ... exactly. I cannot see a morally sound way to stop it once started. The trick would have been, don't start. The republic is committed. Unless you welcome massive civil hardship. In that, I see definite and sustained harm. cn

SOMETIMES, a person has to suffer severe hardships to accomplish the task at hand. While dude stuck under a boulder in the desert didn't WANT to lose his arm by cutting it off with a pocket-knife, he saw the idiocy of keeping his arm and losing his life. He even realized that cutting the arm off MIGHT kill him but laying under a rock in the desert would've done the same.

 

[Rob Roy]

SOMETIMES, a person has to suffer severe hardships to accomplish the task at hand. While dude stuck under a boulder in the desert didn't WANT to lose his arm by cutting it off with a pocket-knife, he saw the idiocy of keeping his arm and losing his life. He even realized that cutting the arm off MIGHT kill him but laying under a rock in the desert would've done the same.

Maybe he should have moved to Somalia.

 

[cannabineer]

Good question. I see harm as being hard to define, but I'll take a stab at it. Essentially it involves unwanted and a nonconsensual interaction with another person, ie their body, their property etc. and limiting their freedom to exercise control over those things. I don't get into the minutiae like when Chesus Rice acts like impolite as actual harm, but others might see that as harm, I'm not that thin skinned.

The reason I ask is that your political philosophy, as far as i can see, revolves around a few terms, such as aggression and harm, that are inherently tough to nail down. I see potential for adopting contradictory definitions of these vague but big words in order to resolve the snags where an inconvenient fact threatens to bung a perfectly lovely theory. So I have an interest in getting these terms nailed down, removing the opportunities afforded by vagueness.

That is the core of my complaint about the way you used the term "slavery". You began by using it metaphorically ... but seamlessly shifted to using a corrupted definition of the term in a direct, non-metaphorical manner, doing <cough!> harm to the term in my opinion. I am suggesting that a philosophical construct which needs vague, evocative terms to not be nailed down solidly (and immutably) in order to work ... needs work. My opinion. cn

 

[budlover13]

Maybe he should have moved to Somalia.

Meh, they have big rocks and desert there too

 

[canndo]

Good question. I see harm as being hard to define, but I'll take a stab at it. Essentially it involves unwanted and a nonconsensual interaction with another person, ie their body, their property etc. and limiting their freedom to exercise control over those things. I don't get into the minutiae like when Chesus Rice acts like impolite as actual harm, but others might see that as harm, I'm not that thin skinned.

But you see, you have uncovered yet another problem with your magical world Rob. Definition, specificaly the definition of harm. If Ches sees insult as harm then who is to say he is incorrect? You? And if you maintain that you didn't harm him but he says you did, who's right and who arbitrates what is right?

 

[Moses Mobetta]

Humor aside ... exactly. I cannot see a morally sound way to stop it once started. The trick would have been, don't start. The republic is committed. Unless you welcome massive civil hardship. In that, I see definite and sustained harm. cn

How about more good paying jobs as a step in that direction. I see what you mean though and your right.

 

[canndo]

A smaller government is more efficient and less intrusive.

Hopefully, but smaller does not imply more efficient. Also, smaller government is less able to protect individuals from other large entities - like other countries, or big business.

 

[cannabineer]

SOMETIMES, a person has to suffer severe hardships to accomplish the task at hand. While dude stuck under a boulder in the desert didn't WANT to lose his arm by cutting it off with a pocket-knife, he saw the idiocy of keeping his arm and losing his life. He even realized that cutting the arm off MIGHT kill him but laying under a rock in the desert would've done the same.

The Second confers the right to shed arms, while the First protects the freedom of disassembly. cn

 

[budlover13]

How about more good paying jobs as a step in that direction. I see what you mean though and your right.

That just gives more money to re-distribute.

 

[canndo]

A world where the default position is to leave others alone if they are not harming somebody would be a better world. This implies that the monopoly and arbitrary use of force by government is part of the problem. They automatically assume authority over ALL.

That doesn't mean I endorse "anarchy and chaos" (oh god run for your life!) I endorse a voluntary world where people are held accountable and responsible. You see this as ONLY happening with a single all encompassing power in a given land mass, I do not.

Voluntary? Voluntary? Voluntary works for small fire departments and search and rescue efforts on ski slopes. Tell a corporation that they should "voluntarily" police their deep water drilling practices and see how that works out.

How can anyone be "held accountable" when there is no body with the force, ability, and consignment to do the holding in your world?

 

[cannabineer]

How about more good paying jobs as a step in that direction. I see what you mean though and your right.

I don't think that is properly govt's bailiwick or capacity ... unless it'll be direct gov't jobs. That would lead in a direction opposite from the one you prefer. I am leery of it as well, since once such jobs are started, they can easily become an economic albatross. In a sort of simplistic application of theory ... the state should protect the engine of a society's vigor and prosperity, but only the people can provide it. Asking the state to provide it ... I cannot see any stopping point from there to full-goose Leninism. Then the State is mother and father, and that has been shown to not work well. cn

 

[canndo]

How many bears have put your friends in prison ? How many cops acting as agents of an aggressive state ? All any bear ever did to me was steal my picnic basket Boo Boo.

Your friend opted to enter the government den Rob. We agree that government's war on drug users is ineffective, cruel and costly. We agree that this war has consequences that shorten the liberties of the individual but you seem to think that this single errant activity damns the entire concept of government of, by and for the people and you have reacted so badly as to look to an impossible arrangement between people and groups of people in a society.

 

[budlover13]

Voluntary? Voluntary? Voluntary works for small fire departments and search and rescue efforts on ski slopes. Tell a corporation that they should "voluntarily" police their deep water drilling practices and see how that works out.

How can anyone be "held accountable" when there is no body with the force, ability, and consignment to do the holding in your world?

Volunteers? Like if you're my neighbor and i see you get home-invaded, i VOLUNTEER to do my best to help you and yours. Might even hold the perps accountable if they don't acquiesce to my demands to cease and desist

 

[canndo]

But it is also less capable.
It's easy to grow government, esp. when gov't assumes a role of disbursing money to citizens for living.
However once that policy is in place, discontinuing it is not a humane option. It's a one-way thing ... unless those who want a return to small government acknowledge and approve of the hardship such a retrenchment would bring.

The trick would have been to resist the urge to fund relief measures. Because once they are in place, there is no morally acceptable way to turn them back off. cn

I cannot agree. Your statement is akin to saying that once the opiate user becomes addicted he is doomed. It may well be hard, but we see many people come through it.