Just try and stop me!

[OlegTheBatty]

Let me add:  I do not claim a "right to bear arms", I only claim that you have no right to prevent me from bearing arms. IMHO it's different.  Does anyone agree?

I alluded to something like this on another thread a couple of weeks ago, but I think it deserves to be stated more broadly:

"I can do whatever I want. If you wish to restrict my behaviour, it is up to you to justify the restriction, not up to me to justify the behaviour."

Ok, I'll concede without argument that you can justify restricting my right to shoot that character up the street whom I find obnoxious, but my right to shoot a politician who uses his office to line his pockets - not so easy.

[Matthew Ellard]

"I can do whatever I want. If you wish to restrict my behaviour, it is up to you to justify the restriction, not up to me to justify the behaviour."

I think this is a clear logical statement.  

I think that it is important that that every individual does anything they want so that we have a variety of things going on and thus allow for faster social evolution.  ( as long as the activity does not step on the toes of others)

[OlegTheBatty]

( as long as the activity does not step on the toes of others)

You seek to restrict me from stepping on your toes?
How do you justify that restriction?

[brauneyz]

Oleg, do you think by changing the title you will bait Lance into returning?  

... or is this some kind of Canadian bait and switch of which I am unaware?  

[Matthew Ellard]

( as long as the activity does not step on the toes of others)

You seek to restrict me from stepping on your toes?
How do you justify that restriction?

Would you believe I am the international well known toe model known as "Mr Pod Five"?
( probably not)

How about I am really the well known clown "Little Bonkos' who suffers depression about my enormous feet that forced me to start clown school to buy the right sized shoe?
(OK, probably not)

How about my fear of having my toes stepped on ever since the Three Stooges teased my mother at the time when I was being born?
(No?)

Would you believe I suffer digitalmorphicranial disease and have five toes growing out of each side of my head?  
( No?)

How about because it is painfull.

[OlegTheBatty]

( as long as the activity does not step on the toes of others)

You seek to restrict me from stepping on your toes?
How do you justify that restriction?

Would you believe I am the international well known toe model known as "Mr Pod Five"?
( probably not)

How about I am really the well known clown "Little Bonkos' who suffers depression about my enormous feet that forced me to start clown school to buy the right sized shoe?
(OK, probably not)

How about my fear of having my toes stepped on ever since the Three Stooges teased my mother at the time when I was being born?
(No?)

Would you believe I suffer digitalmorphicranial disease and have five toes growing out of each side of my head?  
( No?)

How about because it is painfull.

All may be valid reasons for asking me not to step on your toes, but how do they justify restricting me from doing so? (I don't mean prevent - you are allowed to defend yourself). I mean take away my right to do so?

[OlegTheBatty]

Oleg, do you think by changing the title you will bait Lance into returning?  

Different topic.

... or is this some kind of Canadian bait and switch of which I am unaware?  

Um ... gulp ... just how many Canadian bait and switches are you aware of?  

[brauneyz]

Oleg, do you think by changing the title you will bait Lance into returning?  

Different topic.

... or is this some kind of Canadian bait and switch of which I am unaware?  

Um ... gulp ... just how many Canadian bait and switches are you aware of?  

Similar topic, but I won't tell anyone.  

I know them all.  I'm just testing you!  

[Matthew Ellard]

All may be valid reasons for asking me not to step on your toes, but how do they justify restricting me from doing so? (I don't mean prevent - you are allowed to defend yourself). I mean take away my right to do so?

OK.  ( I may be confusing humour for a mind exercise, however )

I never mentioned you in any of my reasons why people should not step on my toes.  Therefore I don't think it can be said I have made any restrictions on your activities at all.  For this reason I believe I have matched the moral standard proposed in your theory.  

( Mind you, at some point I actually have to say to you "stop stepping on my toes" so, there is a pragmatic problem in applying your theory to actual society.  Let me think about that over night)

[ruben lopez]

It's a tit-for-tat thing. I don't need a governmental entity to tell me I have the right to tell you to not step on my toes. I have that right as a self-aware, feeling, thinking human being. In other words, I give that right to myself to tell someone they can't be stepping on my toes with malicious intent. A civil man doesn't go around stepping on others' toes on purpose, but when he does, there are different scenarios that could play out. A civil man steps on another civil man's toes, apologies are given, and they go on their separate ways. An civil man steps (accidentally, mind you) on an uncivil man's toes, the ball is in the uncivil man's court. He can choose to accept the civil man's apologies or he kills the civil man or he fights the civil man. If he chooses to fight the civil man, now the civil man has a choice to make. Fight or flight. I don't think the civil man becomes uncivil if he defends himself. He has that right as a self-aware, feeling, thinking human being. Since I give myself that right, I must respect and afford that right to him. As for the uncivil man, whether he chooses to kill or beat the civil man, we, as a society have the obligation to remove him from the general population.
Just watch where you walk OK, Oleg?

[OlegTheBatty]

It's a tit-for-tat thing. I don't need a governmental entity to tell me I have the right to tell you to not step on my toes. I have that right as a self-aware, feeling, thinking human being. In other words, I give that right to myself to tell someone they can't be stepping on my toes with malicious intent. A civil man doesn't go around stepping on others' toes on purpose, but when he does, there are different scenarios that could play out. A civil man steps on another civil man's toes, apologies are given, and they go on their separate ways. An civil man steps (accidentally, mind you) on an uncivil man's toes, the ball is in the uncivil man's court. He can choose to accept the civil man's apologies or he kills the civil man or he fights the civil man. If he chooses to fight the civil man, now the civil man has a choice to make. Fight or flight. I don't think the civil man becomes uncivil if he defends himself. He has that right as a self-aware, feeling, thinking human being. Since I give myself that right, I must respect and afford that right to him. As for the uncivil man, whether he chooses to kill or beat the civil man, we, as a society have the obligation to remove him from the general population.
Just watch where you walk OK, Oleg?

Thank you, that's my point. (part of it anyway)
If we can form a social contract to not step on each other's toes unnecessarily, then how can it be justified to pass a law restricting our steppage?

[Tom-Palven]

Oleg, you said:
"Ok, I'll concede without argument that you can justify restricting my right to shoot that character up the street whom I find obnoxious, but my right to shoot a politician who uses his office to line his pockets - not so easy."

I remember someone telling me that somewhere out West, maybe in the old days of Dodge City, a jury considering a homocide could bring back a decision of Guilty, Not Guilty, or Praiseworthy, in whiich case, in  your example, a jury might bring in the latter verdict.   I was unable to find this verdict on the web, though, so maybe it's an urban legend.

It seems that unapologetically stepping on someone's toes, unless it was retaliatory, would be a violation of the Golden Rule of reciprocity.  However, what if someone purposely steps on your toes to hurt or annoy you?  Back in 1989 the late Milton Freidman's son David Friedman, now a law professor at  Santa Clara University, wrote The Machinery of Freedom, wherein he described ways how people could subscribe to insurance plans that would provide protective services and would work cooperatively with other protection services.  I never really tried to understand the details, and he may have more refined ideas now.  I have seen ads for Libertopia 2010 on line which indicate that not only will David Friedman be speaking there, but his son Patri Friedman, Executive Director of the Seasteading Institute, will be speaking there also.  My how the years have flown.

And also speaking there will be  "Michael Shermer-- Science writer, historian of science, and founder of The Skeptic Society."

[ruben lopez]

Oleg say:

If we can form a social contract to not step on each other's toes unnecessarily, then how can it be justified to pass a law restricting our steppage?

This has me puzzled (and no amount of tokes can make it any clearer ). Is it because there are an awful lot of people with awful big feet? Not everyone who has heard of Tom's Golden Rule in theory practice it in reality. I may not have "I heart cops" on my bumper, but I am glad they are there. Same with our military. Our lawmakers, (the ones you see deem fit for a bullet) well, they are me, and they are you and they are us, right? That's how we delegate agreed upon sets of rules and laws. I'm only talking about the basic ones, i.e., life, liberty, the pursuit of what passes for happiness these days. I can name lots of laws that are unnecessary and just plain stupid, and that's where each one of us draws our own battle lines.  I justify passing a law telling you not to step on my toes because quite simply, you (not you personally. I feel I have to say that even though I know you know...never mind) would go out and step on my toes if I didn't. As I said, an awful lot of people have awful big feet. As much history as humanity has on the books, I still feel we are in our infancy. OUr species sometimes acts like children and laws protecting even our most basic rights are much needed because I can imagine how it would be if we didn't have some of the laws we have.
Every convict in the joint is there because of me. We the people want him there so we the people put him there. If I was to look at each and every case of each and every convict, I would find that there are some who are there for things that I personally don't think are illegal. That's where I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, you and Tom are giong with what y'all are saying. I'm sure you both agree that we need laws and therefore, lawmakers to pass those laws. So why shouldn't I have some laws restricting some of your steppage?

[OlegTheBatty]

Oleg say:

If we can form a social contract to not step on each other's toes unnecessarily, then how can it be justified to pass a law restricting our steppage?

So why shouldn't I have some laws restricting some of your steppage?

You are welcome to any law you can justify.

"Laws are good", "Laws keep the peace", "without laws we would have anarchy/chaos", and so on justify the concept of laws, but those and similar arguments cannot justify any particular law.

Can a law be justified in any circumstance where there is a reasonable alternative?

[Tom-Palven]

Ruben, he done said: " Our lawmakers, (the ones you see deem fit for a bullet) well, they are me, and they are you and they are us, right?"

I don't see it, Ruben.  They are individuals with their own personal lives and agendas, just like Martin Luther King had a personal agenda, Adolph Hitler had a personal agenda, and George Bush, if he had a brain, would probably have a personal agenda.  (Not that I am equating MLK, the all-time most heroic American, to the other guys.)  The point is that they are all different, none of them are me, and I didn't vote for any of them because it would add a false sense of legitimacy to coercion.

[ruben lopez]

I'm only saying that politicians come from all walks of life. Sure some of them had the silver-spoon, Ivy League life, but our government is made up of the people. Us. Yes, I agree with you they have their own agenda and that agenda isn't always wholesome nor is it always in our best interest, but the concept of what they do still stands. A civilized society still needs some sort of leadership and with that, laws, because I'm too much of a realist and a cynic to think it can flourish without it. I know in my example that civilized people by definition respect other people's personal rights and property, but people are still people and nature is still nature and roles always have to be filled and someone will fill the role of the undesirables, whether by their own choosing or at the choice of others.

Oleg says in his opening post, last paragraph:

Ok, I'll concede without argument that you can justify restricting my right to shoot that character up the street whom I find obnoxious, but my right to shoot a politician who uses his office to line his pockets - not so easy

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. He says the guy down the street is free to be a jerk as long as he isn't harming anyone and that I can't just shoot him because he annoys me. OK. Fine. We're on the same page so far. But then he says it is a little harder to justify restricting a person's right to shoot corrupt politicians? Why? How? I'm not defending corrupt politicians, but how does one come to that conclusion? Am I taking it too literally? Am I missing something? Even if we had "reasonable alternatives" as he says, how can you get everyone to agree to those terms? What do we do with the ones who violate those terms? The saying, "verbal contracts ain't worth the paper they're printed on" does come to mind. That's why I justify making laws even though there are reasonable alternatives.

[Tom-Palven]

Ruben,
 You asked "Am I missing something?"  I don't know.  My position is that I don't like politicians telling me what I can or can't do.  If I go to a movie theatre, when I buy a ticket I'm making a tacit agreement that I'm not going to create a disturbance, and that's fine.  But if I've given politicans my consent to do what they say, I'm rescinding it. For longer answers how Individualism could work, you might check out David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom, or Butler Shaffer's Boundaries of Order.

[ruben lopez]

Would y'all be offended if I say that as an individualist, I really don't give a {!#%@} anymore?

I see your point and Oleg's, too. I guess I had some questions when he was asking questions and wanted some clarification.
I believe that in a society where everyone truly and honestly lived by the motto "live and let live", then laws and states forcing their will (good or bad) would be unnecessary. That just isn't the case. Rule-making and most other human endeavors are flawed but that's what we have because we need it. I don't agree with a good portion of it and even less with those I vote for but I still vote because I would feel even more helpless and hopeless if I didn't.

Utopia is hard to imagine with all this reality staring me in the face.

[Tom-Palven]

No, I'm not offended.  I think that's a healthy attitude that could prevent heart attacks and strokes, if you can stick with it.  The only thing not voting accomplishes as far as I can see is giving one psychological satisfaction when one sees tax dollars spent to destroy villages in Afghanistan, or to build new fences along the US and Canadian borders while probably all other nations except Israel are tearing them down, that you are not consenting to the collective effort.

[OlegTheBatty]

Would y'all be offended if I say that as an individualist, I really don't give a {!#%@} anymore?

I see your point and Oleg's, too. I guess I had some questions when he was asking questions and wanted some clarification.
I believe that in a society where everyone truly and honestly lived by the motto "live and let live", then laws and states forcing their will (good or bad) would be unnecessary. That just isn't the case. Rule-making and most other human endeavors are flawed but that's what we have because we need it. I don't agree with a good portion of it and even less with those I vote for but I still vote because I would feel even more helpless and hopeless if I didn't.

Utopia is hard to imagine with all this reality staring me in the face.

That's why I don't venture into idealism very often.

The fact that humanity's rule making endeavors are flawed doesn't mean we should ignore the flaws, and not try to at least mitigate them, if fixing them isn't pragmatic.

[ruben lopez]

You're right.
I'm not saying we should be complacent about it or that we're stuck with the status quo, but my thoughts do lead me back to your opening post: why can't we shoot crooked politicians?

[OlegTheBatty]

You're right.
I'm not saying we should be complacent about it or that we're stuck with the status quo, but my thoughts do lead me back to your opening post: why can't we shoot crooked politicians?

Enticing, isn't it?

Think:  French revolution; regime change ...  

[A-number]

( as long as the activity does not step on the toes of others)

You seek to restrict me from stepping on your toes?
How do you justify that restriction?

Would you believe I am the international well known toe model known as "Mr Pod Five"?
( probably not)

How about I am really the well known clown "Little Bonkos' who suffers depression about my enormous feet that forced me to start clown school to buy the right sized shoe?
(OK, probably not)

How about my fear of having my toes stepped on ever since the Three Stooges teased my mother at the time when I was being born?
(No?)

Would you believe I suffer digitalmorphicranial disease and have five toes growing out of each side of my head?  
( No?)

How about because it is painfull.

very entertaining the 2 of you.

[A-number]

Yeah, politicians deseve to be shot, true. They are nothing but greedy manipulative pigs who need to be taken out without any mercy and leave the rest of us alone living in peace and harmony. Yesterday I  heard on the radio that some were making as much as over 800, 000.00$ a year in a time where the 10 bucks an hours family people are being laid off by the 100's!!! this is outrageous. Why can't they lay off 50 or 100 of those across the country and see how much money they'd be saving in 5 years time?!?!? I mean are they this much of stupid management wise?!For that kind of money if they can't prevent economic disasters such as the one we are going through what good they do do society being paid that much. Someone was commenting they cannot make that much in the private sector because they would be in return required to actually earn it. So they get jobs with the state, sit on their fat asses and crap.
Yep, "The land of the free and the home of the brave."     .


In contrast, I heard that Lindsay Lohan has been put to jail for violating her DUI probation or something. She got 90 days but she will only serve 14 due to overcrowding of prisons. All not just her, get 25 % off their sentence erased or left. This is  just one of the social aspects that shows how the country seems to be in the process of being flushed down the can, while the top 10 or even 5% is still living la vita loca.

Yeah, Oleg (my cute squirrel), you're a free man.
Do as you please my fuzzy one . I am behind ya   .

[Anchor of Life]

If there is NO absolute moral standard and morality is NOT objective, then ALL behavior is just a matter of opinion.  NOTHING anybody does or refuses to do is really right or wrong.  Without an absolute, objective source of morality, ALL so-called moral issues are reduced to nothing but personal preference.

[Blacksamwell]

If there is NO absolute moral standard and morality is NOT objective, then ALL behavior is just a matter of opinion.  NOTHING anybody does or refuses to do is really right or wrong.  Without an absolute, objective source of morality, ALL so-called moral issues are reduced to nothing but personal preference.

Yup.

Personal preference formed by societal influences and societal influences arising from the personal preferences of their individual members.

Had you been born into Mayan society you would have found their moral code quite appropriate.  It's all rather relative.

[Tom-Palven]

IMHO the Golden Rule of reciprocity is a logical ethical standard which seems in accord with normal human nature, and worth teaching as a behavior likely to result in a less stressful and more contented life.

[fromthehills]

I've been avoiding this topic, as I have had no time to respond at the length it deserves.

The problem with all societies is that they always come to the point of meddling into other peoples' business, without cause. Too bad the original framers of the Constitution didn't write something to the effect of " If it's none of your goddamn business, then a law against it is unconstitutional."

Obviously there are people out there that would not practice the concept of the golden rule. That's proven. There can't be a society without some ground rules to keep these people in check. Religion was an easy way to present these ground rules to superstitious people, without going through the hassle of getting their consent. Force, coercion, indoctrination into the belief of a constant, omnipresent watcher/judge are much easier than compromise and consensus.

Then comes the meddling. The idea of temperance being what everyone should practice, and later abstinence from all  drugs. Restrictions on a person's sexual preference, for crying out loud, becomes so pronounced that a boy's preference for the color pink doesn't go unchastised.   We fight constantly over whether or not you have to wear a helmet on a motorbike, or in some cities, whether or not your lawn appears too unkempt, or your paint doesn't match the neighbor's. We, the overall we, restrict ourselves out of our own goddamn freedom by being complacent in worrying about our property values over our neighbor's right to his own preference. We worry so much about what other people do, that is none of our goddamn business, that we completely miss the real issues that do really effect us, as a society.

As in education. No Kids? So what, you still can't afford your neighbor's rug rat growing up to be a dysfunctional  member of society. Do I wear a seat belt, none of your business. Do I drink , none of your business. Do I drink and drive, you have a genuine concern. Do I smoke meth, none of your business. Do I rob people to obtain money for meth, genuine concern.

If I don't hurt you, and I'm not harming a minor, who has no choice in their living arrangement, then you should not have the right to dictate my lifestyle. Nor I, yours.

[Tom-Palven]

[A-number]

"Am I getting to ya, am I getting to ya, am I getting to ya ???
...say it 3 times real fast!!!"--Mel Gibson///The Lethal Weapon trilogy--

PS: The Truth hurts (hicup)...

[A-number]

Yeah, politicians deseve to be shot, true. They are nothing but greedy manipulative pigs who need to be taken out without any mercy and leave the rest of us alone living in peace and harmony. Yesterday I  heard on the radio that some were making as much as over 800, 000.00$ a year in a time where the 10 bucks an hours family people are being laid off by the 100's!!! this is outrageous. Why can't they lay off 50 or 100 of those across the country and see how much money they'd be saving in 5 years time?!?!? I mean are they this much of stupid management wise?!For that kind of money if they can't prevent economic disasters such as the one we are going through what good they do do society being paid that much. Someone was commenting they cannot make that much in the private sector because they would be in return required to actually earn it. So they get jobs with the state, sit on their fat asses and crap.
Yep, "The land of the free and the home of the brave."     .


In contrast, I heard that Lindsay Lohan has been put to jail for violating her DUI probation or something. She got 90 days but she will only serve 14 due to overcrowding of prisons. All not just her, get 25 % off their sentence erased or left. This is  just one of the social aspects that shows how the country seems to be in the process of being flushed down the can, while the top 10 or even 5% is still living la vita loca.

Yeah, Oleg (my cute squirrel), you're a free man.
Do as you please my fuzzy one . I am behind ya   .

The city who's top officials are getting paid this much has 17% of its 40,000 residents living in poverty! the city's name is Bell as in "Mademoiselle Belle belle"      . Schwarzenegger is calling for all cities' officials to pull the curtain on the kind of money they are making in times when many are in the ditch. Its CAO is the one that's making 787,637 $, twice as much as the very very poor Barak Obama is making having the Entire USA under his current management and command   . Let's just praise the Lord shall we   . I am just in the moood of doing so...