Morality: Its source/authority/enforcement

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is the following reasonable? If so/not, why?

Source: Morality is inherent only among non-innocent creatures--that is those with full self-awareness.

Authority: If (since) a necessarily laissez-faire, or non-existent, God will not hand us a moral code on a platter in order to enable the exercise of our moral free will with complete autonomy, any moral code must be its own universal authority. From prehistory forward, moral authority has progressed from the family/clan, through religious taboo and finally to government law. We can use government corruption as an excuse to undermine that law and regress back to a more local chaotic anarchy where might makes right; or we can rationally determine a universal simple/limited moral code that governs human interactions alone.

Enforcement: From there, enforcement of such a limited code is much simpler than the irrational, chaotic, double standard, ever changing tentacles of the corrupt legal behemoths we have now. And enforcement must have justice as it's ultimate goal if that comes in conflict with protecting the sanctity of the law--which its self-serving practitioners tend to protect beyond reason.

[Unhand Me Sir]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]

We've spoken a bit about liberty and the right to property. I'm assuming that self defence is fairly self-explanatory (and in any case a right which requires the state not to act but to refrain from acting).

Could you say something about the right to life? In what circumstances is that right infringed? What should the state be doing to protect it?

I'd also be curious to hear why you think sales taxes can be acceptable but that income tax is theft.

Thanks for taking the time. This is new stuff for me - although vaguely aware of libertarianism I've never had any dialogue with an advocate.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]

We've spoken a bit about liberty and the right to property. I'm assuming that self defence is fairly self-explanatory (and in any case a right which requires the state not to act but to refrain from acting).

I'm not sure what you're asking. Self-defense= the right to defend yourself and your property. The state is charged with defending our rights, but it can't be omnipresent. 15 minutes can be an eternity (literally) when someone has just broken in through your front door and you've just called 911.

Could you say something about the right to life? In what circumstances is that right infringed?

Whenever your life is taken except in self-defense or as punishment according to the law.

What should the state be doing to protect it?

Establishment of appropriate laws, the police and the court system.

I'd also be curious to hear why you think sales taxes can be acceptable but that income tax is theft.

Besides government intrusiveness into our lives in order to verify income (and enforce the war on drugs), we control when we pay sales taxes and how much.

Thanks for taking the time. This is new stuff for me - although vaguely aware of libertarianism I've never had any dialogue with an advocate.

The US was founded on what we call today libertarian principles. We have since diverged into the conservative often fundamentalist right, and the big government socialist left--both relying heavily on blind faith. To make matters more confusing, the Libertarian Party itself is almost as intransigent, especially when it come to foreign policy.

[Unhand Me Sir]

[Replying to post 22 by ThePainefulTruth]

Thanks again.

So it seems to me that if the people who currently control the assets have the absolute right to do so, and if their ability to defend that control is to be given the full blessing of the law, then this is effectively anarchy with a thin veneer of moral justification.

Am I missing something?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 22 by ThePainefulTruth]

Thanks again.

For what?

So it seems to me that if the people who currently control the assets have the absolute right to do so, and if their ability to defend that control is to be given the full blessing of the law, then this is effectively anarchy with a thin veneer of moral justification.

Am I missing something?

You're not missing anything, you're injecting confusion. Who are the people you're talking about, controlling what assets? Only when that's clarified can we talk about the right to defend that control. Possession and control are two different things. A fascist government controls the economy without any ownership. The moral rights to life, liberty, property and self-defense are universally and equally applied, or if they aren't, their negation become the source of corruption.

[Mr.Badham]

The problem I have with libertarians is that they want to use the roads, they want police protection, but they also want to register their companies in Costa Rica so they don't have to pay taxes on those roads or to pay the police.

They want their products manufactured in China and India and Bangladesh cause they treat their citizens like they're disposable. Libertarians aren't concerned about "Freedom", they're concerned about "Money". Which would be fine

Saying that someone is "Dumb on their own dime" is a defense mechanism. It's how lucky people avoid feeling guilty about unlucky people. You make yourself into a victim by claiming that you're being held back, and robbed by the government.

The wage gap is growing all the time, but the richest ones are complaining the most

[ThePainefulTruth]

The problem I have with libertarians is that they want to use the roads, they want police protection, but they also want to register their companies in Costa Rica so they don't have to pay taxes on those roads or to pay the police.

Three things about that; corporations (not necessarily libertarians) pay the highest corporate tax rate in the world, last I checked. Corporations don't pay their taxes anyway, their customers do. And if we passed the FairTax (which would abolish the income tax), it would bring a flood of American corporate cash back home, and that would be dwarfed by new foreign investment pouring in...guaranteed Why, you may ask, don't they pass the FairTax which has been before Congress for around 15 years? Because it undercuts the government control the income tax provides, which the Democrats and many Republicans (particularly in the Senate) want.

BTW, libertarians are not anti-government, and acknowledge it's necessary powers--protection of citizens rights. Roads are an arguable exception, sicne with modern technology could be privatized by reducing taxes by an amount equivalent about that would have been applied to roads. But it would be such a massive effort, be so misunderstood by the public, can be justified (at least in part) as a defense expenditure, and is one of the best jobs government does in many jurisdictions, it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on.

Every such exception (ex. the FCC) needs to be examined and, for the vast majority, done away with.

They want their products manufactured in China and India and Bangladesh cause they treat their citizens like they're disposable. Libertarians aren't concerned about "Freedom", they're concerned about "Money". Which would be fine

Your seeing the spread of a global free market economy which enriches the people everywhere it goes, increasing their economies and individual prosperity everywhere. Yes it's less than what they'd get payed here, but our spreading of t he free market off shore helps prosperity progress faster. If we forced corporations to pay them the same, they'd bring their production back home to eventual failure--bringing us down to their level, and below, as capital accrued overseas into competition anyway. Remember Japan. They're on a par with us now as the free market spreads throughout Asia. China and the USSR have succumbed to the necessity to protect private property. Other freedoms follow inevitably.

"A rising tide lifts all boats". It's as true now as when JFK said it and always has been. Socialists want to equalize things by bringing the upper levels down, instead of bringing/keeping, the lower levels up. There will always be inequality of results as long as people have different levels of intelligence and drive. Any attempt to equalize success will always fail because of that.

Saying that someone is "Dumb on their own dime" is a defense mechanism. It's how lucky people avoid feeling guilty about unlucky people.

You take it out of context. I said, "Freedom is being as dumb as you want on your own dime". How are the billions of people who have little to no income because of their government's oppression, being dumb on their own dime. They are greater victims of their government's socialism than those in the West are. ALL citizens of big government socialism are held back and suffer varying degrees of oppression.

You make yourself into a victim by claiming that you're being held back, and robbed by the government.

Being held back and being robbed makes anyone a victim--in this case, an unwilling victim. It's the willing victims that empower big government socialism.

______________________________________________________
It should be obvious from this little exercise, why it's so hard to communicate the ins and outs of economics, on which we (intentionally) receive so little education-- and this just scratches the surface.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]

Public education, sanitation, roads and other institutions are what holds the nation together. America is an "opt in" society. You're allowed to leave. But why would you, it's the best place in the world to live. Unfortunately, it's also expensive. But I believe you get what you pay for. Yes, you pay high tax, but you get the best roads, the best police, firemen, army and education. Sure maybe education isn't as good as some places in Europe, but their taxes are even higher.

Libertarians like to pretend that if everything you got was based on what you could afford, the only people who would miss out are the lazy miscreants who don't deserve anything anyway. It's just not true.
Ford hires a consulting firm to tell them how to save money, the consulting firm says, "Close your plant in Detroit, move it to Mexico." This suggestion has nothing to do with solving the problem of Mexican poverty. This decision is made on behalf of millionaires and billionaires.

The men and women who actually did all the work aren't even a consideration. Neither is the notion of poverty or patriotism. If poverty or patriotism was a consideration, then wouldn't the poverty of Americans come first, and not that of the Chinese, Bangladeshi and Mexicans.

It doesn't matter what word you use to substitute for "Government"; Ministry, Committee, Board, Council, Trustees etc. etc. The results are the same; something could be done better/cheaper.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to post 26 by ThePainefulTruth]

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to post 26 by ThePainefulTruth]


Public education, sanitation, roads and other institutions are what holds the nation together. America is an "opt in" society. You're allowed to leave. But why would you, it's the best place in the world to live. Unfortunately, it's also expensive. But I believe you get what you pay for. Yes, you pay high tax, but you get the best roads, the best police, firemen, army and education. Sure maybe education isn't as good as some places in Europe, but their taxes are even higher.

Libertarians like to pretend that if everything you got was based on what you could afford, the only people who would miss out are the lazy miscreants who don't deserve anything anyway. It's just not true.
Ford hires a consulting firm to tell them how to save money, the consulting firm says, "Close your plant in Detroit, move it to Mexico." This suggestion has nothing to do with solving the problem of Mexican poverty. This decision is made on behalf of millionaires and billionaires.

The men and women who actually did all the work aren't even a consideration. Neither is the notion of poverty or patriotism. If poverty or patriotism was a consideration, then wouldn't the poverty of Americans come first, and not that of the Chinese, Bangladeshi and Mexicans.

Separate school boards, separate police, separate firefighters, separate garbage men, separate roads lead to separation. You are no longer a nation. You are just different groups with varying degrees of wealth, caring nothing for those who are poorer and jealous of those who are richer.

Unless you are the richest person in the world, claiming to be libertarian means you are willing to be stepped on by anyone who has more money than you.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Unless you are the richest person in the world, claiming to be libertarian means you are willing to be stepped on by anyone who has more money than you.

That assumes that anyone with more money than you will automatically violate your rights--which isn't the case. Many wealthy are honorable people.

Do you not understand the difference between complete privatization, government ownership, or a government regulated monopoly for some industries such as utilities, roads etc. I don't automatically dismiss such monopolies, I only demand that they be few and strictly limited.

The primary function of government is the protection of equal individual rights for all by avoiding any legal/moral double standard. THAT is what prevents me and my rights being stepped on by anyone regardless of who or what they are--wealthy capitalist, or powerful government bureaucrat. It's the latter that socialists have such a debilitating blind spot for because they're so otherwise occupied with their class warfare on the wealthy. Fascism is where big government and big business are allowed to corrupt each other.