a question or morality

[Mr. Perfidy]

I raised this issue in the Left Hand Path thread and nobody caught it or something...


because my rights are mine alone and granted naturally by virtue of my human birth

and because other humans acting of their own free will conspire to take them away, or endorse the actions of those who do

is it moral to smack them? them being the flag-waving american public that cheers more legal control of my actions?

I would not have initiated the violence; I would only be reacting to impositions against me, in self-defense

[low preference guy]

quick reaction: it could be moral, but self-defense must be smart. i don't think seceding and forming a new government is immoral at all.

[Mr. Perfidy]

specifically, I am thinking that "Smack-a-Clover Day" will give them a new thing to fear- rather than only worry about the police state, which in fact in their daily lives bothers them little, they will have to worry about a Ron Paul kid smacking them in the face in a parking lot somewhere. I wager that they would stop spouting their stupid hateful bull$#@! about wanting to put me in prison, and look over their shoulders when people discuss liberty, instead of the police.

[Ivash]

It wouldn't work. It'd be a disastrous policy, would legally put you guys either in jail or in civil-claims court, and would make the rest of the United States view Ron Paul fans as extremists.

[Sola_Fide]

because my rights are mine alone and granted naturally by virtue of my human birth

and because other humans acting of their own free will conspire to take them away, or endorse the actions of those who do

This is a logical fallacy called the naturalistic fallacy or is/ought fallacy.

The reason that it is logically fallacious is because "is" does not imply "ought". Conclusions of an argument cannot contain more than the premises. Descriptions cannot imply prescriptions.

If what "is" is right, then nothing can be said to wrong. It can be just as easily argued that since it is the nature of man to aggress against each other, that aggressing against each other is natural and right.

This is one of the logical problems with natural law arguments that philosophers down through the ages have pointed out.

[Mr. Perfidy]

I know- they view the State as extremists, and fear them, and that is why the state is winning control of their minds. Just wondering if you think its in fact moral

[TheGrinch]

No, initiating violence against people with misguided beliefs who have not personally committed violence against you is most definitely not moral.

But I predict this will end up one of those nitpicking trollish threads, where you use the Socratic method to nitpick what should be rather obvious, so I'll exit the thread before it does.

[Mr. Perfidy]

he reason that it is logically fallacious is because "is" does not imply "ought". Conclusions of an argument cannot contain more than the premises. Descriptions cannot imply prescriptions.

that means nothing to me. Can you like, speak in regular terms and not course material?

If what "is" is right, then nothing can be said to wrong. It can be just as easily argued that since it is the nature of man to aggress against each other, that aggressing against each other is natural and right.

well if you want to make that argument then I am already moral in throwin a few smacks in with my diatribes.

[July]

No, it wouldn't be.

I think, even in dealing with moral absolutes, there still tends to be a hierarchy in practice--it is a bigger offense to kill and maim, than to lie or steal, etc.

So someone indirectly voting for someone who supports big government, is indeed initiating coercive force against you through the state, though they have not initiated any direct physical violence on you. So you have the right to self defense, but it matters what form that defensive action takes.

[affa]

"a question or morality"

that about sums it up.

[dancjm]

I raised this issue in the Left Hand Path thread and nobody caught it or something...


because my rights are mine alone and granted naturally by virtue of my human birth

and because other humans acting of their own free will conspire to take them away, or endorse the actions of those who do

is it moral to smack them? them being the flag-waving american public that cheers more legal control of my actions?

I would not have initiated the violence; I would only be reacting to impositions against me, in self-defense

How can you even ask this question here?

Surely you are not serious?

[Sola_Fide]

that means nothing to me. Can you like, speak in regular terms and not course material?

Is does not imply ought.

"We have natural rights" does not imply anything about the rightness or wrongness of aggressing against another's rights.

Descriptions (we have natural rights) do not imply prescriptions (it is wrong to aggress against someone). If the premises contain only descriptions, then the conclusion can not contain prescriptions.

If "what is" is right, then war, murder, theft, etc are right because it is our nature.

Prescriptions cannot come from nature or natural law.

[July]

How can you even ask this question here?

Surely you are not serious?

I don't think it's serious, or at least I hope not. But I suppose he is more likely trying to point out a flaw in the NAP.

[Victor Grey]

Is it moral to smack them? them being the flag-waving american public that cheers more legal control of my actions?

I would not have initiated the violence; I would only be reacting to impositions against me, in self-defense

The better question to ask is, is it tactful.

Look man you want to go around smacking people you're going to end up in jail. Moral, immoral, your ass is sitting in jail.

"I wager that they would stop spouting their stupid hateful bull$#@! about wanting to put me in prison"

I wager not.

Another better question is, is it effective.
I would say no, it probably isn't.

You taking out your frustrations on some statist in some back alley might make you feel better. You might even at best, scare the royal piss out of one of them, and make them fear you.

However enough of that crap for the public to notice a trend, and you'll do more damage than any good.

So in closing, no to random slapping of people. The entire morality argument is huge red herring itself, away from anything of real substance that actually matters.

[Veteran Citizen]

I raised this issue in the Left Hand Path thread and nobody caught it or something...


because my rights are mine alone and granted naturally by virtue of my human birth

and because other humans acting of their own free will conspire to take them away, or endorse the actions of those who do

is it moral to smack them? them being the flag-waving american public that cheers more legal control of my actions?

I would not have initiated the violence; I would only be reacting to impositions against me, in self-defense

If you escalate it to the point that you strike someone, you had better be prepared to be struck back, maybe even by more than one person.

I'm hoping that if you are planning on actually taking this course of action, that you conceal any attachment you have to the liberty movement.

[The Free Hornet]

specifically, I am thinking that "Smack-a-Clover Day" will give them a new thing to fear- rather than only worry about the police state, which in fact in their daily lives bothers them little, they will have to worry about a Ron Paul kid smacking them in the face in a parking lot somewhere. I wager that they would stop spouting their stupid hateful bull$#@! about wanting to put me in prison, and look over their shoulders when people discuss liberty, instead of the police.

Should Oskar Schindler have observed "Smack-a-Nazi Day"? He would have gotten momentary satisfaction followed by a trip to some prison camp. Instead, he used his intellect to save hundreds of lives (over 1100 per wiki).

[Mr. Perfidy]

.

Is does not imply ought.

"We have natural rights" does not imply anything about the rightness or wrongness of aggressing against another's rights.

I see; in this case understand that I am not saying, "because we have natural rights...(blah blah)," but really, "Them among you who believe that we have natural rights,...(blah blah)" as in, reconcile this for me, you who think it wrong to mix a little blood with your ink.

If "what is" is right, then war, murder, theft, etc are right because it is our nature.

how would you argue that the conditions in which we live are natural? Our behaviors that "are" are domesticated, malformed, misdirected impulses as a consequence of not conforming to any patterns recognizable to our bio-chemical-sensory systems as Natural.

The better question to ask is, is it tactful.

pfft I sat through a vatican sacrament with disastrous flatulence- who gives a $#@! about tact in the 21st century? You can't eat tact or have sex with it. Can't even text on it.

Look man you want to go around smacking people you're going to end up in jail. Moral, immoral, your ass is sitting in jail.

I think that's a rather putrifying outlook and really not very true. I have seen lots and lots of assaults and almost zero arrests for them.


say I: "I wager that they would stop spouting their stupid hateful bull$#@! about wanting to put me in prison"

I wager not.

Do you ever address issues of police brutality and general coercion-profiteering collaborator motherfucker shenanigans in public? Like to strangers? They immediately act as though the police are listening, or that perhaps you are the police, and assume that they are in danger; they get scared and use a funny, clucky, upward-shaking voice that must be what Orwell meant by Duckspeak. They mutter in voices not their own, as if imitating authority figures, and shake their jowels through a statement. They are scared of meriting the disapproval of people that can hurt them, and this fear is called wisdom when heard by subordinates and dependents.

[Mr. Perfidy]

my point is, if we started smacking them, they would mutter through apologies of our actions, and wisely agree as a matter of common sense- OF COURSE THE POLICE ARE ABUSIVE! lol

[Elwar]

Let us take it step by step from the initiation of violence back to the people calling for such initiation.

You smoke a doobie while sitting on your porch.

This is "against the law". A policeman sees you smoking said dooby and approaches you and arrests you (initiation of force) physically putting handcuffs on you and restraining you.

The person who sent that policeman to initiate force against you was the sheriff. He instructed his policemen to enforce the law (telling someone to initiate force).

The politician creates the law against smoking doobies. The politician creates guidelines on how we can live (tells someone to initiate force).

The taxpayer pays taxes to the politician. The politician uses that money to pay for enforcement of their guidelines (pays someone to initiate force).

The voter chooses that politician. The voter tells the politician to use his power to create guidelines on how we live and to enforce such guidelines via taxpayer money (tells someone to pay and tell someone to initiate force).

The protester who hates pot, tells the politician to outlaw smoking doobies. The protester tells the politician to create guidelines on how we live. (tells someone to pay and tell someone to initiate force).

So, the question comes down to our reactions to the following:
(initiation of force)
(telling someone to initiate force)
(pays someone to initiate force)
(tells someone to pay and tell someone to initiate force)

The first one is obvious. If someone is initiating force against you, you have the moral authority to defend yourself and prevent that force from being applied and the recourse of force up to but not exceeding the initial force.

The second one is not so obvious. If person A tells person B to hit me, person B has the choice of not initiating force. So my recourse could be to tell person B to hit person A.

Same with the others. I could pay someone or tell someone or tell someone to pay and tell someone to use force against the initial person. But I would not be able to use force against them as they have not used force against me.

So, to answer your question. You can pay someone to slap those people. It would be the moral equivalent. Not legal, but moral.

[TruckinMike]

I raised this issue in the Left Hand Path thread and nobody caught it or something...


because my rights are mine alone and granted naturally by virtue of my human birth

and because other humans acting of their own free will conspire to take them away, or endorse the actions of those who do

is it moral to smack them? them being the flag-waving american public that cheers more legal control of my actions?

I would not have initiated the violence; I would only be reacting to impositions against me, in self-defense

If you had a loved one that was brainwashed into aggressing against others via a vote --- would you want them beat down, killed, or helped? I ask this because it this is the situation we are really in. The masses truly have undergone mass conditioning - they are brainwashed. I think the only moral thing to do is to snap them out of it through education. They are in need of a brain rinse.

A freedom oriented education tsunami is what we need. We should start a war on Ignorance. Give classes or workshops on freedom. Use Guerrilla marketing to get them there --- be the talk of the town. ---> THIS is what the REVOLUTION should be doing. At the local level on up.

An education smack up, not a physical smack down

TMike

[Mr. Perfidy]

If you had a loved one that was brainwashed into aggressing against others via a vote --- would you want them beat down, killed, or helped? I ask this because it this is the situation we are really in. The masses truly have undergone mass conditioning - they are brainwashed.

Killed?! lol I am talking about a literal smack in the face. People get smacked in the face just for fun...but it is scary enough to the reptile brain's aggression-response to put the individual at a different cognitive wavelength, and snap them from their torpor. Buddhist monks USE THAT EXACT TACTIC and actually attack students for this reason.

I think the only moral thing to do is to snap them out of it through education. They are in need of a brain rinse.[/quote]

I agree- but, facts don't change minds if their faith is not already based on fact. People defend the regime because of emotional and irrational reasons, like fear of punishment. Facts do not address this for them, and cannot penetrate that veil.

A freedom oriented education tsunami is what we need. We should start a war on Ignorance. Give classes or workshops on freedom. Use Guerrilla marketing to get them there --- be the talk of the town. ---> THIS is what the REVOLUTION should be doing. At the local level on up.

I agree with all of this and have proposed the same thing here, but the problem is that people would not show up to learn, because THEY ARE TIMID SUBJECTS. So, what if they were afraid of forces other than the state? They would transfer their allegiance to that force.