Imperialism/Colonialism: Not a Bad Thing

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Was Butler singing the praises of Marx and Engels and glorifying Stalin? Now there's some Empiring for you. I'd have to call that ALL bad.

Not to my knowledge...but to be fair...neither is Bernie. Most Socialists tend to distance themselves from the USSR. But the rhetoric is crystal clear. That is undeniable.

[osan]

I think this Ayn Rand quote applies to this topic and I agree with it.

“[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land

Then neither do we.

and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights

This is 100%+ contradictory to Rand's Objectivist principles. I am not convinced this is truly one of her quotes.

which they had not conceived and were not using…

More nonsense, leading me to believe the quote is bullfeces... That or Rand had taken a really stiff dose of acid just prior to utterance. Obliquely mistaken as she may have been on certain points, she was correct in the notion that human rights are objectively derivable. She did not have the derivation pinned down, but that has been taken care of in the meanwhile.

[W]hat was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence.

This is a good example of how Rand flies off the rails. While having successfully thrown off a great burden of assumptions that have screwed people into the dirt for thousands of years, she failed to throw off other burdensome assumptions. More properly stated, the bold text should read: "For their wish to continue to live as they were objectively free to choose for themselves, and for which the Other had no demonstrable right to alter, much less destroy." But she was being dishonest here, IMO. She could not square up the conflict between the resident Indians' right to their sorts of lives with those of the invading Europeans, whose agro-industrial filth, combined with their perversions of the core Christian ethos were for her attractive. Therefore, she needed a basis for assassinating the rights of the native people and this was the best she could contrive. Pretty lame, IMO.

It seems to me Rand had the basic ideas very much right, but had not been able to work out the resolution of conflicts that perforce arise between peoples coming from two such wildly incompatible ways of living, particularly in the face of the Jude-Christian ethic of "be fruitful and multiply". At one point, something's got to give, and at that point it is force that shall be the arbiter.

Their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even as property, but just keep everybody out, so that you can live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it…. Any white person who could bring the element of civilization had the right to take over this country.”

This is rampaging, catastrophic FAIL, yet will be agreed to by those on the "winning" side. Screw those seely bastards who lose.

Well, if this is your true belief, then you will have nothing to say if and when the millions of Muslim dogs rise from their latency and start killing your children. You will have no basis for wailing or gnashing your teeth because that which you have quoted us pure, pragmatic nihilism.

[osan]

I fail to see how that precludes Imperialism from spreading Liberty, Free Trade, Western Values, and Peace to people who were in a state of backwards semi-barbarity; having no respect for Life, Liberty, or Property (not even to mention Christian Ethics).

Forcing "liberty" upon those not interested is decidedly un-libertarian. It is a contradiction in terms.

Imperialism is only bad if its used by bad people for bad purposes.

If you cannot see the problem with what you wrote here, you're in deep feces.

Take the principle of Imperialism to a smaller level and work up.

I am a person. I notice that my next door neighbor is about to commit an act of tyranny against someone else (lets say he is going to to burn her alive on a funeral pyre because her husband has recently died). Is it wrong for me to intervene, and put a stop to it? Am i not then sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, being an imperialist?

Simplistic nonsense that excludes the key element of desire. If the woman desires such a fate, then you have no place interfering. If she is calling for help, that is a very different story. These situations are not quite so cut and dried as you appear to take them.

Lets bump up a level. My town notices that the town next door is practicing the same kind of tyranny against widows...and for sake of argument, that the are so technologically undeveloped that they cannot import or export goods. People are in poverty, and they are sitting on ample resources. Is it wrong take up arms, put an end to the tyranny...let our businesses in to hire the locals, start mining the resources...boosting the lives of the locals exponentially (as Adam Smith says, to our own detriment), but also opening up the market to ourselves and the world. Is that wrong?

None of your copulating business. If those widows want something else, let them escape or let them begin slitting the throats of those who offend them so. Keep your copulating nose out of the business of others. I would also point out that were such a poorly contrived situation as this to become real that those not yet widowed would be leaving in droves for greener pastures. Otherwise, it is pretty well clear they either do not want anything different or are being held captive. Either way, it is really not your business.

How about on a State to state level... What about if it was Mexico and the United States? What makes that any different than the first case?

Nothing. Therefore, MYOFB.

Your argument is wholly and utterly bankrupt.

I recommend you give it up. Your choice, of course.

[osan]

If you had to chose between saving 100 people and letting one die, or saving one person and letting 100 die, or ignoring the situation and letting 101 did....I hope you would chose to save the 100....even if it meant that you chose death for that one person.

Apparent "greater good" argument.

FAIL.

[osan]

This thread is dying of osan deficiency.

BLURF... that was funny, I must admit.

Whether or not societies benefit/ed from western influence is immaterial. Sovereign people are not obligated to happily suffer under rule because it is "good" for them. "Good" is a subjective value, of course. What is objective is that human beings are not obligated to suffer rule if those people do not wish to be ruled, whether it be to their benefit or to their detriment.

Nicely done. This is like that dildo Bloomberg unilaterally declaring no sodas over 20oz because it's "good for New Yorkers".

The tyranny of "good" intentions.

Intention counts for NOTHING when the results are disastrous. All men hold the inherent right to destroy that which destroys or threatens to destroy them.

[osan]

The repeated Genocides against Native Americans. Easy. It is wrong to genocide people. Just like it is wrong to enslave people.

Not much of an argument, however much I might otherwise agree.

I've already refuted the (i wouldn't call it a genocide, but a war) between the Spanish and the Aztecs and other huge governing, tyrannical indian empires in central and south america....because after they overthrew the tyrants, they just stepped into their place. There is a huge difference between the Spanish and the British Model.

The British Model is "Just". The Spanish is "UnJust".

You must be reading different accounts of history because the British were and remain some of the most openly evil people on the planet. They butchered countless millions for the sake of Empire. They brought death and disease and poverty and misery EVERYWHERE they went, without exception. How just was the ban on self-sufficiency in salt production for India? How just was the similar proscription for trade goods with the American colonies?

Perhaps you are British, because that is the only reason I can come up with this "close your eyes and think of England" woodie you seem to be sporting.

Thats one way to expand an Empire of Liberty...aint it?

Are you even serious?

One expands liberty by ATTRACTION, not even by promotion, much less by force. Our history is rotten with examples of just how successful force has been over the longer run.

When a free land stands as a beacon to the rest, if what they are is indeed so wonderful, the world will beat a path to the door of freedom. Otherwise, you let people choose whatever flavor of slavery they may choose. Freedom is at times paradoxical.

[Ronin Truth]

[/B]

Not much of an argument, however much I might otherwise agree.



You must be reading different accounts of history because the British were and remain some of the most openly evil people on the planet. They butchered countless millions for the sake of Empire. They brought death and disease and poverty and misery EVERYWHERE they went, without exception. How just was the ban on self-sufficiency in salt production for India? How just was the similar proscription for trade goods with the American colonies?

Perhaps you are British, because that is the only reason I can come up with this "close your eyes and think of England" woodie you seem to be sporting.



Are you even serious?

One expands liberty by ATTRACTION, not even by promotion, much less by force. Our history is rotten with examples of just how successful force has been over the longer run.

When a free land stands as a beacon to the rest, if what they are is indeed so wonderful, the world will beat a path to the door of freedom. Otherwise, you let people choose whatever flavor of slavery they may choose. Freedom is at times paradoxical.

+Rep!

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Forcing "liberty" upon those not interested is decidedly un-libertarian. It is a contradiction in terms.



If you cannot see the problem with what you wrote here, you're in deep feces.




Simplistic nonsense that excludes the key element of desire. If the woman desires such a fate, then you have no place interfering. If she is calling for help, that is a very different story. These situations are not quite so cut and dried as you appear to take them.



None of your copulating business. If those widows want something else, let them escape or let them begin slitting the throats of those who offend them so. Keep your copulating nose out of the business of others. I would also point out that were such a poorly contrived situation as this to become real that those not yet widowed would be leaving in droves for greener pastures. Otherwise, it is pretty well clear they either do not want anything different or are being held captive. Either way, it is really not your business.



Nothing. Therefore, MYOFB.

Your argument is wholly and utterly bankrupt.

I recommend you give it up. Your choice, of course.

So let me be clear. You support Liberty for yourself, and Tyranny for others. You believe Liberty is determined by Consent, amd not by...I dunno, inalienable right? That means "you can't take them away". That was beat into our heads in grade school. Human beings, not american citizens, but human beings, have the right to their life, liberty, amd property. I will fight for the little guy any day of the week.

What would've happened if the Continental Congress would've been like "oh, boston....you're on your own". Or maybe "meh, if the slaves wanted to be free, they'd do it themselves". Guess what buddy; I'll stick my nose where ever tyranny rears it's ugly head. Foreign or Domestic. The only real question is of self-interest and national security.

I'll be clear. I'm a committed nom interventionist. As I've explained, economicall, imperialism is typically harmful. But in accordance with the just war theiry, or if we have some economic gain to be had by liberating a people (and not Iraq style 'liberation'...I mean if we were to topple someone like Mugabe and colonize the area....I might not throw a fit...

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Apparent "greater good" argument.

FAIL.

Well. Which do you pick?

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

BLURF... that was funny, I must admit.



Nicely done. This is like that dildo Bloomberg unilaterally declaring no sodas over 20oz because it's "good for New Yorkers".

The tyranny of "good" intentions.

Intention counts for NOTHING when the results are disastrous. All men hold the inherent right to destroy that which destroys or threatens to destroy them.

But Bloomberg takes away their liberty to buy soda, and limits the extent on which they may purchase property....that is tyranny. I would overthrow the bloomburg, and set up a gov that gives people back those freedoms.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

[/B]

Not much of an argument, however much I might otherwise agree.



You must be reading different accounts of history because the British were and remain some of the most openly evil people on the planet. They butchered countless millions for the sake of Empire. They brought death and disease and poverty and misery EVERYWHERE they went, without exception. How just was the ban on self-sufficiency in salt production for India? How just was the similar proscription for trade goods with the American colonies?

Perhaps you are British, because that is the only reason I can come up with this "close your eyes and think of England" woodie you seem to be sporting.



Are you even serious?

One expands liberty by ATTRACTION, not even by promotion, much less by force. Our history is rotten with examples of just how successful force has been over the longer run.

When a free land stands as a beacon to the rest, if what they are is indeed so wonderful, the world will beat a path to the door of freedom. Otherwise, you let people choose whatever flavor of slavery they may choose. Freedom is at times paradoxical.

I'm glad you'll agree slavery is tyranny

I probably am reading a different account of history. Just like you'll be hard pressed to find "Lincoln: The Tyrant" at your local bookstore, you're unlikely to find "Great Britain:Greatest Force for Liberty 19th century".

Marxist professors write Marxist history.

Which is probably why you think that places like Singapore are doing so well today for some reason other than Imperialism.

I'm not British. As I said a few times earlier. I'm defending this position for 2 reasons. 1. It isn't explored enough and I want to learn the position. 2. It could be right. I'm not necessarily sold on it yet. But it's becoming clear to me that our non-interventionist movement has definitely been plagued by marxism.

I was being funny when I called the us an empire of liberty...which are jefferson words, not mine....you obviously didn't catch my time through the text.

There is only Liberty or Tyranny. And they can, and must, both be spread by force. If you lay down the weapons of liberty, you let the wolf in the henhouse, and the beast will devour us all.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I obviously didn't create this or anything, I just found it...nor do I condone the very disrespectful tone to it....but generally, it's good for getting you to question conventional thought

[Tywysog Cymru]

Early on, yes.

By the end, the natives were is great shape relative where they'd started, and certainly where they are now (i.e. hell, approximately).

That's why I like the Congo as an example: even there, with all the horrors of the early period of colonization, it was for the best in the end.

...or until the Belgians left, anyway.

The majority of the natives of the Congo were in extreme poverty during Belgian rule.

Yes, monarchs sometimes fight wars.

So do all other types of governments.

There's no reason to think that monarchies are more warlike than democracies.

Monarchies went to war all the time in the Middle Ages/Renaissance/Age of Enlightenment. It was parliament that prevented King George III from continuing the war in the colonies.

The United Kingdom, a monarchy, was involved in the War on Terror. As was Spain IIRC.

Russia, yes, if we're counting Siberia and the like.

And Central Asia and parts of China. They also competed with Britain over Persia. If Russia was more industrialized they would probably have been able to have more colonies.

Belgium and Italy were democratic states with largely symbolic monarchs.

The King of Belgium had much more power in Congo than he did in Belgium.

Spain, yes, as I mentioned.

Portugal, yes and no. Early on, Portuguese colonization was mostly limited to trading posts on the coast, and was probably profitable.

Direct rule in (which I presume was unprofitable) came late, when Portugal had already ceased to be a monarchy.

Portugal was a monarchy until 1910. Portugal already had full control of what is now Angola, Mozambique, etc. by then.

Overall, I'd say that the bulk of the irrational colonization was conducted democratic European states.

Because they were the most powerful states.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I probably am reading a different account of history. Just like you'll be hard pressed to find "Lincoln: The Tyrant" at your local bookstore, you're unlikely to find "Great Britain:Greatest Force for Liberty 19th century".

I've seen this one at Barnes & Noble:

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I've seen this one at Barnes & Noble:

I'll have to pick it up...unfortunately, I'm sure that it will try to "ride the fence" and split hairs, so as to not give offense to the reader.

Democracy: The God that Failed, as well as a few other readings that mises has published has me completely convinced that Democracy is bad juju. Marxists have me utter convinced that we have the wrong approach to foreign policy...and countries like Mali literally make me cringe, knowing that if "The White Mans Burden" was taken up, those people could experience a great leap forward out of the middle ages. Of courae, we would need some economic or Nat security benefit in order to do so...but that is the kind of imperialism the Brits did. I'm not convinced it was a bad thing yet.

[osan]

So let me be clear. You support Liberty for yourself, and Tyranny for others. You believe Liberty is determined by Consent, amd not by...I dunno, inalienable right? That means "you can't take them away". That was beat into our heads in grade school. Human beings, not american citizens, but human beings, have the right to their life, liberty, amd property. I will fight for the little guy any day of the week.

What would've happened if the Continental Congress would've been like "oh, boston....you're on your own". Or maybe "meh, if the slaves wanted to be free, they'd do it themselves". Guess what buddy; I'll stick my nose where ever tyranny rears it's ugly head. Foreign or Domestic. The only real question is of self-interest and national security.

I'll be clear. I'm a committed nom interventionist. As I've explained, economicall, imperialism is typically harmful. But in accordance with the just war theiry, or if we have some economic gain to be had by liberating a people (and not Iraq style 'liberation'...I mean if we were to topple someone like Mugabe and colonize the area....I might not throw a fit...

I cannot readily tell if you are suffering some challenges with logic and reason, with language, or you are being somehow disingenuous.

Regardless, your "clarity" is completely wrong. You have succeeded in grossly misconstruing my words. You need to go back and read them again, only carefully this time.

For one thing, Congress and Boston were perhaps under an agreement. Where a contract exists, so does the obligation to perform. I suggest you take a class on contracts or at least do some research. You would then understand just how ridiculous some of the things you have written appear to some eyes.

As for "slaves", I hold no obligation to free them. If I choose to try, it is because I have decided it is something I would do and not because someone else commanded me.

As for the rest of it, it makes little sense. Empire is shyte no matter how you slice it. You appear to believe that it is OK if it is "nice" Empire. No such animal exists.

[osan]

I'm not British. As I said a few times earlier. I'm defending this position for 2 reasons. 1. It isn't explored enough and I want to learn the position.

I has been explored plenty. If you understood the noiseless analytic, you would see that there is no place to go with such things, except into the shyte pot. Not that many people are trained to do noiseless analysis. Those who do it well are mainly engineers, physicists, and certain other scientific sorts, for reasons I will not go into here. I could probably teach a class on it and make a buck. Not really a bad idea, actually.

There is only Liberty or Tyranny. And they can, and must, both be spread by force.

This is absolutely incorrect. There are endless historical examples of how the use of force fails. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler are two such examples. They all had their good intentions... though Stalin may be questioned on that point... They all thought they were freeing their respective people, and they all turned out as virulent, murderous lunatics with 200 million corpses to their credit.

What are you going to do, force people to be free? Do you not see the paradox in this?

If you lay down the weapons of liberty, you let the wolf in the henhouse, and the beast will devour us all.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to get across here. I've certainly not so much as hinted at laying down for anyone.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I has been explored plenty. If you understood the noiseless analytic, you would see that there is no place to go with such things, except into the shyte pot. Not that many people are trained to do noiseless analysis. Those who do it well are mainly engineers, physicists, and certain other scientific sorts, for reasons I will not go into here. I could probably teach a class on it and make a buck. Not really a bad idea, actually.



This is absolutely incorrect. There are endless historical examples of how the use of force fails. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler are two such examples. They all had their good intentions... though Stalin may be questioned on that point... They all thought they were freeing their respective people, and they all turned out as virulent, murderous lunatics with 200 million corpses to their credit.

What are you going to do, force people to be free? Do you not see the paradox in this?



I'm not even sure what you are trying to get across here. I've certainly not so much as hinted at laying down for anyone.

The basic difference between what you are saying and the position that I am attempting to defend (because, as I said, I'm not entirely sold on it, I'm just arguing it for sake of learning)....is that you believe that Liberty is contingent upon consent. I mean, that is what you're saying, right? So inform me how you are consenting to being free right now.
At the end of the day, Liberty is a condition, not a choice. You either are, or you are not. It is not liberty to choose to be a slave. It doesn't work that way. Whether or not you want to, your freedom from slavery is an inalienable right. Just as Congress cannot just give the president the right to declare war, a human cannot give away his basic human rights.

Now, if people live in a state of tyranny or repression....or in a state that is void of even the basic respect for human rights and liberties, then by no means can the people consent to those conditions.

Now, you are focusing on the "evils", while ignoring the overwhelming "good". I don't try to cover up or defend the bad things that have been done. But you attempt to marginalize or ignore the incredible good that has been done. My standard is pretty simple...if the life, liberty, or property of imperialised people were violated, that specific instance was an act of tyranny. But that was not nearly as rampant as you pretend! South Africa, Rhodesia, Singapore, Hong Kong, America, Canada, India, Falklands, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, Gibraltar, Egypt, Australia...and the list goes on. Every single one of these countries while they were, or currently are, under the British Empire....are infinitely freer, wealthier, and more civilized under the Brits than by themselves. The exceptions, say America (who was freer under King George than under King George W.) is successful today, not because of the legacy of the indians...but of the british.

Let's just be real here. The Enlightenment wouldn't have happened without Britain...and Britain was the most enlightened and classically liberal country in the entire world....our Founding fathers themselves believed so, as did the rest of the world.


I'm curious to know, what do you believe to be a form of government that doesn't push liberty or Tyranny by force.

Btw....the mao, stalin, hitler thing....that is all the product of the downfall of European monarchy. Thanks democracy. You can call them empires, and they were...but they aren't the empire I'm talking about, and you know it. Stop with the strawmans.

It's not about intention...it's about objective good and objective evil. In democracy, 51% of people can say evil is good...but that just doesn't make it so. That makes it tyranny. Consent has absolutely zero bearing on liberty.

[Krugminator2]

Well, if this is your true belief, then you will have nothing to say if and when the millions of Muslim dogs rise from their latency and start killing your children. You will have no basis for wailing or gnashing your teeth because that which you have quoted us pure, pragmatic nihilism.

I would have a problem with Muslims killing me. I live in the United States and we have a capitalistic system with property rights. The United States, like all countries with Western values, is legitimate. Capitalism is the only moral system. The United States is the most moral country in the history of the world. Civilization did not start until the Enlightenment, which the United State embraced. Very few Muslim countries have a respect for property rights and no Muslim country is even remotely as economically free as the United States. They would have no moral standing to invade the United States.

The fact of the matter is the majority of countries in the Middle East which would be likely to attack are illegitimate and composed of savages. That statement is the exact opposite of nihilism. It is a statement of moral judgement. They do not embrace reason. There is no Silicon Valley in the Middle East. They produce no innovation. There are almost zero Nobel Prize winners from the Middle East.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I just wanted to share the following tidbit that I wrote about 2 months ago for my own purposes. My aim is to show you just how strongly I felt in my anti-imperialism, and that I completely understand where you are striking blows....all I ask is that we have the fortitude to challenge our current understanding of the past, and try to see things in a new light.


Thank you all again for having (and continuing) this great discussion. The OP was "ok" at best...best I think the content within these 7 pages of thread are of high quality back and forth. Good stuff gents!

“O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! Receive the fugitive and prepare in time, an asylum for mankind.” – Thomas Paine.

In Paine’s time, the World was awash in the tyranny of heredity and oppression. This is not to exclude the New World. The banner of Empire arose far and wide. The human suffering caused towards the Natural Peoples by imperial ambition was accepted as it had been in the Far East and Africa. Their exploitation was paramount in the minds of European Tyrants.

As religious persecution sought to eradicate freedom of conscience in the Old World, those daring few escaped their shackles to the New World. Of course, the tentacles of the crown were far reaching, and even the New World was no reprieve from their condition. An asylum perhaps, but not for the whole of mankind, and certainly not without its tether still affixed in Europe.

As time passed, imperial control of these political and religious asylums fastened into colonies and pure extensions of Empire. The Natural Peoples were pushed back into the great American Wilderness or were put into vassalage. Slaves and Indentured Servants from the European Continent, from the African Continent, and from the Natural Peoples were robbed of their Liberty for imperial profit. The Balance of Power was no longer focused on mainland Europe, but rather on plundering the people and treasures of the New World.

The Enlightenment was borne in the crushing vice of despotism. The long forgotten and repressed philosophies and wisdom of the ancients had been revived in the minds of clamoring intellectuals. Alas, an asylum was emerging in the minds of subjects.

[osan]

The basic difference between what you are saying and the position that I am attempting to defend (because, as I said, I'm not entirely sold on it, I'm just arguing it for sake of learning)....is that you believe that Liberty is contingent upon consent. I mean, that is what you're saying, right?

No, that is not what I am saying.

The inherently free nature of men is deducible by the employ of observation and logic. It is obviously so. This truth is independent of human opinion. That some men contrive all manner of fallacious bullfeces in order to arrive at differing assessments of humanity's basic position in the grander scheme of things, their childish nonsense does not affect the truth that men are inherently free in any way whatsoever. Bullfeces is bullfeces and truth is truth.

Consent is not that which establishes freedom, but it may be that which allows men to exercise their innate freedoms. Whether you live in America, Japan, communist China, and ISIS camp, or a gulag, you remain inherently free as a matter of human rights. That some men might prevent you from exercising your inherent freedoms, it does not follow that you are not free, but only that your right to exercise has been violated.

You presume and infer facts not in evidence WRT to my positions.

So inform me how you are consenting to being free right now.

Given I never made the claim, there is nothing to say.

[snip]

Let's just be real here. The Enlightenment wouldn't have happened without Britain...and Britain was the most enlightened and classically liberal country in the entire world....our Founding fathers themselves believed so, as did the rest of the world.

And you know this, how exactly?

I'm curious to know, what do you believe to be a form of government that doesn't push liberty or Tyranny by force.

Government has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with tyranny of one form and degree or another. Therefore, your question answers itself when one is in possession of the correct facts.

I don't do "strawmen".

[HVACTech]

Then neither do we.



This is 100%+ contradictory to Rand's Objectivist principles. I am not convinced this is truly one of her quotes.



More nonsense, leading me to believe the quote is bullfeces... That or Rand had taken a really stiff dose of acid just prior to utterance. Obliquely mistaken as she may have been on certain points, she was correct in the notion that human rights are objectively derivable. She did not have the derivation pinned down, but that has been taken care of in the meanwhile.



This is a good example of how Rand flies off the rails. While having successfully thrown off a great burden of assumptions that have screwed people into the dirt for thousands of years, she failed to throw off other burdensome assumptions. More properly stated, the bold text should read: "For their wish to continue to live as they were objectively free to choose for themselves, and for which the Other had no demonstrable right to alter, much less destroy." But she was being dishonest here, IMO. She could not square up the conflict between the resident Indians' right to their sorts of lives with those of the invading Europeans, whose agro-industrial filth, combined with their perversions of the core Christian ethos were for her attractive. Therefore, she needed a basis for assassinating the rights of the native people and this was the best she could contrive. Pretty lame, IMO.

It seems to me Rand had the basic ideas very much right, but had not been able to work out the resolution of conflicts that perforce arise between peoples coming from two such wildly incompatible ways of living, particularly in the face of the Jude-Christian ethic of "be fruitful and multiply". At one point, something's got to give, and at that point it is force that shall be the arbiter.



This is rampaging, catastrophic FAIL, yet will be agreed to by those on the "winning" side. Screw those seely bastards who lose.

Well, if this is your true belief, then you will have nothing to say if and when the millions of Muslim dogs rise from their latency and start killing your children. You will have no basis for wailing or gnashing your teeth because that which you have quoted us pure, pragmatic nihilism.

feeling a little hostile are we?

the guy simply posted a quote dude. lay off.

@osan "Well, if this is your true belief, then you will have nothing to say if and when the millions of Muslim dogs rise from their latency and start killing your children. You will have no basis for wailing or gnashing your teeth because that which you have quoted us pure, pragmatic nihilism."
@osan "This is 100%+ contradictory to Rand's Objectivist principles. I am not convinced this is truly one of her quotes."
@osan Consent is not that which establishes freedom, but it may be that which allows men to exercise their innate freedoms.

are you off your meds?

[osan]

I would have a problem with Muslims killing me. I live in the United States and we have a capitalistic system with property rights. The United States, like all countries with Western values, is legitimate. Capitalism is the only moral system. The United States is the most moral country in the history of the world. Civilization did not start until the Enlightenment, which the United State embraced. Very few Muslim countries have a respect for property rights and no Muslim country is even remotely as economically free as the United States. They would have no moral standing to invade the United States.

The fact of the matter is the majority of countries in the Middle East which would be likely to attack are illegitimate and composed of savages. That statement is the exact opposite of nihilism. It is a statement of moral judgement. They do not embrace reason. There is no Silicon Valley in the Middle East. They produce no innovation. There are almost zero Nobel Prize winners from the Middle East.

"Legitimate"? By whose standard of judgment?

Perhaps you are using "legitimate" incorrectly, as a substitute for "valid"?

Legitimacy in its proper sense means nothing more significant than the fact that a body of arbitrarily constituted pinheads, believing themselves authorized, decide to vote into "law" some likely arbitrary nonsense in violation of the rights of free men. The drug statutes are all "legitimate", as are those against prostitution, carrying guns in some places, "hate speech", and so on down a drearily depressing list.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

No, that is not what I am saying.

Alright, I'm all ears.

The inherently free nature of men is deducible by the employ of observation and logic. It is obviously so. This truth is independent of human opinion. That some men contrive all manner of fallacious bullfeces in order to arrive at differing assessments of humanity's basic position in the grander scheme of things, their childish nonsense does not affect the truth that men are inherently free in any way whatsoever. Bullfeces is bullfeces and truth is truth.

I completely agree with all of that.

Consent is not that which establishes freedom, but it may be that which allows men to exercise their innate freedoms. Whether you live in America, Japan, communist China, and ISIS camp, or a gulag, you remain inherently free as a matter of human rights. That some men might prevent you from exercising your inherent freedoms, it does not follow that you are not free, but only that your right to exercise has been violated.

I am complete agreement with that as well.

You presume and infer facts not in evidence WRT to my positions.

Perhaps that is so.

Given I never made the claim, there is nothing to say.

That is fair enough.

[snip]



And you know this, how exactly?

It is, of course, impossible to completely throw out the chance of the Enlightenment popping up from somewhere else in some alternate universe; perhaps what I was more trying to say was that the epi-center of the Enlightenment was in Britain, and that without Britain and the people she brought forth into the Earth (philosophers, writers, politicians, businessmen ect), I do not know where the Enlightenment "spark" would come from. But it was, the most enlightened and classically liberal country in the entire world. That is not disputed, even by contemporary historians.

Government has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with tyranny of one form and degree or another. Therefore, your question answers itself when one is in possession of the correct facts.

I agree on the philosophical sense, that freedom is above any institution, and that any institution is a form of tyranny (in which I've been advocating that democracy is more-so tyrannical to ancap or monarchy). But as a practical matter, in which virtually every inch of the land on Earth is claimed by agents of tyranny; the institution has a significant say in whether they recognize and allow liberty with minimal tyranny, or if they dispute and crush liberty with maximum tyranny.

I don't do "strawmen".

Oh be fair, making all Empires ever equivalent to the Nazis or the USSR is intellectually dishonest and you know it. Many are in principle, and I think that I have done a fair job in disputing those. Also, the British Empire has had its notable moments, which I have also agreed with you...muy mal.

Regardless of how it is spun, Hitler and Stalin had a very different definition of Liberty and "Good Intentions" than what I do...and since I have claimed to be against Moral Relativism, in favor of Aquinas type Moral Objectivism. Because of that rejection of both egalitarian ethics, and moral relativism, my foundation here says that there is a right and a wrong upon which i can nit-pick the good and the bad from Empire; and advocate for the good while disputing the bad. Also, just in historical fairness....it is perhaps unfair to old civilizations to judge them wholly to be good or evil based on the norms of the times. While we can say that slavery is objectively evil...and since the British practiced slavery (as did quite literally everyone else on the planet...including those whom they imperialized)... it must be said that they have carried out a tyranny against their fellow man. However, though evil, it was a norm; and that should be factored into judgement. Also, the rejection of slavery on moral and philosophical grounds throughout their Empire must also be factored into things...as that is a pretty huge deal.

So lets restart in a different way.

1. Is there a Objective Good and Evil?

2. If there is not Objective Truth/Good, then how can Life, Liberty , or Property be valued above Death, Slavery, or Theft?

3. If there is Objective Truth/Good, then Evil can be objectively deducted.

4. If there is not Objective Truth/Good, then there is no such thing as Evil.

5. If Objective Truth/Good finds Objective Evil; is it not Just for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Objective Evil?

6. If there is no Objectivity, then all knowledge of Truth/Good or Evil must be Relative.

7. If it is Just for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Objective Evil, then there is not necessarily an Obligation for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Evil offensively, as it potentially allows Evil great opportunity to defeat Truth/Good, which is UnJust.

8. If Truth/Good and Evil are Relative, then no unit; individual, family, group, nation, state, ect. have any Objective Right to assault Relative Evil. (Non-Aggression Principle)

9. If there is not necessarily Obligation for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Evil offensively, then Objective Truth/Good must be Obligated to destroy Evil Defensively, so that Evil cannot be permitted to Destroy Truth/Good. (Christian Just War)

10. If Relative Good has no right to assault Relative Evil, then Relative Good has no right to defend against Relative Evil, as to do so would imply that the attacking Relative Evil is actually Objective Evil, and the defending Relative Good is actually Objective Truth/Good. (Egalitarian Pacifism)

11. If Objective Good/Truth is not necessarily Obligated for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Evil offensively, then Objective Good/Truth is not necessarily obligated for complete abstention from selective offense against Objective Evil; as it is Just for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Objective Evil. (Just Imperialism)

Now; we have both agreed that no unit or actor is completely Objectively Good or Evil. So it is completely rational to see an Empire, for example, the British Empire, spreading both Objective Evil and Objective Good at the same time. The question, as you stated earlier...is of degrees of Objective Evil.

I wholly believe in the odd numbered points, and i wholly reject the even numbered points. What say you?

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I would have a problem with Muslims killing me. I live in the United States and we have a capitalistic system with property rights. The United States, like all countries with Western values, is legitimate. Capitalism is the only moral system. The United States is the most moral country in the history of the world. Civilization did not start until the Enlightenment, which the United State embraced. Very few Muslim countries have a respect for property rights and no Muslim country is even remotely as economically free as the United States. They would have no moral standing to invade the United States.

The fact of the matter is the majority of countries in the Middle East which would be likely to attack are illegitimate and composed of savages. That statement is the exact opposite of nihilism. It is a statement of moral judgement. They do not embrace reason. There is no Silicon Valley in the Middle East. They produce no innovation. There are almost zero Nobel Prize winners from the Middle East.

While I understand your argument. There are a few things that I would nitpick.

I have a problem with muslims killing me also. But we, as americans, do not have a capitalist system with property rights. Now, our system is comparatively more capitalist and we have more property rights than many...but It is not absolute. We absolutely do not have western values, or at least the ones I'm thinking of. Capitalism being the only moral system, I agree...but under a perfect capitalist system, people would be free to compete within the system as a socialist type town (as example). At the family level, I believe socialist to be very moral. I don't want to compete with a young child or an elderly grandparent for the food. Capitalism is moral between units, buy within the units, they may experiment as they wish.

The US is not the most moral country in the world by any means, at all. I immediately think of Lichtenstein as being pretty damn good.

Civilization was absolutely present before the enlightenment, unless you somehow have been tricked into thinking that the French Revolution was a force for good rather than for evil. I seriously oppose this point. If you'd like me to, I can elaborate a little.

I agree with most of the rest of your post, plus or minus a little rhetoric or exactness of speech.

Buy I wouldn't say that the silicon valley, Nobel prize winners, or innovation are a testament of a just society. But their barbaric concept of "good and evil", which disrespect life, liberty, amd property....which is essentially a product of Christian western civilizationm...is evil. (Of course there is more than just life, liberty, and property...but those are the bug ones)

Just remember that history is has no start and stop points. It flows, the good and evil can be traced back to the garden of eden.

[osan]

I don't do "strawmen".

Oh be fair, making all Empires ever equivalent to the Nazis or the USSR is intellectually dishonest and you know it. Many are in principle, and I think that I have done a fair job in disputing those. Also, the British Empire has had its notable moments, which I have also agreed with you...muy mal.

No dishonesty. No need for it. Empire is what it is. If you think there is a fundamental difference between the British Empire and that of Soviet Russia, you are fooling yourself. There is NO difference, save that of superficialities and degree. At the end of the day, the Brits would haul you up by the neck until you were dead if you displeased the authority and refused to be contrite. No difference in America. Kill a cop in valid self-defense in Texas and odds are at least even you will be executed. More broadly, refuse to pay your taxes to the nth-degree and Theye will have their men with guns kill you. How is that FUNDAMENTALLY any different from the Romans, NAZIs, Soviets, Red Chinese, or any of the other punk-mothercopulator "governments" out there? It isn't. Unlike many people, I am trained in, capable of, and in the habit of carrying out noiseless analysis. When you strip away all the bullfeces and distill a given circumstance to its irreducibly essential elements, things come into sharp focus which had before been obscured.

Regardless of how it is spun, Hitler and Stalin had a very different definition of Liberty and "Good Intentions" than what I do...and since I have claimed to be against Moral Relativism, in favor of Aquinas type Moral Objectivism. Because of that rejection of both egalitarian ethics, and moral relativism, my foundation here says that there is a right and a wrong upon which i can nit-pick the good and the bad from Empire;

And here you make plain a core flaw in your view. The so-called "good" of Empire is irrelevant. Why? Because it is doled out to its subjects not as matters of the Sacred involate, but of their arbitrary largesse. That makes it THEIRS and NOT YOURS. That further implies that, regardless of purport, Theye can rescind it any time they want, for whatever reason they want, or for no reason given. You appear to be missing the point that so long as Theye get to make these decisions for you, the degree of your servitude, no matter how seemingly trivial and insignificant, is irrelevant; you are still a slave. It is like being a "trustee" in prison: you have expanded privileges the other prisoners do not have. You remain, in any event, a prisoner.

and advocate for the good while disputing the bad.

All well and good, so long as you do not interfere in the affairs of others who wish no interference. But based on what you have written, it appears you feel authorized to put your nose where it has not been requested. If one man volunteers himself as a slave to another, is it your contention that he does so without authority? The FreeMan is free only if he is free to enlist himself as a servant to another. YOU may not like it. I may not like it. Guess what? Tough shyte for us. If a man is free, he must be free to squander his freedom. Paradoxical after a fashion, I agree. Ugly, I agree. Appalling, in fact. But we either respect the right of men to make of themselves what they will, even if that thing be a MereCog, or we are tyrants whose speak of "freedom" is all noise and aroma.

Also, just in historical fairness....it is perhaps unfair to old civilizations to judge them wholly to be good or evil based on the norms of the times. While we can say that slavery is objectively evil...and since the British practiced slavery (as did quite literally everyone else on the planet...including those whom they imperialized)... it must be said that they have carried out a tyranny against their fellow man. However, though evil, it was a norm¹; and that should be factored into judgement². Also, the rejection of slavery on moral and philosophical grounds throughout their Empire must also be factored into things...as that is a pretty huge deal³.

1: Burning witches was a "norm" as well, at one time. Ask those burned how they felt about it. "Norm" = nothing in this context. I trust this is not an attempt at mitigation - but if not, then what is your point?

2: OK, I factor it in as utterly irrelevant. If one can discern objective right and wrong, then "norm" becomes a non-modifier - and irrelevancy.

3: It was not a big deal from the point of view of core motivation. It was rejected ONLY after it became convenient to do so. Had slavery retained its central importance to the Brits, I assure you they would have kept it vibrantly alive. Making the "right" moral decision when it is easy to do so is nothing of which to write home, bragging. It is when it costs you great pain, inconvenience, and loss that one's moral fiber takes on the patina of a man worth emulating. To claim some moral coup when your real motive for abolishing slavery was purely of an economic consideration is beneath despicable. It resides somewhere beneath the status of a child rapist. It is disgusting on its face, and that is precisely what the British did. Besides, they made no real rejection of slavery, but only of one form of it. In reality, all British subjects remain as slaves, the only difference being the expanded largesse of the Master. But wait you see what shall come to pass the moment things go seriously tight in the UK. Then shall you see the real nature of that fangèd beast. Germany is a current example where native CAUCASIAN Germans have taken to the street to protest Merkel's decision to commit national suicide, particularly in the wake of the rape rampage in Köln this New Year past, were met by riot police arresting THEM in favor of the middle-eastern filth that has contaminated their lives with violence and other dangers.

You seem to think the Brits have evolved into something better. They are worse then they have ever been prior, if for no other reason than in times long past at least the king did his people the honor of being open about his tyranny, whereas now it is all pretty lies painted upon a face of purest darkness.

To believe we as a species have evolved into something better is naive almost to the point me meriting euthanasia as a mercy. 1/2

So lets restart in a different way.

1. Is there a Objective Good and Evil?

If one accepts the Cardinal Postulate as truth, then yes. If one rejects it, then the sky's the limit for insanity and chaos: anything goes. Simple choice.

3. If there is Objective Truth/Good, then Evil can be objectively deducted [sic].

More or less, trivially, although I would warn that a full understanding of the context in which "good" and "evil" are being employed is critical. Incorrect contextual employ of either term rapidly produces bad results, usually in the form of apparent contradictions and other confusions.

For example, there are two distinct senses of good and evil in the case of the man who does extreme skiing, something of which I was once a fond adherent. In the current context, my ability to take a helicopter up the mountain, stand on the edge of an 80-foot high cornice and jump off, possibly resulting in grave injury or death, is a good thing because it is my right to assume such risks and act in accord with my desire to do so.

That does NOT mean that my injuring or killing myself would be a good thing, the sense of "good" here being separate and distinct from the other context.

5. If Objective Truth/Good finds Objective Evil; is it not Just for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Objective Evil?

The standard MBA answer applies: it depends.

6. If there is no Objectivity, then all knowledge of Truth/Good or Evil must be Relative.

In the broadest possible context, which I might call the Universal or, seemingly paradoxically, the Quantum Mechanical (note the two extremes), it is. But we as human beings do not function at either extreme, but as humans in the human context. Therefore, our humanity determines the rules of our human praxeological prerogatives; it defines our praxeological "envelope", if you will. We do not exist in vacuo. We are beings of a given nature and must make our considerations on such matters within that defining field of commonality. It is our context as living beings and it constrains us in certain ways, thank God. Were it not so, there would be no sound and firm frame of reference; no terra firma upon which to plant our feet and walk as men walk upon the earth, able to go hither thither as we please. Some would view this as a curse, but I view it as an essential blessing. Pure non-restriction is itself a restriction. Try floating about in space between two galaxies and see how "free" you feel. Without the constraining force of gravity against which your legs can work, you find yourself in a prison of a different sort.

We were designed to be men, and therefore it is as men we ought to sculpt our considerations of ourselves and our places among our fellows. As men, there are absolutes between us, as matters of the relationships that exist from one man to another. That relative frame of context serves as the Objective Absolute upon which we all tread. This is a REALLY good thing. It is a basis that satisfies and affirms our humanity. It matters no whit what is going on in the Andromeda galaxy. That is a relativism for another life.

7. If it is Just for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Objective Evil, then there is not necessarily an Obligation for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Evil offensively, as it potentially allows Evil great opportunity to defeat Truth/Good, which is UnJust.

All well and good, so long as you understand what is in fact evil and worthy of destruction. I am thinking you may not have grasped that part very well, yet.

8. If Truth/Good and Evil are Relative, then no unit; individual, family, group, nation, state, ect. have any Objective Right to assault Relative Evil. (Non-Aggression Principle)

With this I cannot agree. The relative positions of good and evil may remain unattached to the question of a right of one to destroy the other. But this is a supercilious element of this discussion and I see no need to go further.

9. If there is not necessarily Obligation for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Evil offensively, then Objective Truth/Good must be Obligated to destroy Evil Defensively, so that Evil cannot be permitted to Destroy Truth/Good. (Christian Just War)

Yes yes, I see the point you make, but it is only half-baked. The missing element is the proper ID of good and evil, and that cannot be taken for granted because in my experience most people are incapable of making this determination with reliably consistent correctness.

Think of that skier once again. If he is planning on getting on to that cornice, the potential for him being death or grotesque disfigurement, are those results not evil? I would personally say that they are. But that does not nullify the good that is the skier's right to make that decision for himself. Therefore, you have no authority to swoop from the skies in your own helicopter, lasso the crazy sumbitch, and wing him away to safety because he may have met an evil outcome due to this decision to jump off that dizzyingly tall precipice.

These things, in order to understand them, require not only the eyes to see, but the will to accept the horrors that lie in wait, the result of risks realized.

People want the benefits of freedom without having to pay the prices and bear the risks and responsibilities of it. That is FAIL.

11. If Objective Good/Truth is not necessarily Obligated for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Evil offensively, then Objective Good/Truth is not necessarily obligated for complete abstention from selective offense against Objective Evil; as it is Just for Objective Truth/Good to destroy Objective Evil. (Just Imperialism)

Now THIS is nonsense. It is almost 5 AM and I am tired and in no humor to point out why. Perhaps you can raise the point again at another time, but not now.

Now; we have both agreed that no unit or actor is completely Objectively Good or Evil. So it is completely rational to see an Empire, for example, the British Empire, spreading both Objective Evil and Objective Good at the same time. The question, as you stated earlier...is of degrees of Objective Evil.

I have made no such agreement.

I wholly believe in the odd numbered points, and i wholly reject the even numbered points. What say you?

See commentary, above. Time for my daily half-hour of sleep.

[Natural Citizen]

Dang. You're one deep cat, osan. Good post. Heh.

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Dang. You're one deep cat, osan. Good post. Heh.

I'm not sure I have the intellect to give him a worthy reply. Wow to Osan, +rep

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

bullfeces

First, Osan, thank you for a great reply. I truly do appreciate the time and effort you have put into this conversation (and that goes for everyone, what a pleasure it has been to read through your posts).

To your first point: You, are “trained in, capable of, and in the habit of carrying out noiseless analysis” to “strip away all the bullfeces and distill a given circumstance to its irreducibly essential elements”. Using that logic; that the USSR, the British Empire, the Romans, the NAZIs, the Chinese Reds, or any other “punk mothercopulator governments” are all, essentially strongmen with guns to our heads, depriving us of X, Y, or Z. I agree with that completely, which is why; as I’ve stated earlier, I’m defending Anarcho-Monarchism, meaning that Anarcho-Capitalism is ideal, but if it is impossible than Monarchism (or some other form of non-publically owned government) is a better form of minarchy than Democracy.
I agree with you, that minarchy is, at its core, tyranny, as is all government. However, I challenge that under anarcho-capitalism, minarchy naturally develops from self-interested individuals; meaning that tyranny, however unsavory, is a fundamental part of human social interaction. It is inescapable, save perhaps complete solitude…and even then, if they catch you, they’ll likely string you up for tax evasion.

To your second point: “so long as they get to make these decisions for you, the degree of your servitude, no matter how seemingly trivial and insignificant, is irrelevant; you are a slave”. Again, you imply consent as a fundamental element of liberty. However, we do not have the Liberty to do, what I’ve been calling “Objective Evil”. As in, I can’t go steal your stuff or murder you. Now, to take away that decision from me, am I a slave?

You then go on in your third point: “if one man volunteers himself as a slave to another, it is your contention that he does so without authority”. Yes, yes it is. Now, why is that? I do not believe that our consent or willingness for action is fundamental to a state of freedom. Freedom neither includes forcing someone into slavery, or volunteering yourself into slavery. Allow me a more concrete example; assisted suicide versus murder. I see them as the exact same thing. To kill another person, with or without their consent, is still depriving another being of their Life, which is Objectively Evil. (Now, pulling the plug and to allow a Natural Death is another story entirely, one that we can go into if you wish). The point is; you do not have the right or the freedom to give away your rights and freedoms….which is why government, all government, is tyranny. Otherwise, our citizenship, our voluntary forfeiture of rights and liberties for membership, would be wholly just. It is not.

To the next point: Burning witches was a norm at one point (though it was practiced on a small scale…but that is irrelevant). This is no attempt at mitigation, simply a practical call to understanding ‘why’ historical actors may have thought that practicing Objective Evil was an Objective Good. This is basically saying that actors have masqueraded Relative Good as Objective Good…which is Objectively Evil. The point is, they thought it to be Good….yes; this is the argument for “johnny, if all the other kids jumped off the cliff, would you too?”. I’m contending that if johnny says “yes mum, I’ll jump off the cliff because everyone else does it” then perhaps johhny is an idiot (or in our case, a tyrant), but the actions can be understood somewhat. This is about understanding the past, not defending it.

I agree, with Objective Good and Evil, norms are irrelevant except to analyze as I’ve contended above.

“It was rejected ONLY after it became convenient to do so”. That is perhaps true, but isn’t that the basic truth of capitalism? Do I wish there were moral coups, yes, and perhaps if we were perfect beings, then evil would be a thing of the past…but we aren’t. I appreciate the small moral coups we get here and there, but if they can only be propelled out of self-interest, than so be it. I still give my support.
I do not think that the Brits have evolved into something better. I think that from the moment they abandoned their Splendid Isolation to take up an alliance with Japan, and posture with France and Russia for WW1, they began their descent. WW1 broke western civilization. I think that I’ve coined the phrase “We are in a technologically induced Dark Age”…and I believe that. What a paradoxical time to be a human.

1. I have to admit, I tried to follow the Cardinal Postulate thread, but I didn’t understand it. Perhaps I didn’t apply myself as wholly as I should have. But here is how I go with Objective Truth/Good. The bedrock of my argument here is probably Thomas Aquinas. He argues for Good and Evil, and people like Locke come along later and take it as a matter of fact, that humans have Natural Rights (Good). With that Thomism, one must see Evil as the absence of Good. Murder is evil, for example, because it pushes out Life, which is Good. (I hope I didn’t slaughter that example…no pun intended..well, now it is…) Anyways, Good and Evil, from the Christian/Traditional Western lens, should be able to be philosophically narrowed down upon. I do not argue that we necessarily know what is Objectively True and what is Objectively False…only that it exists. Our ignorance is irrelevant to the truth.

3. I wholly agree that incorrect context of either produce bad results…its again, the belief that a Relative Good is Objectively Good.

5. I don’t think it does. By destroying Evil, perhaps I should have said flooding the void of Good, which is Evil, with Good. If Evil is the void of Good, instead of a “thing” of itself, then I do not see how Evil has any right not to be destroyed.
6.You went to another level than I was on with your answer here. Allow me to attempt to reach you. Perhaps, as you state, any Objectivity that we as humans have is Relative to the Universe at large. That is fair; but we as humans are still able to find our relative yet universal Objectivity. Since we are “beings of a given nature”, and that nature is universal, then we may deduce objective good and evil. We have terra firma that is common to us all. I think we are in agreeance here, but I’m not entirely sure haha.
7. I understand only Objective Evil to be worthy of destruction by Objective Good. How we find out what is Good and Evil…well, that is another challenge in itself.
8. If Good and Evil are relative, not objective, then Evil is Good and Good is Evil. In fact, there is no daylight inbetween, and thus, no side has any moral legitimacy to assume superiority or worth over the other. So, basically, point number 8 just says that relativity has no right to attack another relativity, as neither, yet both, have the “right” to exist.
9. My ‘half-baked’ argument is intentional. I am not attempting to ID good and evil, as that in itself is irrelevant. Simply, the understanding that there is a good and evil, even if we are ignorant to it, is enough to make this argument “fully-baked” is it not?
11. I do not believe it to be non-sense. This goes back to the “your next door neighbor is burning his wife alive on a funeral pyre”…assuming that burning someone alive is an objective evil (which I contend that no person has a right to consent to), then you have the right to commit Just Imperialism to vanquish the evil and save the lady….but you aren’t obligated to do so. Because, you may be killed in the process, along with the wife. This is not necessarily a point on whether or not one should act, but whether it would be just to act (assuming there is victory….to act and to lose to evil would be unjust).
I apologize if I put words into your mouth about no actor being objectively good or evil. Where do you stand on this?

I hope you enjoyed your half hour of sleep.

[osan]

First, Osan, thank you for a great reply. I truly do appreciate the time and effort you have put into this conversation (and that goes for everyone, what a pleasure it has been to read through your posts).

To your first point: You, are “trained in, capable of, and in the habit of carrying out noiseless analysis” to “strip away all the bullfeces and distill a given circumstance to its irreducibly essential elements”. Using that logic; that the USSR, the British Empire, the Romans, the NAZIs, the Chinese Reds, or any other “punk mothercopulator governments” are all, essentially strongmen with guns to our heads, depriving us of X, Y, or Z. I agree with that completely, which is why; as I’ve stated earlier, I’m defending Anarcho-Monarchism, meaning that Anarcho-Capitalism is ideal, but if it is impossible than Monarchism (or some other form of non-publically owned government) is a better form of minarchy than Democracy.

Isn't "Anarcho-Monarchism" an oxymoron? Perhaps I am just not in possession of the definition of a term that may be jargon?

I agree with you, that minarchy is, at its core, tyranny, as is all government. However, I challenge that under anarcho-capitalism, minarchy naturally develops from self-interested individuals; meaning that tyranny, however unsavory, is a fundamental part of human social interaction. It is inescapable, save perhaps complete solitude…and even then, if they catch you, they’ll likely string you up for tax evasion.

Now here you're talking some sense. And if it is so, as I believe it is purely because of the proclivity of the human animal in the context of Empire living, the clearly optimal solution is to educate people as to the tenets of Proper Human Relations and instill an attitude of low-tolerance for disrespect by one man for the rights of those around him. Pursuant to that, make certain all men may arm themselves as they may see fit, with the understanding that misuse of such defensive devices may carry with it stern penalties.

In such a land, you attempt to rob me and I may choose to kill you. If I do, I stand sacrosanct.

To your second point: “so long as they get to make these decisions for you, the degree of your servitude, no matter how seemingly trivial and insignificant, is irrelevant; you are a slave”. Again, you imply consent as a fundamental element of liberty. However, we do not have the Liberty to do, what I’ve been calling “Objective Evil”. As in, I can’t go steal your stuff or murder you. Now, to take away that decision from me, am I a slave?

Ah, OK... your problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of proper human relations. Jefferson put it well:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

You then go on in your third point: “if one man volunteers himself as a slave to another, it is your contention that he does so without authority”. Yes, yes it is. Now, why is that? I do not believe that our consent or willingness for action is fundamental to a state of freedom. Freedom neither includes forcing someone into slavery, or volunteering yourself into slavery.

Methinks you may want to rethink this one because it is self-contradictory.

Allow me a more concrete example; assisted suicide versus murder. I see them as the exact same thing. To kill another person, with or without their consent, is still depriving another being of their Life, which is Objectively Evil.

You may feel this way, and it is your right to do so, but your belief as stated is rife with assumptions explicit and implicit that methinks would have you dancing one hell of a dance to demonstrate across all individual lines. I do not believe you can do it. I do believe, what you would impose by force upon all would be tyrannical and would set cross-hairs on your back. Many cross-hairs. Once again you appear to believe that you know what is best for all, beyond the most basic premises of proper human relations. This sort of thing has been tried endlessly across time and has failed every time, without exception.

If I am suffering a horrible, slow death of freakish agony and, having decided to kill myself you attempted to stop me, I am sorry to say that if I deemed there were no other way for me to attain my objective but to take you with me, then it would be so. If my dear friend wanted me to help him die in peace and without said freakish agony and someone attempted to stop me, they would stand in peril for their own lives because they have no authority whatsoever to interfere in the private affairs of others. Were I about to murder someone, that is a different story altogether.

The point is; you do not have the right or the freedom to give away your rights and freedoms

In which case, you are not in fact free, but rather a slave to... someone.

….which is why government, all government, is tyranny. Otherwise, our citizenship, our voluntary forfeiture of rights and liberties for membership, would be wholly just. It is not.

I am afraid this is a significant non-sequitur. I think I may see your point, but am not clear.

To the next point: Burning witches was a norm at one point (though it was practiced on a small scale…but that is irrelevant).

Small scale? I guess it depends on how one defines "small"

The Spanish Inquisition alone tried over 150,000, imprisoned most of those and executed thousands between 1478 and 1830, 352 years.

“It was rejected ONLY after it became convenient to do so”. That is perhaps true, but isn’t that the basic truth of capitalism?

It often is. That doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it "more wrong" either.

What a paradoxical time to be a human.

Indeed, it is.

1. I have to admit, I tried to follow the Cardinal Postulate thread, but I didn’t understand it. Perhaps I didn’t apply myself as wholly as I should have. But here is how I go with Objective Truth/Good. The bedrock of my argument here is probably Thomas Aquinas. He argues for Good and Evil, and people like Locke come along later and take it as a matter of fact, that humans have Natural Rights (Good). With that Thomism, one must see Evil as the absence of Good. Murder is evil, for example, because it pushes out Life, which is Good. (I hope I didn’t slaughter that example…no pun intended..well, now it is…) Anyways, Good and Evil, from the Christian/Traditional Western lens, should be able to be philosophically narrowed down upon. I do not argue that we necessarily know what is Objectively True and what is Objectively False…only that it exists. Our ignorance is irrelevant to the truth.

Well, at least you went with Aquinas and not that demonic douchebag of self-flagellation, St. Augustine. Reading is "Confessions" left me wanting for an air-sickness bag. Hideous. Aquinas was a kind-ish soul. Augustine, full of anger and hatred. But that's just my take.

5. I don’t think it does. By destroying Evil, perhaps I should have said flooding the void of Good, which is Evil, with Good. If Evil is the void of Good, instead of a “thing” of itself, then I do not see how Evil has any right not to be destroyed.

Those are two very different things.

6.You went to another level than I was on with your answer here. Allow me to attempt to reach you. Perhaps, as you state, any Objectivity that we as humans have is Relative to the Universe at large. That is fair; but we as humans are still able to find our relative yet universal Objectivity. Since we are “beings of a given nature”, and that nature is universal, then we may deduce objective good and evil. We have terra firma that is common to us all. I think we are in agreeance here, but I’m not entirely sure haha.
7. I understand only Objective Evil to be worthy of destruction by Objective Good. How we find out what is Good and Evil…well, that is another challenge in itself.
8. If Good and Evil are relative, not objective, then Evil is Good and Good is Evil. In fact, there is no daylight inbetween, and thus, no side has any moral legitimacy to assume superiority or worth over the other. So, basically, point number 8 just says that relativity has no right to attack another relativity, as neither, yet both, have the “right” to exist.
9. My ‘half-baked’ argument is intentional. I am not attempting to ID good and evil, as that in itself is irrelevant. Simply, the understanding that there is a good and evil, even if we are ignorant to it, is enough to make this argument “fully-baked” is it not?
11. I do not believe it to be non-sense. This goes back to the “your next door neighbor is burning his wife alive on a funeral pyre”…assuming that burning someone alive is an objective evil (which I contend that no person has a right to consent to), then you have the right to commit Just Imperialism to vanquish the evil and save the lady….but you aren’t obligated to do so. Because, you may be killed in the process, along with the wife. This is not necessarily a point on whether or not one should act, but whether it would be just to act (assuming there is victory….to act and to lose to evil would be unjust).
I apologize if I put words into your mouth about no actor being objectively good or evil. Where do you stand on this?

I hope you enjoyed your half hour of sleep.

As for the rest, you seem stuck on the assumption that evil must be automagically destroyed on sight. I cannot agree.

I've had some, erm... "interesting" friends. Once, long ago, I spent a weekend with my friend Mary. She was into the who BDSM deal and we went to Man Ray (Boston) and there was a slave auction and all that sort of thing. Later we went to NH to a birthday party for a common TS acquaintance and all the BDSM folks were there, whipping and beating and all that. One top was running a neorsurgeon's tool across the skin of a young lady, drawing blood. Is it your contention that those people were not free to make the choice to engage in those activities? Think on that carefully before answering.