9/11 victims deserved their fate

[Berzerker]

NYE

A bit sensitive, Berz? How many people do you think plough through all of one of your cut and slash jobs? Not very many would be my guess.

When you refuse to say your own thing, and instead resort to cutting up and responding to your critics line by line with useless observations like you 'dont recall asking about the nicknames you have for each other', you are getting your ass trashed.

You ain't getting it, I didnt respond to Agathon's cut and paste post with my cut and paste post for you to read. And you have no credibility anyway, you've said you don't read these posts and then you offer your ignorant self-serving opinions about our debate? You're a scumbag and I only wish you were in my face when you accused me of supporting terrorists.

ZE

Just wandered into the argument and Im not taking sides but if a mugger says "give me your money so I can use if to buy a gun and shoot somebody" and you give him your money without a fight, doesnt that make you partially responsible.

He already has a gun, lots of them. In my example the mugger is Congress. But no, you aren't responsible, he's a mugger, not a nun. That assumes a threat exists... Morality does not require us to die so bad people have to take our money from our corpses.

[Agathon]

All other citizens do have that power. The authority the court has derives from the individual's authority and the individual has that authority because of natural rights. If you try to kill me I have the natural right to defend myself. The court/state, acting on behalf of the individual, derives its authority for and power of retribution from the individual's natural right(s) to self-defense and retribution. If there is no state, I still have my moral authority to defend myself and others have the right to avenge me should I fail. My God Aggie, we've had this debate before and thoroughly discussed natural rights.

Sorry, wrong again. I agree that a natural rights system allows you to defend yourself. But there is a very good reason that it does not allow you personal retribution: namely, that every person who thinks he has a grievance (whether he does or not) will attempt to seek retribution, and moreover, people who merely want to harm others will pretend they are seeking retribution, and chaos will ensue. In short the practical situation will become "might is right": a Hobbesian state of nature - that is exactly what Libertarians wish to avoid.

Again it is obvious why this is the case. The remedy is also obvious - a judicial system.

People get things wrong, and some people accuse others dishonestly in order to justify to others their own wrongdoing. Someone may be led to believe I have violated their rights, and in fact be mistaken. According to you, they are not entitled to retribution against me, because no violation has occurred, but hell, they believe one has, and kill me or coerce me anyway.

In short, the problem is that merely believing that one has been wronged is enough for someone to seek retribution, but it is not enough to meet the evidentiary standard that wrongdoing has actually occurred. What is required is a neutral body that both parties can trust to make sure the evidentiary standard has actually been met and which can inflict the appropriate punishments. In human society, such a body is called a "court".

Again, it is crushingly obvious that courts will do much to alleviate the state of nature by providing a neutral forum where questions of evidence can be worked out. In order to do this (and to punish people) they need coercive powers above and beyond those available to ordinary citizens. In particular, they need to be able to coerce people to appear before them when those people are charged with committing a crime - even if they in fact did not
. They also need powers of investigation and so on. These are not powers that any Libertarian with brains would want to give to every citizen because of the sheer potential for abuse and the tendency for people to go off half cocked if they merely think they have been wronged.

So they have courts as part of their minimalist state. What justifies the giving of such powers to the courts? That is the question.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid

WHY? When Jesus said "render unto Caesar" was he telling his followers to assume guilt for what others did with their money? They don't own the economy, they interfere in it to obtain money. Why does their violation of our economic freedom make us guilty for their interference abroad? Thats like saying you are guilty for what a mugger does with your money in the future after he mugs you.

Some how I don't think Jesus was talking about your economic freedom. Ah yes, the freedom to sell drugs, guns and whatever. You are never responsible for what people do with them.

[rah]

Originally posted by Kidicious
rah,

It seems that you have never 'debated' with Berzerker.

But I have. I make it point to do it 'in person' with a beer in hand. And experience has taught me to make sure our debates are limited to what club he should have hit on that par 5. In discussions like that, there's a chance I may be able to convince him to come over my way of thinking or visa versa. Reading this thread, it's obvious that neither side has any wiggle room at all or intend to, hence participating would only be an exercise in frustration.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rah




But I have. I make it point to do it 'in person' with a beer in hand. And experience has taught me to make sure our debates are limited to what club he should have hit on that par 5. In discussions like that, there's a chance I may be able to convince him to come over my way of thinking or visa versa. Reading this thread, it's obvious that neither side has any wiggle room at all or intend to, hence participating would only be an exercise in frustration.

Does he use the same tactics when you argue with him about golf?

[Odin]

I love watching the Libbies get pwned.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Odin
I love watching the Libbies get pwned.

Toop bad that happens perhaps once in a decade. Yours must be a sad life

[rah]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Does he use the same tactics when you argue with him about golf?

No , while he's a better golfer than I am, (he has the trophy to prove it) golf is not an exact science, so there are not many 100% right answers. Both of us our quite open to having our opinions challanged and changed with the right arguement. He respects my opinions due to my experience and I respect his because of his skills. That's always a great starting point for open discussions. (and the beer helps )

And there is no cutting and pasting in real life.

[Berzerker]

Aggie

Sorry, wrong again. I agree that a natural rights system allows you to defend yourself. But there is a very good reason that it does not allow you personal retribution: namely, that every person who thinks he has a grievance (whether he does or not) will attempt to seek retribution, and moreover, people who merely want to harm others will pretend they are seeking retribution, and chaos will ensue. In short the practical situation will become "might is right": a Hobbesian state of nature - that is exactly what Libertarians wish to avoid.

Aggie, you're ignoring that natural rights exist before and inspite of government. Show me where in your Libertarian handbook you found that libertarians don't believe in retribution in the absence of government. We do have the moral authority to defend ourselves and seek retribution, thats where the government gets the moral authority to punish people, not your social contract.

Now you're trying to change the subject by pointing to liars as if they have the natural right to seek retribution under fraudulent conditions. You're right, they don't. And thats a strawman... Just stick to what I said without introducing a bunch of caveats to change the context you supposedly think is so important when I'm responding to you,

People get things wrong, and some people accuse others dishonestly in order to justify to others their own wrongdoing. Someone may be led to believe I have violated their rights, and in fact be mistaken. According to you, they are not entitled to retribution against me, because no violation has occurred, but hell, they believe one has, and kill me or coerce me anyway.

Is your whole post based on this strawman? If I try to murder you and there is no government around, do you have the moral authority to retaliate after tracking me down? YES! If I murder you, do your family and friends have the moral authority to track me down and retaliate? YES! This is where government derives its moral authority, from our moral authority - its called consent of the governed. I need the moral authority to seek retribution before I can morally consent to government seeking retribution.

In short, the problem is that merely believing that one has been wronged is enough for someone to seek retribution, but it is not enough to meet the evidentiary standard that wrongdoing has actually occurred. What is required is a neutral body that both parties can trust to make sure the evidentiary standard has actually been met and which can inflict the appropriate punishments. In human society, such a body is called a "court".

So if there is no government I can kill people and the victims' family and friends can never morally seek retribution because they might make a mistake? What if they don't make a mistake and they catch the murderer?You're explaining why it may be wiser to have a judical system, not where the moral authority to retaliate originates.

I see you did devote your entire post to a strawman so pardon me if I try to avoid the repitition. Thats one of the gripes I get about my debating style.

Kid

Some how I don't think Jesus was talking about your economic freedom. Ah yes, the freedom to sell drugs, guns and whatever. You are never responsible for what people do with them.

Jesus supplied a large quantity of booze to an already drunk crowd. And yes, Kid, his followers had swords (guns weren't invented yet ) One of his main guys was an apothecary, DRUGS galore.

Does he use the same tactics when you argue with him about golf?

And dont try to turn people against me Rah is a better putter than me and he can hit punch shots so it is always wise to listen to the person who knows their stuff rather than appear the fool. Come to think of it, the only thing I do better than Rah is drive the ball - drive for show, putt for go.

[Agathon]

Aggie, you're ignoring that natural rights exist before and inspite of government.

No I'm not. I specifically admitted that for the purposes of the argument. It doesn't change a thing.

Show me where in your Libertarian handbook you found that libertarians don't believe in retribution in the absence of government. We do have the moral authority to defend ourselves and seek retribution, thats where the government gets the moral authority to punish people, not your social contract.

Ummm.... that is the social contract I'm talking about. People in a community agree to defer the power of punishment to the government for various practical reasons -- the main one being that private punishment is more likely to lead to abuses. The Lockean way of thinking about this is as a contract between the citizens. Hence - social contract. You can read Locke's book if you don't believe me.

I'm puzzled as to what you thought I meant.

Now you're trying to change the subject by pointing to liars as if they have the natural right to seek retribution under fraudulent conditions.

That isn't my argument at all. I'm including people who have mistaken beliefs as well.

I do not say that they have the natural right to do it, but that they will do it anyway.

So if there is no government I can kill people and the victims' family and friends can never morally seek retribution because they might make a mistake? What if they don't make a mistake and they catch the murderer?You're explaining why it may be wiser to have a judical system, not where the moral authority to retaliate originates.

Finally, you're getting my argument. The moral authority that the government has must be voluntarily transferred to it by the citizens. The transference is required in addition to the citizens possessing natural rights. That is why I objected to your simplistic assertion of natural rights as the answer.

A further problem is that if some don't agree. How do you drag them to court if they have not consented to the contract? That would violate their natural rights if in fact they were innocent. But people are innocent until proven guilty, so you cannot drag them unless they have agreed to the social contract, which allows the government to arrest people and put them on trial on suspicion of committing a crime.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid

Jesus supplied a large quantity of booze to an already drunk crowd. And yes, Kid, his followers had swords (guns weren't invented yet ) One of his main guys was an apothecary, DRUGS galore.

Why are you trying to argue with me about Jesus? There's nothing wrong with having swords. I do have a problem with selling rocket launchers to any and all buyers though, but that's beside the point. We will just have to agree to disagree that contributing to and recieving from a society that does extremly immoral things makes you partially responsible for those immoral actions.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
NYE

You ain't getting it, I didnt respond to Agathon's cut and paste post with my cut and paste post for you to read. And you have no credibility anyway, you've said you don't read these posts and then you offer your ignorant self-serving opinions about our debate? You're a scumbag and I only wish you were in my face when you accused me of supporting terrorists.

That nerve is throbbing, ain't it.

It would be funny if I were in your face when I said that. We would see how committed to natural rights you were. Would you take a swing at me for my opinion of something you said? That would be funny.

[Berzerker]

Aggie

No I'm not. I specifically admitted that for the purposes of the argument. It doesn't change a thing.

You did ignore natural rights when you started down the path of why we need a judiciary to create this moral authority for retribution. The moral authority is not created by politicians or your social contract, the moral authority comes from our natural rights to self-defense and retribution. So who has the moral authority to punish murderers when there is no government? Other people have it, but you said they don't. Now you say they do (I think).

Remember, you said your social contract is why we are all guilty for what the government does regardless of whether or not we vote and for whom. Does libertarianism say this? When I rejected your argument, your "social contract", you said I was ignorant of libertarianism. So where does libertariansim require me to believe that you are guilty for my actions as a supporter of government and its immoral policies?

Ummm.... that is the social contract I'm talking about. People in a community agree to defer the power of punishment to the government for various practical reasons -- the main one being that private punishment is more likely to lead to abuses. The Lockean way of thinking about this is as a contract between the citizens. Hence - social contract. You can read Locke's book if you don't believe me.

You just changed the subject back to the alleged wisdom in creating a judiciary, that isn't the question at hand. Tell me where in your libertarian handbook you found that retribution in the absence of government violates libertarianism. Why does my family lack the moral authority to track down the person who murdered me and punish them in the absence of government? This is not about your social contract, libertarians reject the notion that government creates moral authority. Moral authority begins with the individual and stems from natural rights, not your social contract.

That isn't my argument at all. I'm including people who have mistaken beliefs as well.

That isn't your argument at all but you included it in with another argument? Um...kay...

Finally, you're getting my argument. The moral authority that the government has must be voluntarily transferred to it by the citizens. The transference is required in addition to the citizens possessing natural rights. That is why I objected to your simplistic assertion of natural rights as the answer.

Jesus H Christ, you said people dont have the moral authority to seek retribution. Now you're saying people transfer their moral authority to the government and this is where the government got the moral authority? Thats been my argument all along, not yours. People had this moral authority before government entered the picture. You said they dont have the moral authority without the government.

As for me being simplistic, I kept my answer short and assumed you understood libertarianism and natural rights. I get criticised when my responses are long and I get criticised when my responses are short because thats "simplistic".

A further problem is that if some don't agree. How do you drag them to court if they have not consented to the contract? That would violate their natural rights if in fact they were innocent. But people are innocent until proven guilty, so you cannot drag them unless they have agreed to the social contract, which allows the government to arrest people and put them on trial on suspicion of committing a crime.

Aggie, I already said that @#$%^&*. This is not your social contract!!! Your social contract claims all sorts of stuff that violates libertarianism. It does violate their natural rights if they are innocent, and I believe they should be allowed to sue the people who dragged them into court. I dont like the fact you can be accused of a crime and lose a small fortune defending yourself only to be found innocent and made poor.

Kid

Why are you trying to argue with me about Jesus? There's nothing wrong with having swords. I do have a problem with selling rocket launchers to any and all buyers though, but that's beside the point. We will just have to agree to disagree that contributing to and recieving from a society that does extremly immoral things makes you partially responsible for those immoral actions.

Why? Aggie says his social contract makes us guilty. Is that your argument too? "Society" is another "guilt by association" argument and its bogus. You need more than a fact of geography. I can't help the fact that politicians are interfering in my economic freedom so why am I responsible for what they do with my money?
Why am I responsible for what a mugger does with the money he just stole from me?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid

Why? Aggie says his social contract makes us guilty. Is that your argument too? "Society" is another "guilt by association" argument and its bogus. You need more than a fact of geography. I can't help the fact that politicians are interfering in my economic freedom so why am I responsible for what they do with my money?
Why am I responsible for what a mugger does with the money he just stole from me?

Mugger? Give me a break. You benefit from society. You don't benefit from a mugger. Quit trying to play the victim.

[Berzerker]

NYE

That nerve is throbbing, ain't it.

I think you're scum if thats what you mean.

It would be funny if I were in your face when I said that. We would see how committed to natural rights you were. Would you take a swing at me for my opinion of something you said? That would be funny.

Nobody's Perfekt, but there is such a thing as fighting words and slander. And stop the BS, this didn't start with an honest difference of opinion. You accused me of supporting terrorism. When I disagreed, you asked me if I supported terrorism to which I said no. Then you acknowledged that I didn't support terrorism and slinked away from the thread (an apology is usually in order after such a display).

Now you are here busting my balls with your hypocrisy and deceit trying to provoke me more and accusing me of being "fixated". I suggest you walk into a bar in your town and start treating people like that and see if you get out with your teeth intact.

Btw, did I mention I think you are scum?