Should Anarchists Convince People That A Free Society Is Better?

The following conversation took place at my Discord server.

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

bbblackwell > SAM101907
You are likely correct – the best (and perhaps only) way to convince people that a free society is better is to prove it in the doing. But this is embarrassing to a revolting degree, because it means most people do their thinking on the effect level rather than the causal (which is dreadfully inefficient, and generally disastrous).

My primary concern with this model is that if they see it’s better but don’t fully understand why, they will undoubtedly destroy it in time (just as we’ve proved with our “limited government”). I don’t want to convince them it’s better, nor should I have to. I want to convince them it’s right, and have their thorough understanding of morality inform them that this necessarily implies “better”.

The only way to convince them, is to show them. We try to get people to understand taxation, yet it is still called theft here. How are you suppose to convince people that anarchy is the only “right” way? Most people want to live in a Democracy, most people enjoy the safety and benefits. You are going to convince them they are wrong? You are going to convince them the system that has given them a better life then most of human history i is wrong? I don’t think you’re going to do any of that until they see a real life example.

It’s sad that people have been reduced to this. That their own temporary comfort should come before all else – wisdom, morality, Love, or even self-preservation. This very moment, you are utterly at the mercy of those human beings which you call your “government”. These people are complete strangers to you, you have no power to refuse their rule, and no means by which to assure who they will be. You are 100% powerless to defend yourself against those who you hope will protect you. The relationship is identical to that of the parent and child in this way – get a good one, it’s a comfortable tyranny; get a bad one, it can be hell on Earth. Hundreds of millions have found that trust misplaced, and that lack of wisdom cost them everything. You are a gambling man; and what’s worse, you gamble not only with your own life, but with the lives of others.

If I so choose to, I can leave the country, renounce my citizenship, and start somewhere else without any government control. I don’t want to, because I am fine here, but I could. I don’t NEED government myself, a nation does though. I am also not 100% powerless to fight against the government, we have courts in this system to hold them accountable as well.

I also do not think of a parent/child relationship as comfortable tyranny, that is rather hyperbolic. There is an onus of those who are governed to hold those in government in check. It is taught to you in school with the revolutionary war. Or what it looks like when government goes to far, with history lessons on the Nazi’s and the Soviets. When I say government is a reciprocal relationship, it means it takes work from both parties to exist and solve issues.

Do you notice how you use my comments as a springboard for your own, but don’t actually address what I’m saying directly? I said the parent/child relationship is a comfortable tyranny, indicating that the parent makes the rules and has the power and presumed right to enforce them, while the child only has pathetic appeals as a means of mitigation. Despite this, most children are reasonably cared for.

I then demonstrated how that is precisely your relationship to government at every moment. You may cite the 30 seconds it takes you to vote as an exception (which, at best, is a drop in a bucket of millions), but this actually does nothing to alter the relationship; as it only determines who the players in that relationship will be. You address this by saying:

“We have courts to hold ‘them’ accountable.

As though the courts and the “them” were two different parties. Courts are government. What other answer do you offer?

“If I so choose to, I can leave the country.”

Well then, I suppose you have no problem with child abuse, since the child can run away, right? Do you understand that these two ideas are exactly the same on the principle level, and that to assert the former, you must embrace the latter, or admit a state of cognitive dissonance (iconsistency, irrationality, etc.)?

“There is an onus of those who are governed to hold those in government in check.”

And how, precisely, do you suppose they can do this? I’ve established clearly that voting does not alter the relationship, and that protests are just pathetic appeals, nothing more than impotent pleas. The only possible alternatives lie outside the “proper channels” offered by the system – like withholding tax payments, or outright pyshical revolution – but that would be asserting the invalidity of the system itself, denying the government’s rightful authority to set terms, and thus would essentially be an anarchist proposition.

There is no reciprocation. How do you personally contribute to the decisions being made? What power do you have within the system to effect outcomes? The answer is you do not contribute, and you have no power, until you step outside the system you claim to support. So which is it? Do you support the system and admit your utter powerless to determine its course, or do you deny its rightful authority and reluctantly declare youself anarchist by logical necessity?

Courts are a separate arm of the government here. A politician has no authority over the rulings of a judge. You also have the ballot boxes at your disposal to use a leverage to petition for change. If it gets to a certain point, rebellion is last option.

I don’t see how I would have to embrace child abuse? We have laws here that help prevent such a thing and hold those individuals accountable. In countries little to no government, there is far more child abuse and exploitation.

I’ve laid out the possibilities above, as well as other sorts of protests and boycotts. How else are you suppose to change the system, other then by leveraging that system? How exactly do you conclude there is no reciprocation? There have been people who have won court cases against the government, politicians forced to resign or arrested, police who have been thrown in prison by other police. You claim I am powerless, but I am not. I have the ability to change the system if I put in the work to do so. If you are going to be lazy, you will never change anything.

I have said before, anarchy would be desirable in a perfect world. Since we are far from that right now, improving the current system is the best option. There are to many large issues in the world that require teamwork and cooperation to solve. With that comes the need for leadership and rules.

You’re acting like things work the way you’re taught in school. As if judges have no other motivation than serving justice. The real issue here is that your answers are not targeted – they do not address the core issues being raised. You do not have any control at all, but others have control of you. Everything you mentioned is just begging – trying to get someone else to do something so you can live how you want, even when you’re not hurting anyone else.

Now this situation can under various circumstances with or without government, but you would generally try to escape such a situation and bring control of your own life back into your own hands. If you were captured in a maniac’s basement, all your thought would be bent upon trying to escape. If your bank accounts were frozen, you would seek to get that resolved. In this case, however, you support the bondage because you don’t understand that it is, in fact, bondage.

Whether or not you like these conditions is irrelevant – it’s a matter of self-respect (and broader morality because you’re inflicting it upon others by your participation). It’s about the fact that the authority claimed (or fallaciously granted) is invalid, having no basis in reality. People do not have the right to grant such power to one man over others. YOU do not have this right. Even if you love your bondage and hate freedom, you don’t get to have that and still be a moral person.

That’s what you’re missing in all of this. You should be opposed on these grounds alone, and seek another way. If your social structure requires that you use violent coercion to fund services, then your social structure is immoral garbage and should be abandoned, no matter the cost. You are morally obliged to do it different, or not have it at all. Many here say they feel oppressed by your preferred “system” and you couldn’t care less. You tell them to leave. Nothing could be less relevant than their ability to leave. An abusive husband or parent, a school bully – there people are acting immorally and should be stopped (or at the very least not actively supported) regardless of the fact that their victims can leave. Do you understand this?

ⒶMP3083 > SAM101907
“How are you suppose to convince people that anarchy is the only “right” way? You are going to convince them they are wrong? You are going to convince them the system that has given them a better life then most of human history i is wrong? I don’t think you’re going to do any of that until they see a real life example.”

Perhaps the same way you were “convinced” that government is “necessary”. Much of the societies around the world has the dirty fingerprints of government all over it. It would be too late and too much of a hassle to start over. The ideal thing to do, imo, as I have pointed it out to dyln is to utilize certain platforms as a means of education. Educate the new generations. Will this convince them? Maybe, maybe not. But education is primary. Why not teach the population about voluntaryism and anarchy?

Posture all you want. But understand that you are only privileged to speak in such a way as someone who was raised under government rule. You’re in a “comfort zone” despite any objections you have about government. If the country you live in was under the regime of Hitler’s Nazis, you would be living comfortably, though I’m sure you would have many objections about them, but you would speak no different than how you posture yourself in this server.

AMP3083 > bbblackwell
“An abusive husband or parent, a school bully – there people are acting immorally and should be stopped (or at the very least not actively supported) regardless of the fact that their victims can leave. Do you understand this?”

It’s funny how we’ve come this far that you have to ask him if he understands this. It’s like speaking to a kid. I know you’re not purposefully being a jerk though. I just thought that was funny.

Imagine if 99% of the students in the school were oppressed by the bully. Should they all leave? Imagine if 99% of U.S. residents were anarchists. Should they all leave? Then how does a school function with 99% of their students gone? And who will the government “govern” if 99% of the people moved out? Stupid statist logic.

bbblackwell > ⒶMP3083
It always comes back to the God complex – the termite thinks he knows better than the *”God of creation” (however one wishes to interpret this). Or – perhaps even more arrogantly – believes he is supposed to know; as if any of this is his job to begin with.

Don’t flatter yourself: Your input as to the social order is not necessary; nature’s got it covered, just like everything else, ye of little fucking faith. Creation birthed me here, but I’m supposed to leave because I don’t fit into your little bullshit artificial model? And worse yet, it ain’t even yours; you got conned like a naive tourist because you’re bewilderingly ignorant of your surroundings.

Screw off, king nothing, if you had an ounce of courage, of self-respect, of imagination or insight, you’d take a stand for yourself and your species instead of selling out to the first huckster who offers you a feathered crate.

If the statist believes that taxation is necessary and appropriate for ANY area of responsibility, then why not EVERY area? The fact that he will support representative democracy and taxation to provide roads and protection, but not for rearing his children, determining his diet, his entertainment choices, his everyday purchases, etc., reveals the unprincipled, arbitrary nature of his position. Why should it not be the case that his government decide what activities his children will participate in? Why shouldn’t 100% of his income be seized, and his food, clothes, house, car, and all personal possessions be meted out according to the wise determinations of his “representative”? Where in his philosophy is it explained how the one is sound policy, but the other is a ravaging of his personal liberty?

This is quite the leap in logic once again.

There’s no leap on the principle level. Both spring from the same core premise. The only leap is in the dissonant, arbitrary convention of the culture.

Can I afford to Buy the equipment to pave a highway? Or a military defence system? Much less operate then without training?

No. You’ll likely need to cooperate with others to that end. How is this relevant?

That’s what the taxation is for, to pay those individuals so that I do not have to do it. I can focus on my own life and specialty.

Yes, but you’re condoning that everyone be forced to contribute to your favored projects. Why is it OK in this regard, but not OK in all areas? Wouldn’t it be good if all children were cared for according to a high universal standard? So why don’t you support government taking your children at birth and placing them in public institutions to be raised by state caregivers? It’s not like you wouldn’t have a say in how it was run – you’ve got your incredibly powerful act of voting, after all.

What is the guideline for where its appropriate and where its not?

Because I think taxation is necessary for things like the military, I must also think that children should be taken by state caregivers…..

You can think whatever you want, but both spring forth from the same fundamental philsophy – that it’s acceptable to abdicate responsibility to an institution, and to force everyone to comply with that abdication.

Do you think I have no idea what the Soviet Union or Facist Germany was?

I don’t have any idea about that. I’m simply demonstrating logical conclusions of your position.

That isn’t logical at all…. Those are not comparable.

Are apples and oranges comparable? They are different colors, so no. But they are both fruit, so yes. It depends on what quality they are being compared. We are comparing the fundamental premise between two very different expressions. They are comparable on the core level, though not on the surface level. There is one trunk, but many leaves.

Just because I advocate for a democratic republic, does not mean I support fascist or communist policies.

Those are just labels. What is the core philosophy informing your advocacy? You think it’s OK to force abdication of responsibility for the purpose of carrying out certain projects, do you not?

And you like this because, as you said, you don’t want to do these things yourself. So because YOU want to abdicate responsibility, we all should be violently coerced into doing the same. Because, after all, It wouldn’t work if it was just you, so to get what you want, you’ve got to do it to everyone.

The is the point, it depends on the policy. Sometimes it is necessary to use force for compliance. It’s a fact of reality.

Why should I make all the roads and infrastructure why I can pay others to do it?

Necessary for compliance with what? Compliance with the Laws of nature, such that man cannot exist without such compliance? No. It’s only necessary for YOU to have what YOU want. I don’t want those things, but that’s of no concern to you. What I’m asking is why it’s OK to force compliance in certain regards but not others? What is the philosophy that outlines definitively where those lines are, and what justifies them being where they are?

Who am I forcing to build these roads?

You’re forcing me to build roads by taxation. Go pay others to build roads if you want. I don’t want roads. I hate them. I like to exercise my ankles by tripping over stones. Are you telling me I don’t have a right to make that decision for myself? I must comply with YOUR vision of a road-filled world?

I haven’t forced you to build anything.

Notice how you didn’t address the question directly asked:

What I’m asking is why it’s OK to force compliance in certain regards but not others? What is the philosophy that outlines definitively where those lines are, and what justifies them being where they are?

Im not forcing you to us the roads either. Or live here and pay taxes like everyone else.

What is the philosophy? Who knows, perhaps it’s the shared shared values of those in the West, perhaps it’s what based on my own moral standard. I go off of what’s right and wrong by my own standard.

And so we see the glorious expressions of subjective morality – do whatever the hell you want and feel perfectly justified. So it’s OK to take people’s money, but not their children. It’s OK to tell them how fast to drive, but not how fast to walk. It’s OK to tell them they can’t use this substance, but they can use that one. Doo doo doo, life is just a sandbox of capricious assertions…

You see the problem? Your thought isn’t rooted in anything; it blows about upon the wind. This is a misuse of the intellect. There is no grounding, no recognition of the premises which guide your thinking.

People choose to live here and follow the rules of the system. They also have to the choice to leave and find a new one. It appears to me that most people around the world would love to live here in our system, and would travel great distances to get here. Yet you can’t be bothered to go find your own?

Why would I justify taking children? Traffic laws are there for a reason. Same as drug laws.

There is grounding, just not the same as yours. I base my opinions in these subjects case by case. The world is to complex for a one size fits all solution.

But government IS a one-size-fits-all solution. Why not let demand naturally express, and supply follow organically? What’s this insanity of choosing one mutt from among the litter and letting him make the decisions for everyone?

The problem is that you were handed a tool at birth, was never shown how to use it properly, never ventured to find out for yourself, and so now you wield it according to some mangled, conglomerative methodology born of your own subjective preferences and that of the broader culture. That tool is the intellect, and you have no proper training in its use. Why should you? No one ever indicated to you that it mattered. They had many suggestions about what to think, but nothing whatever to offer about how to think.

This is not a statement about your capabilities, only your experience. It is the failing at the causal root of all man-made ills.

Governments aren’t the same, it’s not a one size fits all. Canada does not have the same government as the US, nor dues Sweden. Their government suites them.

I don’t have intellect because I don’t want anarchy? Sounds like what the soviets use to say about capitalism. My experiences do in fact dictate my morales. I’ve traveled the the a few different countries, I’ve seen to much government, and to little. Both to me are undesirable.

The one-size-fits-all I’m referring to is what immediately followed the statement – choosing a guy (or group) to decide on behalf of 300 million people, or even a million, or a thousand, or for anyone besides himself.

The lack of experience I’m talking about is what immediately preceded the statement – the lack of sound training, practice and exercise of the critical thinking process.

The absence of intellect was never asserted, but the exact opposite was expressed by saying this wasn’t about your capabilities – implying that you have sufficient intellect – but you are not adept at using it with sufficient skill to handle the big questions.

We don’t eject a dictator, there are still processed and procedures one must go through in the political sector.

I do handle the big question, I just don’t put my life in the “what if’s” that anarchy is. Say your system starts breaking down, you quickly get a failed state. Which is what we see through history. Your system relies on everyone doing their part together, which we already have a hard time going now when “forced”.

The fact that the above clarifications were necessary (despite all of the information being present in the original comment) demonstrates the point well enough. No matter how many times it’s explained, no matter how many different ways it’s said, you cannot accurately discern what’s being presented, nor process that information correctly in order to deliver a targeted response.

This all sounds awful, but it’s just a matter of what we’ve spent our time learning and doing. I have no doubt I’d be utterly lost in your chosen areas of interest.

We’re not talking about opinions here; there is specific knowledge and understanding required for this work. The first thing we must do is admit we’ve not honed our skill at using the relevant tool for the job, and commit to doing so. Everyone must face this uncomfortable realization if they wish to grow. What makes it so difficult is that the ego – and the broader culture (particularly the media) – is desperately trying to convince you otherwise. They want you to believe that opinions are an adequate substitute for knowledge, that everyone’s opinions are equally valid, and that we should all have an opinion on every topic (be it well-informed or not).

This is all deception. The ego deceives because it wants control, and those who have the power to infulence culture do it for the same reason.

quallnet > SAM101907
“Just because I advocate for a democratic republic, does not mean I support fascist or communist policies.”

Oh good, for a moment I thought you might not be in support of his royal highness of the Democratic Republic of North Korea.

quallnet > bbblackwell
I’ve hit my head against a brick wall so many times with statists particularly in regards to what control is and isn’t ok. Obviously if you’re pro-state than you advocate for no control. The state has every right to take 100% of your income, tell you what foods to eat, take your children, remove your reproductive organs and raise your kids as their own. They have a right to tell you what drugs you can and cannot take and what music you can and cannot listen to. Everytime a statist says “well I don’t like it when they do…” they are contraditing themselves. Didn’t you just advocate to be controlled by force.

quallnet > SAM101907
If you are pro-state then yes, you ARE ok with children being kidnapped. You ARE ok with people being thrown in prison for smoking pot. You ARE ok with people being beaten do death for being black. You have no opinion on morality because you’ve chosen to hand moral issues over to what you believe is a higher power. Let’s say I wish to be trained in the ways of blacksmithing and I find a master. I find his way of smelting odd, yet I say nothing because I went to him with the understanding that he knows better. That is why I went to him. The moment you want to change your master’s ways is the moment you spit in his face and contradict your own advocacy for his position of leadership. This is akin to shooting yourself in the foot only more convoluted. If you’re pro-taxation, you’re pro-theft. If you’re for forcing others to obey what you think should be laws, you are pro-slavery. If you’re for a ruling class, than you’re for a subjagated class because that’s what a caste system is and you cannot have a higher class without a lower class. This is what causes division between humans.

If you are happy eating whatever is put in front of your face, by all means continue. When blackwell points out your contradictions you should simply admit that you don’t like to aggravate your master and will accept his will regardless instead of trying to argue. In the end you’re only arguing against shadows who cannot fathom their exsistence.

bbblackwell > quallnet
That’s the part that sits in people’s blind spot: External authority is inherently binary. Your attempt to “limit” it is never going to work for the same reason that the authority itself is never going to work to serve humanity – it denies the very nature of the thing being acted upon.

SAM101907 > quallnet
Do you have any actual evidence that I am pro kidnapping, pro drug laws, or pro people being beat to death? Your conclusion is nothing but your opinion. You have no idea what I support and what my opinions are. You’ve basically just fabricated a bunch of none sense out of thin air.

SAM101907 > bbblackwell
Your over simplifications tell me that you do not understand the system and the difficultly of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long. You need to think these issues through rationally, you can’t go to the extremes of a vast global conspiracy as a fall back when things don’t quite make sense.

bbblackwell > SAM101907
Holy Mary, Mother of God… is that what you took away from my comment? I’m trying to tell you that you’re not just arguing against something, but fundamentally misunderstanding it due to inadequate experience in the relevant endeavors.

You imply that you understand “the system”…. How did you gain this understanding? By deeply researching the history, psychology, and methodologies of power? By training the mind toward advanced critical aptitude over many years – studying philosophy, dissecting arguments and investigating their logic? By delving into the occult to figure out what information is hidden there, and why it’s not openly promulgated? Or was it by watching the news and working in the military – two of the most heavy-handed tools of manipulation designed specifically to mold the mind of the end-user?

Btw, I’m presenting this question as something to ask yourself. You needn’t prove anything to me about it.

There is already a complete misunderstanding of police and military in this server, and an ignorance that concludes that all we do is kill and oppress. Which is completely disconnected from reality. I’ve never oppressed anyone, the missions I’ve been in are in support of others, or responding to SOS’s. So have most people I know. Even Afghanistan wasn’t about “oppression”, the security forces and civilians wanted us there to keep the Taliban away. Women begged soldiers to stay. You can’t equate the minority of issues that happen with the overall goal.

You also say morality is some law of the universe compelling us to be truthful and just, yet the amount of unjust actions and lies that would be required to sustain a conspiracy of slavery and power would completely contradict that. Government is a huge entity with millions of people, each having to play their part in a conspiracy to ensure that power is some unknown people. Are we to believe that this universal law is powerless, or is selectively applying itself in reality?

bbblackwell > SAM101907
I hereby definitively state (and believe I do so on behalf of the anarchists on this server) that I do not believe police and military only murder and oppress, or even mostly murder and oppress, nor do I believe the overwhelming majority of them have the conscious intent to murder and oppress.

The wolf must always come in sheep’s clothing… the poison must always be hidden in the palatable drink. The psychological ploy here is designed to shield the immoral oppression from general rebuke by coupling it with the role of protection in society. So sometimes cops help you out of danger, and sometimes they are the danger. It’s like the abusive spouse or parent who’s beating you one minute, and snuggling you the next. It’s designed to shield itself in the dissonance it creates.

You want to tell me that 90% of the time they’re doing great stuff, I won’t argue because it doesn’t matter. All the good stuff they do can be done by anyone equally willing, without any specific authority to do it, while all the bad stuff they do springs directly from that authoritarian claim. It is this claim I take exception with, whether it be in the form of these people violating the rights of others, or their own blind acceptance of the claim when coming from above them in their hierarchy. They are both victims and perpetrators of this deception, and the evil it brings forth into the world.

As for Natural Law, you’ve straw-manned me here because you don’t understand what’s meant by the term. I will address this in a separate comment.

Gadsden Viper > SAM101907
I was foolish enough to believe in delusions of statist honor, righteousness, and loyalty, then I became a man and put away childish things, and took on manly responsibility, family, love, respect. I would never have served these lying psychopaths had my head not been filled with such nonsense at a young impressionable age. Many served in the military for the same reasons as I, the right reasons, but we were fools just the same. I have no desire to improve the lives of the ruling class with my blood or the blood of my children, I understand exactly what the purpose of the military and police are, some day, maybe you will too.

“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” – Henry Kissinger (United States Secretary of State and National Security Advisor)

SAM101907 > bbblackwell
Would it be fair then to put the crimes of Antifa on all anarchists then? You seems to want to blame the group for the actions of the few. Why would you do this? Is each officer or military member not an individual? Are all cops guilty of a dirty cops deeds? Wouldn’t that make you guilty of crimes by other anarchists?

bbblackwell > SAM101907
I have a duty to continually point out where these discussions are failing, with the hope it will be acknowledged and addressed: The question you’ve asked is answered in the post to which you’re responding, but you were unable to discern it.

I am not blaming all members of the group for the actions of the few; I am blaming all members for the misdeed of which they are all guilty – adherence to (and general support of) a fallacious claim to authority.

SAM101907 > bbblackwell
Militaries need a hierarchy, so you are giving them a guilty verdict for the mere fact that they are military. Again, why shouldn’t I label all anarchists as guilty for their lack of recognition of law and order? This is the very sane logic you are applying to them.

bbblackwell > SAM101907
Yes, the mere fact that they are a military is the crime, if by that we mean not merely a hierarchy, but a hierarchy which does not strictly conform to moral Law, and punishes disobedience. The military reserves the right to tell ANY soldier, ”Go onto that private property; go detain, capture, or kill that person” and EVERY soldier has pledged obedience regardless of his/her personal moral assessments of those orders. Remember that “legal” is not the same as moral, as all “legal” means is that it conforms to the arbitrary dictates of a particular group of people. And it’s the same group that’s issuing military commands on the highest level, so when they make you take an oath to the “legal”, all it means is that military personnel are commanded to ”have no other Gods before us”.

All anarchists are “guilty” of not acknowledging man’s legislation. Luckily, man does not have the power to create valid Law via his rituals, so no one has an obligation to acknowledge it at all.

SAM101907 > bbblackwell
That is the model for any functional military. There needs to be a chain of command and guys who follow orders. That does not mean your commanders can order their men to do what ever they want, they have their own code of conduct that they can be punished for. There are laws that punish soldiers and commanders for their deeds so they cannot hide behind the excuse of “just following orders”. We are taught this in Basic Training.

They have just as much legitimacy with their own laws as you do forcing “Natural law” on anyone else.

“They have just as much legitimacy with their own laws as you do forcing “Natural law” on anyone else.”

Please describe to me what Natural Law is, if you would.

According to me or according to you?

Both would be nice, if you don’t mind.

I’m not going to slam you if you misrepresent me; I’m just trying to see if we’re talking about the same thing.

To you, it appears to be some law of the universe. To me, it’s an arbitrary set of rules based on someone’s moral standards and understanding of the world.

“Some law of the universe” is not very descriptive. It is a common misconception that Natural Law is a set of arbitrary rules floating in the sky, like the proverbial commandments of the Gods, which wholly rely upon blind belief, having no observable evidence to establish their validity. This is not what I mean by Natural Law.

I mean real-world cause-and-effect, and have established this as the only rational description of morality possible in the article I sent you. You claimed to have read the article but have not demonstrated how the argument establishing this is invalid. You have only asserted that morality is subjective. Are you going to address the argument made? Because we’ve been running around in circles for weeks due to its not having been addressed.

It comes down to whether you really want to get somewhere here, or you’re just content arguing back and forth in futility. There is only one Truth. It behooves us to find it. Perhaps one of us is perceiving it correctly, or perhaps we are both incorrect and may find it together. In either case, by sorting it out Truth will gain a stronger foothold in our world. I can think of no other value to such discourse.

I have given examples already that show how morality is subjective…. They seem to get ignored though or just put into the category of “misunderstanding”.

What are the examples that prove morality is subjective? The fact that people have different ideas about it? My four-year-old son has a different idea about what 247 + 646 equals, but that difference can be accounted for by the fact that she doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. In any case, your examples don’t address the argument presented for why subjective morality is impossible: Namely, because if man is the standard for morality, then morality cannot be a standard for him; and if morality is not a standard, it is not morality, since that’s critical to its definition.

SAM101907 > bbblackwell
I gave you examples like with the fishermen or the refrigerant that show that the morally correct answer can be up to interpretation or perception of the individual. These scenarios where to complex to provide a simple answer.

I agree that employment is exploitation, though this does not obviate other concerns (as Haselnuss seems to imply). Consent is not the only relevant factor – rights are unalienable, and thus cannot be removed from the person, even by their own consent. Violation of consent is not the only violation of rights, and so we may consent to wrongful actions against us and still have adverse consequences in the world.

It is not wrong to have sex with someone, though it is if they don’t agree to it. Here consent alters the nature of the action. Consenting to you stabbing me to death does not alter the moral nature of the act, however, because that action does not duly acknowledge my authentic nature as a human being. I am in error in consenting, and you are in error in performing that act. Free-will does not make up the whole of our nature; there are other aspects which must be acknowledged in order for Truth to express through our actions.

Employment (as commonly arranged) is always theft, even with consent, because the fruits of the labor are not recognized as the property of the rightful owner (the difference being pocketed by the employer as a result of successful speculation). This is a highly nuanced subject, because the consent of the employee can be said to render the difference between wages and salary a gift to the employer. However, since it is offered before its true value is known, this is a dubious contract.

Consent is a moment-to-moment concern. I don’t get to rape you because you promised we’d have sex. You can say “no” at any point, and I have to acknowledge that. By the same logic, the employee – after seeing the value of his labor – should be able to take back his rightful fruits (after the employer’s expenses are covered). A gift is only a gift under consent, and consent cannot be established beforehand, then deaf to later objections. For this reason, the whole notion of contracts is problematic, particularly those concerning employment.

If that wasn’t clear, with employment it is almost wholly implied that the arrangement will work out in the favor of one party, to the detriment of the other. It is not a case of one party valuing apples more than oranges, so a trade of mutually-perceived advantage is established (we’ll put the problem of perceived value aside for now). With employment, the fruit of the labor is always money – more money than what’s being offered in exhcange for it – and so to consent to this trade is to effectually say “I will pick 100 apples and give you 50” with no compensation whatever. There is no trade. No thing is being traded for another thing. There is only one thing – money – and the amount generated by the labor of one party is being split between two. That’s a gift, and thus must be consensual at every step throughout the process, not bound to forehand agreements.

It may be said that the employer provides an infrastructure making it possible to convert that labor into money, but the value of that contribution must also be accepted by the employee once established, which it is not. The difference between the labor and the monetary fruits it creates is deemed the value of the employer’s contribution, whatever it may be. The employee’s right to say, “I don’t think it’s worth that much” is not acknowledged. He enters into the agreement before knowing what that value will be, thus consenting to his own right to property to be violated.

I understand that what I’m saying makes our current method of trade cumbersome to the point of unviable, but there’s a reason for that – because trade as commonly conceived flies in the face of reality. Valuations are established before they are truly known, and this results in theft one way or the other in nearly every case. I went through this with Pashifox, for those who read it, and it’s a very complex topic that contradicts how we think about material value.

Fishermen and refrigerants don’t address this:

“If man is the standard for morality, then morality cannot be a standard for him; and if it is not a standard, it is not morality, since that is essential to its definition.”

The aforementioned cases are merely a matter of accurately determining whether over fishing or said refrigerants are harmful. It does not address the fact that if they are harmful, it is moral to defend against them. These are two separate issues.

They do both address it. You have one side of the argument that says infringing in those individuals civil liberties is wrong, but with that, you risk individuals taking advantage of the system and causing harm to others or the environment. However; if you enforce the regulations on it, not only will you be enabling a sort of “pre-crime” restriction, but also enable a “monopoly of violence”. So which one is right? How do we know? Can two people with similar understandings of morality come to two different conclusions?

bbblackwell > SAM101907
Two people can only come to different conclusions if their understanding is similar, not if it’s the same. They can also come to different conclusions if thier understanding is the same, but the harmful nature of the act has not been clearly established. There has to be some variable which differs for a different conclusion to result. And regardless, just like in mathematics, there exists a right answer, and it’s our job to figure out what it is. We don’t get to make it up ourselves and then “disagree”.

You’re still asserting that our understanding of morality is morality. Until you address the highlighted statement demonstrating that this is impossible, we’ll get nowhere. I’ve stated it a number of times, and you never directly address it. You don’t find that odd? Why can’t you post a comment specifically addressing that statement? It’s fine if you don’t have an answer for it, but then please refrain from asserting morality as subjective when a standing objection has yet to be duly satisfied.

SAM101907 > bbblackwell
I just gave you an example on how it is subjective. I am not saying our understanding of morality is morality, I am saying everyone’s definition is different because morality is an invention of the human mind, and the human mind is different for every person. A problem can have more then one solution, and not all solutions are for everyone. Reality is not like math, because math is constant in almost every place in the universe. 2+2=4 no matter where you are (except maybe in a black hole). The problems I gave have more then one answer, and each answer can cause harm in some way. There is no one size fits all solution, therefore, it’s subjective. We can’t apply Natural Law, because it doesn’t solve the issue.

bbblackwell > SAM101907
Ok, yeah I’m done. You have atrocious reading comprehension and are incapable of answering questions directly. I’d have infinite patience to help you if you’d at least acknowledge it in the slightest, but you’ve got numerous people demonstrating how your position is an intellectual and moral calamity, and all you can say is, “What, me worry?”. I genuinely thank you for at least being willing to have the conversation, and disingenuously thank you for providing a flawless example of the core problem in our world.

SAM101907 > bbblackwell
Just because I don’t conform to your arguments, does not mean I lack reading comprehension. Why is it my arguments can be dismissed, but your must be addressed?

Join our Discord community!
Let’s have a LIVE chat!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s