EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Justify the morality of the state

< Return to subforum
Page: 12Most Recent
Crow
By Crow | Jul 2 2016 2:42 PM
Okay, let's discuss the morality of states. Points of discussion...


1. The basis for one mans authority over another.

2. The justification for why a majority or minority can be considered the universal representative of the whole society.

3. What the goal of the state is, or should be. What it actually does in effect.

4. The defense of the use of force against involuntary subjects

5. The grounds for the arbitrary borders which define which person is under which jurisdiction

If the ridiculous social contract bullshit comes up, then the questions of the non-existent socially constructed contract's validity, establishment, and scope of consent are relevant.


The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
admin
By admin | Jul 2 2016 3:12 PM
Crow: 1. "Let's generally agree that we should work together!" ... "OK!"
2. The point of a liberal government is to take into account as many views as possible in determining policy, but ultimately states recognize that some views should be imposed upon everybody ie criminalizing murder. This is justified because of the harm that would accrue from this policy, that the government seeks to avoid.
3. It should be the maximization, simultaneously, of freedom and equality.
4. To prevent them causing said harms to society.
5. There are many historical reasons, but at this point the main one is to keep government localized.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Crow
By Crow | Jul 2 2016 3:26 PM
admin: "Let's generally agree that we should work together!" ... "OK!"

So you believe that all decisions made in a state should be decided by 100% general consensus among voting citizens?

2. The point of a liberal government is to take into account as many views as possible in determining policy, but ultimately states recognize that some views should be imposed upon everybody ie criminalizing murder. This is justified because of the harm that would accrue from this policy, that the government seeks to avoid.

Not even close to being relevant to the point of discussion.

What is the justification for why one subsection of society is given universal representation over the rest of society?

It should be the maximization, simultaneously, of freedom and equality.

Did you know that states cannot create freedom?

Were you aware that states limit equality by using jails and forcing the institution of mandatory regulations and taxation?

To prevent them causing said harms to society.

So you believe the role of states is to protect people?

There are many historical reasons, but at this point the main one is to keep government localized.

So someone could make the case that one town, village, or even one individual should be totally autonomous to keep government localized? If not, then is the only grounds the historical borders that were set by military forces?

The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
admin
By admin | Jul 2 2016 3:33 PM
Crow: should be decided by 100% general consensus among voting citizens?
No. Most people agree that living in a state is nice - this is enough for a jurisdiction.

What is the justification for why one subsection of society is given universal representation over the rest of society?
Because, as a premise, if there is a significant harm that could accrue from a policy that would prevent the maximization of freedom and equality, the government's purpose is, in part, to prevent that harm.

Did you know that states cannot create freedom?
Sure they can. I am free from murderers because the state bans murder.

Were you aware that states limit equality by using jails and forcing the institution of mandatory regulations and taxation?
Such negative rights are not absolute. For example, a taxation policy can redistribute wealth.

Bear in mind this is only my belief of what the government should do. There are other, also valid beliefs.

So you believe the role of states is to protect people?
In a way, yes.

So someone could make the case that one town, village, or even one individual should be totally autonomous to keep government localized?
Our society is tending towards bigger and bigger governments because people enjoy them so much. Some people are frightened by that, including myself. There needs to be a balance where states are large enough to be competitive / useful and small enough to allow efficient self-determination. How large exactly that is depends to a great extent on geography.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Crow
By Crow | Jul 2 2016 3:49 PM
No. Most people agree that living in a state is nice - this is enough for a jurisdiction.

If you do not want 100% general consensus, then what do you want to determine the general authority of all of society? The majority? If so, then once again I ask, what is the basis for one man to rule over another man?

Because, as a premise, if there is a significant harm that could accrue from a policy that would prevent the maximization of freedom and equality, the government's purpose is, in part, to prevent that harm.

Do you understand the question? You are way off topic.

How do you justify the fact that one subsection (one specific grouping) of society is given universal (total) representation (authority) over society?

Sure they can. I am free from murderers because the state bans murder.

Do you understand that freedom is to have the power, and not the liberty to do something?

Are you saying that people cannot murder because the state wrote so on a piece of paper?

Such negative rights are not absolute. For example, a taxation policy can redistribute wealth.


Bear in mind this is only my belief of what the government should do. There are other, also valid beliefs.

So what constitutes a non-valid belief?

In a way, yes.

So just to be clear, you believe mankind needs to be protected by mankind? What if someone denies protection for themselves by rejecting the states law? Do you believe they should be thrown in jail for their own protection? Maybe for the protection of others? If so, then why does security of a few outweigh the liberty of everybody?

Our society is tending towards bigger and bigger governments because people enjoy them so much.

Okay, with that in mind, what is the forseeable future of our current states if nothing changes? Do you believe that if the states are organized the same, people will continue growing lazier, the earth will continue to be destroyed, militaries will grow more destructive, and the legal system will continue expanding to ridiculous proportions?

Is that the future you want?

There needs to be a balance where states are large enough to be competitive / useful and small enough to allow efficient self-determination.

Are you saying that singular cities, towns, and individuals cannot be successful without larger organization?

Also you might not be grasping what I am really asking. What justifies those borders? What force establishes those borders, and confines all its residents to the self-appointed state that controls everything inside those borders?
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
admin
By admin | Jul 2 2016 4:07 PM
Crow: what is the basis for one man to rule over another man?
Most people agreeing to work together.

How do you justify the fact that one subsection (one specific grouping) of society is given universal (total) representation (authority) over society?
Those people see a significant harm and prevent it. The prevention of the harm is your justification.

Maybe context would help. Most people see that having fraud legal would diminish equality and freedom in society. Therefore to prevent that harm, the government need take action.

Do you understand that freedom is to have the power, and not the liberty to do something?
Nope. Positive freedom is an expression of power, but freedom can also be used grammatically in a negative sense. When liberals like me talk freedom, we're talking both "Free to" and "Free from".

Are you saying that people cannot murder because the state wrote so on a piece of paper?
No, just that the state has provided relative security against murders.

So what constitutes a non-valid belief?
One that doesn't logically relate to government. If you're thinking of a view that isn't entirely self-contradictory or something, it's probably valid.

So just to be clear, you believe mankind needs to be protected by mankind?
Doesn't need to. It's just desirable.

What if someone denies protection for themselves by rejecting the states law?
If they break it, society is free to punish that person as they will. They've rejected freedom from punishment.

If so, then why does security of a few outweigh the liberty of everybody?
This would be valid if everyone was thrown in jail and a few were secured. In fact most people are ordinary, law-abiding people who enjoy the benefits of not rejecting the state. It's more like why does the security of most people outweigh the liberty of a few? The answer to that question is because the state has no imperative to ensure their liberty, since they have denied the state's protection by causing harm to others. States have an imperative to protect law-abiding members before those who undermine society in some way.

Okay, with that in mind, what is the forseeable future of our current states if nothing changes?
I believe economic development will continue, as will our technological development. People will not necessarily work less in the immediate future, but certainly social economics will grow. Eventually, long-term, unemployment will rise significantly. People will grow in scientific understanding about how to better protect the world, and will come to destroy it less. A robust legal system could well be at the forefront of that.

My hope would be that armies would come to be abandoned along with growing civil rights, as people recognize that there is little need for fighting between countries. This will take many centuries to say the least but that would be ideal.

That is the future I want.

Are you saying that singular cities, towns, and individuals cannot be successful without larger organization?
They can, but not every singular town would be successful. If you couldn't enter a city-state without a passport every time you went to the supermarket, that would likely be inefficient.

What justifies those borders?
Local representation.

What force establishes those borders, and confines all its residents to the self-appointed state that controls everything inside those borders?
The non-self-appointed state (in most cases) OR
The self-appointed state (in a very few cases)
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Crow
By Crow | Jul 2 2016 4:30 PM
Most people agreeing to work together.

*facepalm*

If marijuana was made illegal, and 30% of the population actively used it, what gives the majority that voted for it to be illegal the authority to enforce a reaction?

Maybe context would help. Most people see that having fraud legal would diminish equality and freedom in society. Therefore to prevent that harm, the government need take action.

Okay, so it is clear now that you didn't understand the question.

What gives the 51% majority at one isolated point in time, the power to represent the interests of the society as a whole?

Nope. Positive freedom is an expression of power, but freedom can also be used grammatically in a negative sense. When liberals like me talk freedom, we're talking both "Free to" and "Free from".

By definition, you cannot restrict freedom. It is simply impossible.

You should be using the word liberty, which is what the state allows. You cannot remove the existence of freedom, which is why no piece of paper actually has the power to stop actions commited by man. Murder will happen even when it is made illegal.

If they break it, society is free to punish that person as they will. They've rejected freedom from punishment.

What constitutes the society? What establishes the society?

Is will not determined by force? If force determines will, then if the actor uses force, does he not change the fundamental core of the society itself?

This would be valid if everyone was thrown in jail and a few were secured.

Okay, so once again you were too slow to understand what I meant.

If you make something illegal, you are taking away liberty from everyone. All illegal things are made illegal to protect isolated incidents, because there is nothing illegal that takes a toll on everybody 24/7. Therefore you are taking away the liberty of everyone, in order to provide security for the few.

Do you understand this very basic concept now?

That is the future I want.

It isn't the future you are going to get.

You are in denial. You never learned from history. You don't understand a shred of long established philosophy. Your blindness is consenting and enabling the destruction of humanity and the world.

Let's discuss something else though. Do you want to live in a world in which everyone is absolutely safe and absolutely enlighted? A world free of human error? Do you realize, that what you want is inhuman, and you are okay with that?

They can, but not every singular town would be successful. If you couldn't enter a city-state without a passport every time you went to the supermarket, that would likely be inefficient.


No one is talking about a city-state. Are you saying a singular community without any established state cannot be successful?

The non-self-appointed state (in most cases) OR
The self-appointed state (in a very few cases)


All states are composed of self-appointed rulers.

Society maintains the US state is legitimate. I disagree. Neither claim stands on its own, but the fact that the US state is in existence shows self-appointment.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jul 2 2016 4:49 PM
Crow: What justifies the state is consent(if the people agree/want it), and for the greater good of society. States establish laws to protect society and can use force to stop others from using physical aggression/endangering another person. They can punish members of society that break the rules, and these rules are for minimizing harm. Another benefit is public goods, but this thread is on morality of the state. I don't think the state is a necessity, but I believe in many cases, it is desirable.
Crow
By Crow | Jul 2 2016 4:59 PM
Bi0Hazard: What justifies the state is consent

What if the some people do not consent?

The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jul 2 2016 5:15 PM
Crow: If some people don't, then either they can leave, or it isn't justified since it is forced on some who don't want it.
Thumbs up from:
admin
By admin | Jul 2 2016 6:11 PM
Crow: If marijuana was made illegal, and 30% of the population actively used it, what gives the majority that voted for it to be illegal the authority to enforce a reaction?
Assuming active users wanted it legal, it would be the harm that the 70% see in marijuana use.

What gives the 51% majority at one isolated point in time, the power to represent the interests of the society as a whole?
Assuming that this is determined to be an optimized system (and you may recall I believe in consensus democracy above strict democracy), they have the right to do so because they are legislating against harms most people want to see prevented. Anytime somebody wants to protect another party from something, and that other party has yielded the right to such protection (by being a member of the state), such protections are justified.

What constitutes the society? What establishes the society?
People constitute society, and people establish it.

Is will not determined by force?
It is not, although there are ways to put people under duress. The amount of such duress indeed has some impact on society.

Do you understand this very basic concept now?
At one isolated point in time, you're right, not everyone would be simultaneously murdered if murder was legal. Even there though the liberty is not removed from everyone because not everyone would murder all the time, either. If I take away your freedom to, IDK, eat cake on the planet Uranus, you'd probably shrug and think me a lunatic, because chances are you weren't planning to do that anyway. You might be mildly annoyed but am I really removing liberty if you weren't about to exercise that freedom? No, you are still at liberty to do all the things you actually wanted to / were able to do.

Of course, we usually talk about harms in a broader sense than just one isolated moment in time. You can imagine that many would be murdered if murder wasn't illegal, and many more impacted by murder.

It isn't the future you are going to get.
So you say. I think the world is trending much more towards my future than yours.

Do you want to live in a world in which everyone is absolutely safe and absolutely enlighted? A world free of human error?
You can keep human error and protect third parties from the harms of human error.

Are you saying a singular community without any established state cannot be successful?
No

All states are composed of self-appointed rulers.
I certainly know I helped determine NZ's current government. How corrupt the US is, I cannot speak to that. I imagine it's somewhat more rigged there, but still not totally self-appointed either.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Crow
By Crow | Jul 2 2016 6:40 PM
admin: Assuming active users wanted it legal, it would be the harm that the 70% see in marijuana use.

M8, you don't have a mental disability or something? I ask seriously, because the lack of comprehension is just incredibly poor.

For the fourth time, the question is what gives the 70% the right to restrict the usage of marijuana by the 30%.

they have the right to do so because they are legislating against harms most people want to see prevented.

That answer doesn't go anywhere.

Why does the majority have that right? Just saying they have the right isn't a justification.

People constitute society, and people establish it.

That answer doesn't stand unless 100% of people mutually agree on the rules of society, and 100% of people past/present/future established it. Society is dynamic, not fixed. Societies do not have hegemonies of power either, unlike that lie you keep pushing.

It is not, although there are ways to put people under duress.

So an individual with an army does not possess more authority than a person without one?

At one isolated point in time, you're right, not everyone

Okay, you didn't understand this either. It isn't surprising me at this point. I used to have conversations with this one guy IRL, until a year later I found out he was incredibly mental. This is starting to compare.

If I take away your freedom to, IDK, eat cake on the planet Uranus,

So when I said you definition of freedom was totally wrong three times, you just decided to ignore me three times. Are you even reading what I am saying, or just talking to yourself?

You can imagine that many would be murdered if murder wasn't illegal, and many more impacted by murder.

Actually I cannot. That is a myth.

Level of enforcement = Level of prevention. Not whether a piece of paper was written.

You can keep human error and protect third parties from the harms of human error.

So you believe anything that does not directly harm a third party should be a liberty?

No

Then you acknowledge that the state is not a necessity. The next step is for you to acknowledge the fundamental injustices of the state, which might be hard because you are in total denial.

I certainly know I helped determine NZ's current government. How corrupt the US is, I cannot speak to that. I imagine it's somewhat more rigged there, but still not totally self-appointed either.

Bad comprehension once again.

You obviously don't understand what I meant by self-appointed. Go figure!

You are a self-appointed authority as well, and corruption has nothing to do with it. You make the claim that you have a say on what policy others have to follow, but that claim is supported upon a social construct, therefore it is conjecture.

The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
admin
By admin | Jul 2 2016 6:51 PM
Crow: you don't have a mental disability or something
I don't

the question is what gives the 70% the right to restrict the usage of marijuana by the 30%
For the fourth time, it is to help prevent the 30% from harming society. They have the right because they are charged with protecting society, and they are protecting it against the harms of marijuana use.

Why does the majority have that right?
If the government consisted of only one person the answer would be the same. Because people have agreed to work together and, in many cases, put some people in charge of setting the rules.

That answer doesn't stand unless 100% of people mutually agree on the rules of society
Whoever doesn't want to take part in our society, and does things the rest of us don't like, will be punished by the rest of us. They have no right to our protection.

So an individual with an army does not possess more authority than a person without one?
Sure they do. Doesn't negate free will.

So when I said you definition of freedom was totally wrong three times, you just decided to ignore me three times.
You're making an assertion, not asking a question. Your view of liberty/freedom was a semantic issue anyway and not something solvent.

Level of enforcement = Level of prevention. Not whether a piece of paper was written.
I'd suggest the level of prevention is nonzero.

So you believe anything that does not directly harm a third party should be a liberty?
No, the government still needs to balance that with their need to provide equality, and that indirect harms should be thought about too.

Then you acknowledge that the state is not a necessity.
Strict necessity? No. Good idea? Yes. Pretty much everywhere is better off under a state.

that claim is supported upon a social construct, therefore it is conjecture
History is a social construct. Do you think history is all conjecture also?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Crow
By Crow | Jul 2 2016 6:57 PM
admin: For the fourth time, it is to help prevent the 30% from harming society. They have the right because they are charged with protecting society, and they are protecting it against the harms of marijuana use.

That is NOT a justification for why the 70% are able to rule over the 30%. If that is your answer, then it can be simply flipped by saying that the 30% are justified to protect the 70% from harming society.

There is NO basis for what you are saying. It is just more of your idiocy.

If the government consisted of only one person the answer would be the same. Because people have agreed to work together and, in many cases, put some people in charge of setting the rules.

You keep saying people mutually agree to work together. That's only so, because you declare everyone who doesn't want to work together as no longer relevant. Do you know how ridiculously moronic your position is? '

The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Crow
By Crow | Jul 2 2016 7:02 PM
Whoever doesn't want to take part in our society, and does things the rest of us don't like, will be punished by the rest of us. They have no right to our protection.

First off, explain how the state = society.

You also need to explain why the society has a hegemony like you are claiming. Society is dynamic, not fixed. That is a fact.

Sure they do. Doesn't negate free will.

It does show that you prior claim on societal hegemony via the majority is false.

I'd suggest the level of prevention is nonzero.

So you do agree that laws are useless? That is what you seem to be saying.

History is a social construct. Do you think history is all conjecture also?

Once again, this is where I question whether your lack of comprehension is due to a mental illness.

Seriously, and answer honestly. Are you reading what I am saying, or are you just skimming and replying? You are making a socially constructed claim based upon a social construct. Justifying social constructs with another social constructs is an unforgivable philosophical sin.

Your view of liberty/freedom was a semantic issue anyway and not something solvent.


It is relevant when you claim that states can regulate action, when it is a fact that they cannot actually remove someone's freedom to do or attempt something.

The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
admin
By admin | Jul 2 2016 7:59 PM
Crow: Wow it's hard when you spread things between posts.

If that is your answer, then it can be simply flipped by saying that the 30% are justified to protect the 70% from harming society.
Sure and I'd have no problem with that. I just so happen to believe that most of the time, determining elected representatives by means of democracy is the surest path to ensuring liberal ends.

Do you know how ridiculously moronic your position is?
No. If you asked me for the philosophical basis for a partnership company structure, same thing. People agree to work together. Anyone who wants to exit the partnership or goes against the other partners can no longer expect to get the benefits of belonging to that partnership.

First off, explain how the state = society.
States represent the interests of society. Therefore they are a reflection of society's interests.

You also need to explain why the society has a hegemony like you are claiming.
Because one group is protecting another. Human nature is to care for other humans. It's like when you're on a hiking group, you look out for the slowest/weakest member, right? Not because you want to impose your power and dominance over faster members of the group, but because that ensures the well-being of the group as a whole.

It does show that you prior claim on societal hegemony via the majority is false.
How? So people can influence unjust control, which BTW states exist in part to prevent. Does that mean social hegemony is never justified? Not sure I see the link.

So you do agree that laws are useless?
No. Prevention is nonzero, meaning some murders are prevented by laws against murder.

Justifying social constructs with another social constructs is an unforgivable philosophical sin.
Invoking Harry Potter references seems rather more childish to me here. Every argument has its premise, and here, the claim is merely that I have an influence on others. That's premised on government working. If government works then there's no philosophical problem. It's like saying that proving maths equations using more maths is invalid. There's no logic to that. In fact maths can prove itself quite neatly.

It is relevant when you claim that states can regulate action, when it is a fact that they cannot actually remove someone's freedom to do or attempt something.
That's not what regulate means.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Crow
By Crow | Jul 3 2016 2:56 AM
Wow it's hard when you spread things between posts.

Not intentional.

Sure and I'd have no problem with that. I just so happen to believe that most of the time, determining elected representatives by means of democracy is the surest path to ensuring liberal ends.


So you are okay with the minority having representation over society?

That does include dictators, kings, and autocratic councils.

No. If you asked me for the philosophical basis for a partnership company structure, same thing. People agree to work together. Anyone who wants to exit the partnership or goes against the other partners can no longer expect to get the benefits of belonging to that partnership.


Okay, so the social contract nonsense is official.

What is the validity of your specific interpretation of the social contract?

How was the social contract established?

How was the social contract consented?

What is the scope of the social contract, IE, people in Saudi Arabia having the same social contract as the people in Wellington?

Do you disagree with stoic philosophers when they cautioned against creating a chain of justifying social constructs?

If I was a Jewish citizen in Nazi Germany, and I didn't want to resist for whatever reason, was I consenting when they threw me in the death camps to do manual labor and eventually burn me in an oven?

States represent the interests of society. Therefore they are a reflection of society's interests.

Either states are ruled by majority opinion or minority opinion. What gives either group universal representation has still not been answered with even a slightly intelligent reply.

Because one group is protecting another. Human nature is to care for other humans. It's like when you're on a hiking group, you look out for the slowest/weakest member, right? Not because you want to impose your power and dominance over faster members of the group, but because that ensures the well-being of the group as a whole.


I could go off on a tangent about how that isn't human nature, but I would be just as off point as what I am replying too.

How does this disprove a long known fact that non-socially constructed human societies have bo base hegemony?

How? So people can influence unjust control, which BTW states exist in part to prevent. Does that mean social hegemony is never justified? Not sure I see the link.


It means that every individual has total power or no power in human society. Fixed societal hegemony is a falsehood, and all your stupidity is resting on it.

No. Prevention is nonzero, meaning some murders are prevented by laws against murder.


So you believe pieces of paper are going out into the streets fighting crime and locking up criminals? Are you absolutely sure you are not mental?

Every argument has its premise, and here, the claim is merely that I have an influence on others.

It is not one segmented argument, but your claim is more steeped in how a non-visible socially constructed contract can justify a socially constructed state. Making an argument to justify a social construct with another social construct, goes against even the most basic of philosophical rationale.

That's not what regulate means.

Sniping one word with semantics is a good way to weasel out of a reply. I'll say again...

It is relevant when you claim states can control action, when it is a fact they states cannot actually remove someone's freedom to do or attempt something.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jul 4 2016 8:46 AM
Crow: But you also have to take, "The ends justify the means" into consideration. So, even if some don't want a government, sometimes it needs to be enforced for the good of all.
Crow
By Crow | Jul 4 2016 8:51 AM
Bi0Hazard: The state does not produce "good for all."

The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jul 4 2016 8:55 AM
Crow: The state does not produce "good for all."
That is because your an anarchist, but I believe it can be enforced for the good of all. In many cases it isn't, but good can come from the state.
Page: 12Most Recent