About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Monday, March 10, 2014 - 3:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Or did I miss where you EXPLICITLY said these were not to involve legal rules?

That's not how burden of proof generally works. You're essentially proving my point, which is that nothing in my post advocated for government intervention.

 

All legal rules will have a moral basis - as being morally desirable, or morally undesirable. So, to label a set of rules as "moral" is better than not providing any label at all - a lot better - but it still doesn't rule out implied legal rules.

Not really. Do sugar subsidies have a moral basis? Does the monopoly of the U.S. Post Office over the mail have a moral basis? The latin/legal term for such laws is malum prohibitum - wrong because it is prohibited. But even if it were true that all laws have a moral basis, you're still adding an extra layer of argument that appears nowhere in my post. If my aim were truly to get some law passed (a particularly absurd assumption in this case, given the subject matter), isn't it more likely that I would have stated it outright?

 

Immediately after discussing laws, and tyranny and lawbreakers and state control, you say "we need rules" which naturally leads to the assumption of laws and rules being the topic de jour.  So the first two paragraphs were about laws, then in the very next paragraph you start to discuss "discretion" as if to contrast "laws" with "discretion" --- And you DON'T see why someone would misinterpret you!!!

 

This is tortured logic. I specifically *contrasted* public laws versus private conduct in my first paragraph to make it clear that I wasn't talking about the public sphere. Note the word "but," which contrasts public versus private in my argument. I said:

 

We all grasp the importance of having fair notice of public laws. Law enforcement without notice is tyranny that can turn even the most docile citizens into lawbreakers at the whim of state control.

 

But what about rules on private property, such as a home, business, or internet forum? Why do we need rules in these contexts, and is it moral for a property owner to operate solely through discretion?

From a plain reading of this introduction, the reader can logically conclude: 

 

1) This post IS NOT concerned with public laws.

2) This post IS concerned with private (non-government) behavior

3) It is the property owner who decides whether to operate through rules or discretion.

 

In case that was at all unclear, I concluded my topic with the following:

Since all rule-based systems will leave some matters to discretion and vice versa, the property owner's choice is really where on the spectrum he wishes to operate. In light of the considerations above, property owners - especially owners of community-based properties such as online forums - should try to maximize rule-based decision-making to the extent they can, and only use discretion when necessary to deal with the unavoidable ambiguities present in any social arrangement. 

 

This reaffirms that it is the property owner's "choice...where on the spectrum he wishes to operate." And in case the concept was *still* unclear to the reader, the following sentence again states that it is property owners who "should try to maximize rule-based decision-making" (not the government).

 



Post 21

Monday, March 10, 2014 - 3:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert,

I want your own ideas on the subject...

I wrote a long message laying out how this issue relates to political principles, economic principles, character traits, and the principles lying under contract law... but I didn't post it.  I deleted it.  Really, all it said boiled down to: "Successful competition in a free market will determine what, if any, up front rules are desired in an instance of private property usage.  Some people will want more structure and others less and that probably has more to do with psychology than anything else.  And the owner has the last word."  Beyond that, who gives a shit.

 

I really don't want to be arguing with you - not on anything even remotely related to MSK. You are an Objectivist, and I'd rather be welcoming you and discussing different Objectivist viewpoints - as arguments or just discussions. But not this.



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Monday, March 10, 2014 - 3:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert,

Do sugar subsidies have a moral basis?

Yes, they are immoral (which is a moral status) because the tax money used is a form of theft and falls outside of the constitution and the proper purpose of government. When I said all law has a moral basis I was clear in saying that basis was either immoral or moral - that every law has a moral dimension.

 

And I didn't say you were intending to get a law passed. I wrote that your writing in that post could be misinterpreted because of the way you wrote it.

 

We disagree on whether or not your intention was clear to the reader, so I'll just leave that to anyone who reads that post and cares.



Post 23

Monday, March 10, 2014 - 4:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

I wrote a long message laying out how this issue relates to political principles, economic principles, character traits, and the principles lying under contract law... but I didn't post it.  I deleted it.  Really, all it said boiled down to: "Successful competition in a free market will determine what, if any, up front rules are desired in an instance of private property usage.  Some people will want more structure and others less and that probably has more to do with psychology than anything else.  And the owner has the last word."  Beyond that, who gives a shit.

I understand, and in fact, I agree with you. But as I said to Sam Erica when he made the similar point, that's beside the point of what I'm discussing here. I'm not asking whether government versus free enterprise is the appropriate avenue for handling this issue - you already know I'm a believer in free markets. I'm talking about morality in private behavior. I give a shit about moral behavior, and I think you do too. The corollary to removing coercion from the equation is that you are then responsible for policing yourself. For this reason, morals become more important in the private context, not less. When people abrogate moral responsibility for their actions, it provides government with that much m ore leverage to come in and straighten out the mess through mandates and restrictions.

I really don't want to be arguing with you - not on anything even remotely related to MSK. You are an Objectivist, and I'd rather be welcoming you and discussing different Objectivist viewpoints - as arguments or just discussions. But not this.

I appreciate that, and I'm not looking for an argument either. I was disappointed that Fred chose to jump down my throat based on an apparent misunderstanding, because he and I are on substantially the same page philosophically. I suspect you and I are as well. I specifically don't engage in the libertarian vs conservative stone-throwing of other posters because I think it's important for free market advocates to stick together against the greater progressive threat.

 

Yes, they are immoral (which is a moral status) because the tax money used is a form of theft and falls outside of the constitution and the proper purpose of government. When I said all law has a moral basis I was clear in saying that basis was either immoral or moral - that every law has a moral dimension.

LOL, true enough, athough I think people generally mean that the "moral basis" of a law is its moral justification for existing, not a values judgment on whether the law is good or bad. The examples I gave are laws that are simply utilitarian - they accomplish something without any apparent moral justification for their existence. I also wish they would go away - one of my great hopes for my lifetime is to see the dismantlement of the U.S. Postal Service.



Post 24

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 5:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sochi was the Winter Olympics:  Gymnastics, I am fairly certain, is part of the Summer Olympics.

 

True statements.

 

 

Thread title:  "You Win or You Die"

 

Spraypainted questions as innuendo.    Let's all ignore the title of that thread when interpreting the bon mots to be found therein.   

 

 

 

Thread title: "The Moral Case For Rules over Discretion"

 

Yet, not advocating "ruling over discretion"; talking about 'The Moral Case for Discretion by Owners Over Rules Over Discretion by Owners"...

 

Based on the personal arguments of "efficiency"  ... "planning"   and ...social disruption...  

 

 

 

The nicest thing I can say about this is that it is lawyerly.

 

 

 

 

 



Post 25

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 5:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred - You've discovered the importance of semantic hygiene. Modify even a single word in an author's writings - "rules" to "ruling" for example - and it can drastically affect the meaning of that author's argument. This is why going to the transcript is critical for accurate representation of others. They do teach this in law schools, as a matter of fact.



Post 26

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert:

 

because he and I are on substantially the same page philosophically.

 

Bullshit, weasel word 'substantially'  or not.

 

You and I clearly do not share the same values principles, and your uninvited attempt at forced association is explicitely non-consentual.   We are not only not on the same page, but I doubt we are in the same damn book or library.

 

We are substantially not on the same page philosophically, as you have explicitely demonstrated.

 

regards,

Fred

 

 



Post 27

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 7:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert:

 

Modify even a single word in an author's writings - "rules" to "ruling" for example - and it can drastically affect the meaning of that author's argument. This is why going to the transcript is critical for accurate representation of others. They do teach this in law schools, as a matter of fact.

 

And, no doubt, they also teach you to conveniently and accurately skip over the word 'not', as in what I actually wrote:

 

Thread title: "The Moral Case For Rules over Discretion"

 

Yet, not advocating "ruling over discretion"; talking about 'The Moral Case for Discretion by Owners Over Rules Over Discretion by Owners"..

 

So when implying that I changed 'rules' to 'ruling, where did I not do that, when pointing out, per your correction of my misunderstaning, that what you were really asking in this thread not about MSK The Moral Case for (Discretion by Owners Over Rules) Over (Discretion by Owners)"

 

You know, that difference in search of a distinction which is not 'absurd.'

 

regards,

Fred



Post 28

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 7:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert:

 

I appreciated the lecture on law school ethics, and the fealty to accurate transcripts, and so on.   I was humbled by it.

 

Or, maybe I was informed by it.

 

regards,

fred



Post 29

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 8:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred - Nowhere did I advocate for forced association. You're seeing things that aren't there. It really is that simple. If there was any confusion about this issue, I've since clarified it for you in no uncertain terms, so you're only arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. Now you can keep raving about rape and slavery like a madman for another 10,000 words, or you can accept my explanation and move on to something that's actually interesting to read about.



Post 30

Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Done.   I'm happy with the outcome:

 

1] No, nobody is talking about mixing public legislation with limitations on private property here.   We are nowhere near that.

2] There isn't much to be said about (Discretion by owners over their Rules) vs (Discretion by owners.)

3] There is no wider tribal issue or concept being discussed here other than a disagreeement between two peers, aka, another day ending in 'y.'

 

as in:  When invited to dinner and the host calls your wife a 'whore', the proper response is to quietly ask to speak with the host, then look left, and then look right, and then cold cock the bastard. claim he fell, and then leave.   When asked by his Honor what happened, calmly tell him the tip jar was far away on the counter,  you have no idea, the host was acting erratically at dinner, called your wife a whore, and then fell when you tried to calm him down. Maybe he was drunk?  Why would he call your wife a whore? Remember?  You looked left...you looked right...nobody to see you strike the badly needing stricken jackass...

 

He might have a different story, says him, says you, but the calling your wife a 'whore' part, at least, is corroborated by others.

 

Or, if you prefer,  you do the civilized thing and just leave. Freely dis-associate.   Cross him off your social calendar. Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you, you know?   Just inform you of the information you need in order to freely associate.   I'm pretty sure calling your wife a whore qualifies as sufficient information.

 

And then again, maybe you contact old business associates in Panama, a remarkably small amount of money moves around the world at some fraction of the speed of light, Caymans...Cairo...Isle of Man...Zurich....Panama... and eventually, who knows? Certainly not you-- two Guidos from Tiverton drive down 95 and break shit before enjoying a nice veal dinner on the way home, while you ...sleep like a baby.   Game of Thrones...

 

regards,

Fred



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.