Page 4 of 10
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:23 pm
by henry quirk
But you are trying to change the conversation to the question of what is a person, so .... interpretable.
Not at all: we're at cross-purposes, usin' words like person and morality, I believe, in dissimilar ways. We need clarification, to pin these things down.
I ain't gonna hold my breath waitin' on it.
No, I'm content knowin' that no matter how much you protest, you know you're yours; you know your life, liberty, and property are yours, and you know when your life, liberty, and property are violated or damaged by another you've been wronged.
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2021 11:23 pm
by FlashDangerpants
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 8:18 pm
Everybody also agrees that hypocrisy is wrong. Everybody agrees that pain is bad and pleasure is good. I never heard anyone actually disagree with the do unto others thing, probably because everyone already agrees that hypocrisy is wrong.
Hypocrisy, pain and pleasure, the golden rule: all these, and other commonalities, are interpretable.
What's interpretable about pain?
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 1:21 am
by henry quirk
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 11:23 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 8:18 pm
Everybody also agrees that hypocrisy is wrong. Everybody agrees that pain is bad and pleasure is good. I never heard anyone actually disagree with the do unto others thing, probably because everyone already agrees that hypocrisy is wrong.
Hypocrisy, pain and pleasure, the golden rule: all these, and other commonalities, are interpretable.
What's interpretable about pain?
The masochist enjoys it. Tell him pain is not pleasurable and he'll laugh at you.
More broadly:
algolagnia is a *sexual disorder in which sexual excitement is achieved by passively experiencing or actively inflicting pain.
*like beastiality (zoophilia)
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 3:57 am
by FlashDangerpants
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 1:21 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 11:23 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 8:18 pm
Everybody also agrees that hypocrisy is wrong. Everybody agrees that pain is bad and pleasure is good. I never heard anyone actually disagree with the do unto others thing, probably because everyone already agrees that hypocrisy is wrong.
Hypocrisy, pain and pleasure, the golden rule: all these, and other commonalities, are interpretable.
What's interpretable about pain?
The masochist enjoys it. Tell him pain is not pleasurable and he'll laugh at you.
More broadly:
algolagnia is a *sexual disorder in which sexual excitement is achieved by passively experiencing or actively inflicting pain.
*like beastiality (zoophilia)
This is Mister Slave from South Park
Some people like to be sexual slaves just the same way some people like getting punched in the crotch.
So I guess hypocrisy (for which I have never heard of any such kink) must be this commonality that is whatever unadulterable is supposed to mean here.
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 4:59 am
by Age
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:40 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:22 am
Also, if this conversation is NOT about 'me', then I suggest that BOTH of 'you' do NOT bring 'me' into this conversation
Shut up Age, sometimes we reference you, but it's not because we care.
LOL So 'you' and "another" reference 'me' into your conversation, then I NEVER suggest ANY thing about you caring, let alone say ANY thing about you caring, and in fact I NEVER even thought you cared, but you persist with this 'not caring' line of thinking. ONCE AGAIN, I do NOT care.
Also, and by the way, do NOT tell me to "shut up". ONCE AGAIN, if you mention or reference 'me' in your conversations, then I WILL TALK, if I WANT TO. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 3:01 pm
by henry quirk
So I guess hypocrisy...must be this commonality that is whatever unadulterable is supposed to mean here.
Quite the opposite: hypocrite!, I find, is levied most often when an opponent has no place to run, when he knows he's wandered down the wrong path and is too prideful to admit it.
Such an assessment -- hypocrite! -- may be the most adulterated, interpretable, of the bunch.
As for Mr. Slave: he and Mr. Garrison can play at whatever they like. It becomes an issue, a moral matter, when Mr. Slave sez I don't wanna play any more and Mr. Garrison won't let him go.
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 5:33 pm
by FlashDangerpants
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 3:01 pm
So I guess hypocrisy...must be this commonality that is whatever unadulterable is supposed to mean here.
Quite the opposite:
hypocrite!, I find, is levied most often when an opponent has no place to run, when he knows he's wandered down the wrong path and is too prideful to admit it.
Such an assessment --
hypocrite! -- may be the most adulterated, interpretable, of the bunch.
As for Mr. Slave: he and Mr. Garrison can play at whatever they like. It becomes an issue, a moral matter, when Mr. Slave sez
I don't wanna play any more and Mr. Garrison won't let him go.
Exactly the same applies to the pain thing
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:39 pm
by henry quirk
Exactly the same applies to the pain thing
yeah, that's my point
pain & pleasure, hypocrisy, etc., all commonalities, all interpretable
only ownness -- a man belongs to himself -- is unadulterable, uninterpretable: it has to be taken as is
recognize it, or ignore and violate it
the only question it offers: what is man? (what is a person?)
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:07 pm
by FlashDangerpants
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:39 pm
Exactly the same applies to the pain thing
yeah, that's
my point
pain & pleasure, hypocrisy, etc., all commonalities, all interpretable
only
ownness -- a man belongs to himself -- is unadulterable, uninterpretable: it has to be taken
as is
recognize it, or ignore and violate it
the only question it offers: what is man? (what is a person?)
But you are trying to change the conversation to the question of what is a person, so .... interpretable.
The few moral judgments you seem to be happy to make largely revovle around whether something is property and whether to recognise some property right so that's just as interpretable as hypocrisy is and honestly more so than pain.
You do interpret property on the fly, you did that when you said that Chinese property rights couldn't be recognised because only the wrong people would transact with them.
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:27 pm
by henry quirk
slavers, like that glorious state, China, ought be off'd, barrin' that: don't transact with 'em (if you do, you aid and abet 'em)
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:53 pm
by FlashDangerpants
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:27 pm
slavers, like that glorious state, China, ought be off'd, barrin' that: don't transact with 'em (if you do, you aid and abet 'em)
Exciting, we have something appears to have actually been unpacked.
Please show us the workings of how this is derived from nothing but your 3 lines.
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:12 pm
by henry quirk
A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.
the slaver violates the life, libery, and property of another
if you sell to a slaver, you aid in his survival and furtherance, meaning he will continue to slave with your aid; you assist him in slaving: you're in the wrong
if you buy from a slaver, you aid in his survival and furtherance, meaning he will continue to slave with your aid; you assist him in slaving: you're in the wrong
morally, all you should do is kill him or starve him
it ain't complicated, bubba
and: I've said all this before: you see unpackin' where there's only repetition
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:10 pm
by Scott Mayers
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:48 am
A man belongs to himself. (Or, as my good friend, age put it:
A man is free).
It is what it is.
I belong to myself; you belong to yourself.
This is self-evident.
It's the universal intuition of every man, anywhere, at any time, that he is his own.
Even the slaver believes he is his own and would never accept wearin' the leash as his birthright.
Questions are welcome.
A man is himself a man. This IDENTITY itself has no relevance to "belonging" unless "belonging" is unique to a SINGLE man independent of others.
Note that when using the word, 'man', you cannot slip from the particular meaning of a single person to the whole. So "belonging" may be something that all people collectively share as 'being human' and thus 'man', being shortened from 'mankind'.
As to any agreement about what is one's OWN, each person 'owns' their body and mind. But it does not imply that there is any meaning to
belonging other to 'be longing' for something beyond one's own body
freely. That is, you may interpret your longing as 'free' in the same way one has freedom to their
conscience.
Do you mean...
(1) Each person is born independent of a mind and body from all others and we have a biological predisposition to act exclusively in favor of our OWN internal desires without the concern for others' opinions against them. 
"Liberty" is not able to be absolute though because the reflexive capacity of acheiving your freedom often requires taking it away from another. The ideal of being 'free' isn't merely the thoughts you wish to express in actively seeking out what you want but the actual freedom to express your will in actions without being limited by others. In this case WE ALL WANT THIS IDEAL independently, including every other animal.
I know what you are trying to establish and so this particular first argument seems appropriate to help define 'libertarian' from the preference of "liberty". But since all people want this AT LEAST for themselves, no party platform would assert otherwise. What I believe you are seeking is some justification
against any laws being made that limits achieving one's goals as well as keeping what you already have as your 'own' from being taken away. THIS idea is also shared by all but is not acceptable in practice if this extends beyond one's own proximity.
I'll look at your next argument given this is too generic. If you haven't tried to argue the distinction between the "liberal" ideals versus the "libertarians", this might help to delineate what the distinction is that separates them given they both prioritize "liberty" as paramount.
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:12 pm
by FlashDangerpants
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:12 pm
A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.
the slaver violates the life, libery, and property of another
if you sell to a slaver, you aid in his survival and furtherance, meaning he will continue to
slave with your aid; you assist him in slaving: you're in the wrong
if you buy from a slaver, you aid in his survival and furtherance, meaning he will continue to
slave with your aid; you assist him in slaving: you're in the wrong
morally, all you should do is kill him or starve him
it ain't complicated, bubba
and: I've said all this before: you see unpackin' where there's only repetition
So from this ....
A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.
... you just go directly to ... erm.... well. What is the principle in play here?
Should it be: Upon [SUSPICION ... or does it need PROOF?] that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, you are [REQUIRED ... or just ENTITLED?] to [SHUN/KILL/ROB?] him, because otherwise his crimes have a transitory quality and now you are a slaver who must be killed, or shunned or robbed?
Re: unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:24 pm
by Scott Mayers
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:12 pm
A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.
The contentious word here is "
property".
"
Property" literally means "Pro-" (For) "-per-" (each) "-ty" (type or member of a class). So if I want to describe what each member in the set {apples, oranges, grapes} is, one such 'property' is "each member is a fruit". "Property", as in "ownership" implies that you have some select private set of concepts that is 'ownable' without clear qualification.
What you need to express is whether we have some innate 'right' to OWN more than our personal body or our behaviors that are required to minimally keep ourselves alive. Then, to what degree do you limit this to and why?