Philosophy Now Forum

When a cop is accused of a major crime they get paid administrative leave. When a rich person is accused of a major crime they get bail. When a poor person is accused of a major crime, they get jail, with all the excessive automatic punishment that entails.

assumed innocent, assumed able to win in court, assumed guilty

One of the core principles of legitimacy in government is not treating certain people differently than others just because of their status, whether caste, color, or gender. One of the core principles of justice is that guilt must be tested for, never assumed.

The US "justice" system contains neither legitimacy or justice in any part.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:07 pm When a cop is accused of a major crime they get paid administrative leave. When a rich person is accused of a major crime they get bail. When a poor person is accused of a major crime, they get jail, with all the excessive automatic punishment that entails.

assumed innocent, assumed able to win in court, assumed guilty

One of the core principles of legitimacy in government is not treating certain people differently than others just because of their status, whether caste, color, or gender. One of the core principles of justice is that guilt must be tested for, never assumed.

The US "justice" system contains neither legitimacy or justice to in any part.

true

solution?

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488706 time=1610211020 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=488682 time=1610204839 user_id=15238]
When a cop is accused of a major crime they get paid administrative leave. When a rich person is accused of a major crime they get bail. When a poor person is accused of a major crime, they get jail, with all the excessive automatic punishment that entails.

assumed innocent, assumed able to win in court, assumed guilty

One of the core principles of legitimacy in government is not treating certain people differently than others just because of their status, whether caste, color, or gender. One of the core principles of justice is that guilt must be tested for, never assumed.

The US "justice" system contains neither legitimacy or justice in any part.
[/quote]

true

solution?
[/quote]

Revolution. You can't fix a broken system with it's own broken tools,

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:14 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:50 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:07 pm When a cop is accused of a major crime they get paid administrative leave. When a rich person is accused of a major crime they get bail. When a poor person is accused of a major crime, they get jail, with all the excessive automatic punishment that entails.

assumed innocent, assumed able to win in court, assumed guilty

One of the core principles of legitimacy in government is not treating certain people differently than others just because of their status, whether caste, color, or gender. One of the core principles of justice is that guilt must be tested for, never assumed.

The US "justice" system contains neither legitimacy or justice in any part.

true

solution?

Revolution. You can't fix a broken system with it's own broken tools,

yes...a revolution with an eye toward a natural rights libertarian minarchy is exactly what we need

bet you have other ideas, though

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488725 time=1610212944 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=488720 time=1610212473 user_id=15238]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488706 time=1610211020 user_id=472]


true

solution?
[/quote]

Revolution. You can't fix a broken system with it's own broken tools,
[/quote]

yes...a revolution with an eye toward a natural rights libertarian minarchy is exactly what we need

bet you have other ideas, though
[/quote]

Libertarian Whatever would be much better than what we have now, but in most cases it would result in recreating the wheel. We need most of the essential parts of the current system, it's the glue that holds them together that is made of purest bullshit - layer upon layer of assumption, compromise, legal fictions, band-aids, capture, graft, misappropriation of words...

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:32 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:22 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:14 pm Revolution. You can't fix a broken system with it's own broken tools,

yes...a revolution with an eye toward a natural rights libertarian minarchy is exactly what we need

bet you have other ideas, though

Libertarian Whatever would be much better than what we have now, but in most cases it would result in recreating the wheel. We need most of the essential parts of the current system, it's the glue that holds them together that is made of purest bullshit - layer upon layer of assumption, compromise, legal fictions, band-aids, capture, graft, misappropriation of words...

not really...my strain is just principles everyone intuitively knows...the wheel requires no re-creation...just gotta toss out all bullshit you mention and get rollin'

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:51 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:32 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:22 pm

yes...a revolution with an eye toward a natural rights libertarian minarchy is exactly what we need

bet you have other ideas, though

Libertarian Whatever would be much better than what we have now, but in most cases it would result in recreating the wheel. We need most of the essential parts of the current system, it's the glue that holds them together that is made of purest bullshit - layer upon layer of assumption, compromise, legal fictions, band-aids, capture, graft, misappropriation of words...

not really...my strain is just principles everyone intuitively knows...the wheel requires no re-creation...just gotta toss out all bullshit you mention and get rollin'

Would a "revolution with an eye toward a natural right libertarian minarchy, with just the principles everyone intuitively knows" include NO harm to "others"?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:03 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:51 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:32 pm

Libertarian Whatever would be much better than what we have now, but in most cases it would result in recreating the wheel. We need most of the essential parts of the current system, it's the glue that holds them together that is made of purest bullshit - layer upon layer of assumption, compromise, legal fictions, band-aids, capture, graft, misappropriation of words...

not really...my strain is just principles everyone intuitively knows...the wheel requires no re-creation...just gotta toss out all bullshit you mention and get rollin'

Would a "revolution with an eye toward a natural right libertarian minarchy, with just the principles everyone intuitively knows" include NO harm to "others"?

probably not...slavers are gonna slave: they'll hurt folks...when slavers are caught, they die

my minarchy is not a utopia

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:04 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:03 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:51 am

not really...my strain is just principles everyone intuitively knows...the wheel requires no re-creation...just gotta toss out all bullshit you mention and get rollin'

Would a "revolution with an eye toward a natural right libertarian minarchy, with just the principles everyone intuitively knows" include NO harm to "others"?

probably not...slavers are gonna slave: they'll hurt folks...when slavers are caught, they die

my minarchy is not a utopia

Okay, so why exactly do these, so called, "slavers" die when they are caught?

And, If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?

If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?

*a man belongs to himself (you are your own, right?)

*his life, liberty, property are his (your life, liberty, property are yours, right?)

*his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of life, liberty, or property (if someone takes what's yours, they ought to have a consequence, right?)

do no harm is in there but not as a contextless, meaningless, feel-good, bit of hokum


Okay, so why exactly do these, so called, "slavers" die when they are caught?

they ought to die cuz slavers treat a man as property

the slaver isn't stealin' a man's tv or wallet...the slaver, like the murderer or rapist, literally steals or abuses another's life

seems to me to be a death-worthy offense

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:36 pm If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?

*a man belongs to himself (you are your own, right?)

*his life, liberty, property are his (your life, liberty, property are yours, right?)

*his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of life, liberty, or property (if someone takes what's yours, they ought to have a consequence, right?)

nope you do not "own" yourself nor any property unless you have the power to keep others from taking it, or you live where the powers that be agree to let you have use of it under certain conditions. example you can't continue to own land without maintaining the tax on it, or the powers that be take it. if you commit a crime whereas the Gov according to the agreement has the right to take your life or can incarcerate you taking your freedom to be and do. hence you belong to them.

so without an agreement with power you have and or own nothing not even yourself. slaves were slaves because they did not have the power to posses their own freedom. either by force and fear like sex slaves or by the powers that be, like slavery back in the day. there was a time when thieves and the like were given to slavery in stead of imprisonment.

ethics and "morality" are based on the agreement at hand such as a constitution or a marriage contract. therefore without agreements there is no entitlement and if there be entitlement its within the agreement. also a agreement like the US constitution is a open end agreement that can be renegotiated called amendments suppressing the need for violent revolution. hence the agreement in the constitution for the Gov to allow the public to demonstrate peacefully to express the need for renegotiation.

but demonstration isn't intuitively a "right", its only agreed that the Gov won't open fire if a demonstration is executed according to the law, which is also a part of the agreement.

[quote=DPMartin post_id=489413 time=1610465505 user_id=13848]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488984 time=1610307412 user_id=472]
[b]If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?[/b]

*a man belongs to himself (you are your own, right?)

*his life, liberty, property are his (your life, liberty, property are yours, right?)

*his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of life, liberty, or property (if someone takes what's yours, they ought to have a consequence, right?)


[/quote]

nope you do not "own" yourself nor any property unless you have the power to keep others from taking it, or you live where the powers that be agree to let you have use of it under certain conditions. example you can't continue to own land without maintaining the tax on it, or the powers that be take it. if you commit a crime whereas the Gov according to the agreement has the right to take your life or can incarcerate you taking your freedom to be and do. hence you belong to them.

so without an agreement with power you have and or own nothing not even yourself. slaves were slaves because they did not have the power to posses their own freedom. either by force and fear like sex slaves or by the powers that be, like slavery back in the day. there was a time when thieves and the like were given to slavery in stead of imprisonment.

ethics and "morality" are based on the agreement at hand such as a constitution or a marriage contract. therefore without agreements there is no entitlement and if there be entitlement its within the agreement. also a agreement like the US constitution is a open end agreement that can be renegotiated called amendments suppressing the need for violent revolution. hence the agreement in the constitution for the Gov to allow the public to demonstrate peacefully to express the need for renegotiation.

but demonstration isn't intuitively a "right", its only agreed that the Gov won't open fire if a demonstration is executed according to the law, which is also a part of the agreement.
[/quote]

Ownership is best understood as certainty of access and control. If you haven't got that, whether of yourself or property, your ownership may be legitimate but not actual. I am the legitimate owner of the universe but have no actual ownership of it in any meaningful sense.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:31 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:36 pm If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?

*a man belongs to himself (you are your own, right?)

*his life, liberty, property are his (your life, liberty, property are yours, right?)

*his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of life, liberty, or property (if someone takes what's yours, they ought to have a consequence, right?)

nope you do not "own" yourself nor any property unless you have the power to keep others from taking it, or you live where the powers that be agree to let you have use of it under certain conditions. example you can't continue to own land without maintaining the tax on it, or the powers that be take it. if you commit a crime whereas the Gov according to the agreement has the right to take your life or can incarcerate you taking your freedom to be and do. hence you belong to them.

so without an agreement with power you have and or own nothing not even yourself. slaves were slaves because they did not have the power to posses their own freedom. either by force and fear like sex slaves or by the powers that be, like slavery back in the day. there was a time when thieves and the like were given to slavery in stead of imprisonment.

ethics and "morality" are based on the agreement at hand such as a constitution or a marriage contract. therefore without agreements there is no entitlement and if there be entitlement its within the agreement. also a agreement like the US constitution is a open end agreement that can be renegotiated called amendments suppressing the need for violent revolution. hence the agreement in the constitution for the Gov to allow the public to demonstrate peacefully to express the need for renegotiation.

but demonstration isn't intuitively a "right", its only agreed that the Gov won't open fire if a demonstration is executed according to the law, which is also a part of the agreement.

as a moral realist, I disagree with pretty much everything in your response

question: is slavery wrong?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:51 pm
as a moral realist, I disagree with pretty much everything in your response

question: is slavery wrong?

well morals believe it or not is relative, relative to those in a agreement, which is the agreed morals, or rules, or behavior, or this for that.

without the agreement and the power to enforce it, there's no binding of obligation and restoration that is justified, only what I can take from you and visa versa. that's reality.


as far as slavery, is it wrong according to what, your views, social norms, the law of the land, what?

[quote=DPMartin post_id=489599 time=1610552813 user_id=13848]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=489423 time=1610470268 user_id=472]

as a moral realist, I disagree with pretty much everything in your response

question: is slavery wrong?
[/quote]

well morals believe it or not is relative, relative to those in a agreement, which is the agreed morals, or rules, or behavior, or this for that.

without the agreement and the power to enforce it, there's no binding of obligation and restoration that is justified, only what I can take from you and visa versa. that's reality.


as far as slavery, is it wrong according to what, your views, social norms, the law of the land, what?
[/quote]

You're going to have to start further down than that. What do you mean by slavery? There are many many variations on controlling other people's lives. Wage slavery certainly counts in most of the ways that matter, as does democracy. If you mean ultimate control over someone's life and death, even during most of America's slave days that wasn't the case, at least not legally. In a practical sense, any billionaire can do as they please with any poor person's life.