Somalia Libertarian Paradise

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

_{O.T. "When you see the blasphemy in the temple where it ought not be know the Lord is near."}

 

_{Have no fear Jesus is almost here, if paedophile priests are the blasphemy in the temple where it should not be. The actual 2nd coming, the final judgement, unsure how many there already has been, maybe each scroll reveals justice and/or mercy. I don't know what or which scroll is going to be opened but it's going to be awesome either way. But I know it isn't going to be world war 3 because one of the Fatima prophecies says there won't be a world war 3.}

Edited August 17, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I should rephrase myself and say ' possibly the actual second coming. ' I know jesus is already here amongst us in faith,hope and love which includes the precious body and blood, but the second coming will be a very particular revealing of Gods intentions for mankind.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

By the way, i'm scraping this avatar till I find another more suitable. The book it is from premotes telepathy, which Jesus says " a man can not read another mans thoughts."

[Winchester]

 

1. Do you support a form of law that says no person should be forced to help others even if it means rapists and murders get to roam free and continue to commit murders and rapes?

 

2. Do you support a form of government that says that if no one wants to help the rape victim bring her attacker to justice then they should not be forced to help and she is just out of luck and if it happens to her again, its not anyone elses problem but hers?

 

 

I want to cover these two first.

 

This is the law that exists naturally. There is nothing in natural law permitting anyone to use violence to force others to provide aid. This has nothing to do with whether it's anyone else's problem. It's a lack of authority, not a lack of moral responsibility. God might well have something to say about those who could help but choose not to. It might even be sinful to avoid helping someone when one could. That doesn't mean there's a right to compel others through use of violence to help. It is virtuous to aid people. Virtue is a choice. 

 

I would compare it to the Church's position on the ordination of women. The Church teaches that she was never conferred the authority to ordain women. 

 

 

This does not answer the question on whether the State may use aggression. Perhaps the State is a special entity, bestowed privileges beyond those given to men. How does one become a State? In the US, the argument is that rule comes from the consent of the governed. All powers possessed by the government were delegated ultimately from the people. If individuals do not have the power to use aggression, then the US and all governments within it cannot use aggression. You cannot logically delegate a power you yourself do not possess. Suppose you own a car. I cannot use it without your permission. I lack the power to use your property. If I hire someone, I cannot give him the right to use your car. I do not gain a right by hiring an agent. In the US, our politicians are supposedly our agents, acting on our behalf with our consent. This is obviously false, but that is the justification provided by the political class. I side completely with Gerard Casey on this matter: http://mises.org/daily/3383

[God the Father]

Winchester is right as always

[havok579257]

I want to cover these two first.

 

This is the law that exists naturally. There is nothing in natural law permitting anyone to use violence to force others to provide aid. This has nothing to do with whether it's anyone else's problem. It's a lack of authority, not a lack of moral responsibility. God might well have something to say about those who could help but choose not to. It might even be sinful to avoid helping someone when one could. That doesn't mean there's a right to compel others through use of violence to help. It is virtuous to aid people. Virtue is a choice. 

 

I would compare it to the Church's position on the ordination of women. The Church teaches that she was never conferred the authority to ordain women. 

 

 

This does not answer the question on whether the State may use aggression. Perhaps the State is a special entity, bestowed privileges beyond those given to men. How does one become a State? In the US, the argument is that rule comes from the consent of the governed. All powers possessed by the government were delegated ultimately from the people. If individuals do not have the power to use aggression, then the US and all governments within it cannot use aggression. You cannot logically delegate a power you yourself do not possess. Suppose you own a car. I cannot use it without your permission. I lack the power to use your property. If I hire someone, I cannot give him the right to use your car. I do not gain a right by hiring an agent. In the US, our politicians are supposedly our agents, acting on our behalf with our consent. This is obviously false, but that is the justification provided by the political class. I side completely with Gerard Casey on this matter: http://mises.org/daily/3383

 

 

I guess that doesn't really answer my question to #2.  Let me ask it better.  In anarchy who is responsible for bringing criminals to justice if the victim is not able to? Is there a communal responsibility to bring this person to justice or not?  In this form of law who is responsible in seeing justice is done for victims or is no one responsible for seeking justice except for the victim who was attacked?

[Winchester]

I guess that doesn't really answer my question to #2.  Let me ask it better.  In anarchy who is responsible for bringing criminals to justice if the victim is not able to? Is there a communal responsibility to bring this person to justice or not?  In this form of law who is responsible in seeing justice is done for victims or is no one responsible for seeking justice except for the victim who was attacked?

 

It depends on the agreements made in a given area.

 

I believe all people bear a moral responsibility to further justice and to aid their fellow man. I just reject that anyone has the authority to force this. 

[Norseman82]

_{O.T. "When you see the blasphemy in the temple where it ought not be know the Lord is near."}

 

_{Have no fear Jesus is almost here, if paedophile priests are the blasphemy in the temple where it should not be. The actual 2nd coming, the final judgement, unsure how many there already has been, maybe each scroll reveals justice and/or mercy. I don't know what or which scroll is going to be opened but it's going to be amesome either way. But I know it isn't going to be world war 3 because one of the Fatima prophecies says there won't be a world war 3.}

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0JDfaT4_w

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k

[Era Might]

This is the law that exists naturally. There is nothing in natural law permitting anyone to use violence to force others to provide aid. This has nothing to do with whether it's anyone else's problem. It's a lack of authority, not a lack of moral responsibility. God might well have something to say about those who could help but choose not to. It might even be sinful to avoid helping someone when one could. That doesn't mean there's a right to compel others through use of violence to help. It is virtuous to aid people. Virtue is a choice. 

 

I think social authority and force are both natural in our world, though not ideal. If we take as our assumption that we live in a fallen world, then I think force is really the only way to make sense of anything. Society or civilization is a way to structure and organize power. Of course, how this emerges is different in every society and civilization, but the basic emergence of power as a way to distribute and enforce law is fundamental. I don't think humanity can be conceived from the standpoint of individual autonomy. Even Adam was the head of Eve, though our model of power is not based on their relationship, but on their being cast out of the garden, upon which they entered a new world order.

 

 

 

To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;

in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you."
[17] And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
`You shall not eat of it,'
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
[18] thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
[19] In the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
you are dust,
and to dust you shall return."

 

--Genesis 3:16-19

Edited August 17, 2013 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

If an individual who is harmed has some right to restitution, they may also be able to delegate that right to a third party, much like collection agencies. I have not developed that line of thought very far yet.

[Era Might]

If an individual who is harmed has some right to restitution, they may also be able to delegate that right to a third party, much like collection agencies. I have not developed that line of thought very far yet.

 

Could be problematic, that could also create a loan shark model. I think authority arises from within culture and community, it is not an individual claim, but a recognition of those in the community who are guardians of its values and laws.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

Could be problematic, that could also create a loan shark model. I think authority arises from within culture and community, it is not an individual claim, but a recognition of those in the community who are guardians of its values and laws.

Is that not essentially circular?

[Era Might]

Is that not essentially circular?

 

What do you mean?

[Nihil Obstat]

What do you mean?

You said authority comes from guardians of values and laws. Where do those laws come from besides a pre-existing authority?
You seem to be saying that legitimate authority exercises influence in the context of a particular culture. But I amnot sure about what you are saying regarding the origin of those values.

[Era Might]

You said authority comes from guardians of values and laws. Where do those laws come from besides a pre-existing authority?
You seem to be saying that legitimate authority exercises influence in the context of a particular culture. But I amnot sure about what you are saying regarding the origin of those values.

 

No, the authority doesn't come from them, but they are the recognized guardians of authority and law, for whatever reason (status, wisdom, profession, winning an election, etc). The values and laws come out of culture and civilization.

 

It's one of the big unanswered questions about modern law and civilization...can there be such a thing as an abstract law, not rooted in culture and civilization (and, by implication, religion), but purely aimed at preserving individual autonomy?

 

I'm saying that authority and force are necessary to have values and community. But this authority and force is always born out of a particular community / civilization / etc., which is why change is possible. Authority is not absolute or abstract, and that makes revolution and evolution possible.

 

This is why Christ can say "You have heard it said, but I say to you..." He was creating a new community, a new source of law and authority.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Era Might