I Hate Politics

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='26 November 2009 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1259281867' post='2009913']
The handful are all that are needed to prove that it is possible. The ideal should always be strived for, and the decadence of the masses is no excuse not to try. Your logic is not logic at all. Gandhi used the same reasoning to deny the Truth held in Christianity; "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

You cannot fight philosophic truths with the excuse that people do not heed said truths. In fact, people very rarely admit Truth.

Edit: I obviously don't agree with everything Plato says, only much of what he says about the ideal ruler.
[/quote]

Gandhi did not successfully deny the truth of Christianity by saying that Christians fail to act like Christ. He successfully pointed out that Christians have a lot of work to do.

Do you really want an ideal to strive for? Every man's mind and heart and, [i]through[/i] the mind and heart, their bodies, should be governed by gentle Christ, not the physical violence of other men. [i]That[/i] is an ideal to be striven for. Your "ideal ruler" will invariably cause more deaths than he prevents. There is no such thing as an "ideal abortion clinic director." The nature of the instititution is the problem, and you will not change it by putting a virtuous man in charge of an intrinsically disordered institution such as an abortion clinic or a State.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 27, 2009 by Sternhauser

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 November 2009 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1259282215' post='2009916']
Gandhi did not successfully deny the truth of Christianity by saying that Christians fail to act like Christ. He successfully pointed out that Christians have a lot of work to do.

Do you really want an ideal to strive for? Every man's mind and heart and, [i]through[/i] the mind and heart, their bodies, should be governed by gentle Christ, not the physical violence of other men. [i]That[/i] is an ideal to be striven for. Your "ideal ruler" will invariably cause more deaths than he prevents. There is no such thing as an "ideal abortion clinic director." The nature of the instititution is the problem, and you will not change it by putting a virtuous man in charge of an intrinsically disordered institution such as an abortion clinic or a State.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Yes, the Church obviously frowned upon the efforts of King Louis IX of France because he caused the deaths of many Muslems.

If I have an ideal ruler in mind it goes without saying that he will not cause needless deaths; hence the word [i]ideal[/i].

Edit: I can't believe you compared the State to an abortion clinic. The latter exists solely to take human life while the former exists to safeguard it. Of course the State can fail in the duty sometimes, but that is its ultimate purpose.

Edited November 27, 2009 by aalpha1989

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='26 November 2009 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1259282392' post='2009917']
Yes, the Church obviously frowned upon the efforts of King Louis IX of France because he caused the deaths of many Muslems.

If I have an ideal ruler in mind it goes without saying that he will not cause needless deaths; hence the word [i]ideal[/i].

Edit: I can't believe you compared the State to an abortion clinic. The latter exists solely to take human life while the former exists to safeguard it. Of course the State can fail in the duty sometimes, but that is its ultimate purpose.
[/quote]

You failed to recognize the object of the analogy. Abortion clinics are intrinsically unjust because by their nature, they murder innocents. The State is intrinsically unjust because by nature, it relies upon the initiation of violence against non-aggressors in order to fund its activities.

Jesus Christ is [i]the[/i] ideal ruler.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 27, 2009 by Sternhauser

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 November 2009 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1259282625' post='2009921']
You failed to recognize the intent of the analogy. Abortion clinics are intrinsically unjust because by their nature, they murder innocents. The State is intrinsically unjust because by nature, it relies upon the initiation of violence against non-aggressors in order to fund its activities.

Jesus Christ is [i]the[/i] ideal ruler.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

No, abortion clinics are intrinsically unjust because they exist for the purpose of murdering innocents. This is not the purpose of the State and never has been. It also does not essentially rely upon initiation of violence, it incidentally does.

The essence of the abortion clinic is evil, while it may have good accidents.

The essence of the State is good, while it may have evil accidents.

The two are incomparable.

[Lounge Daddy]

Politics hates you, too. And me.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='26 November 2009 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1259282841' post='2009923']
Politics hates you, too. And me.
[/quote]

This is true.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='26 November 2009 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1259282782' post='2009922']
No, abortion clinics are intrinsically unjust because they exist for the purpose of murdering innocents.[/quote]


That is precisely what I said. The goodness of an act must include the means [i]and [/i]the end. You cannot separate the end and the means of killing innocents. Both the means and the end must be good in order to have a good act. If I want to convert people to Catholicism, that is a good act. Attempting to convert them through [i]torture[/i] would make my entire act immoral.


[quote]
This is not the purpose of the State and never has been. It also does not essentially rely upon initiation of violence, it incidentally does.[/quote]

The State, by its essence, is a territorial monopoly on violence, and relies on funds taken by force or the threat of force, from non-aggressors. If it does not do those things, it is not a State, it is a [i]government. [/i]For example[i], [/i]the Catholic Church is a [i]government. [/i]It is not a [i]State.[/i]


[quote]
The essence of the abortion clinic is evil, while it may have good accidents.

The essence of the State is good, while it may have evil accidents.

The two are incomparable.
[/quote]

The essence of [i]government[/i] is good. The essence of the [i]State[/i] is not. The two terms are not interchangeable.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 27, 2009 by Sternhauser

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 November 2009 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1259283197' post='2009927']
That is precisely what I said. Purpose includes the means [i]and [/i]the end. You cannot separate the end and the means of killing innocents.
[/quote]

You can, actually. That's why the end and the means have different names. That's not really the point, though, since I was addressing neither the end nor the means.

If the end or the mean is evil, the action is evil. If a State unjustly takes a life, of course that action is evil. That action is not essential to what a State is. If you remove the action, the State remains a State, and is therefore NOT intrinsically evil.

If you remove the same action from an abortion clinic, it is no longer an abortion clinic. Abortion clinics are therefore intrinsically evil.

[quote]
The State, by its essence, is a territorial monopoly on violence, and relies on funds taken from non-aggressors. If it does not do those things, it is not a State, it is a [i]government. [/i]The Catholic Church is a [i]government. [/i]It is not a [i]State.[/i]
[/quote]
From Webster:

[b]5 a[/b] [b]:[/b] a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; [i]especially[/i] [b]:[/b] one that is sovereign [b]b[/b] [b]:[/b] the political organization of such a body of people [b]c[/b] [b]:[/b] a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the welfare state>
[b]6[/b] [b]:[/b] the operations or concerns of the government of a country
[b]7 a[/b] [b]:[/b] one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government <the fifty state[i]s[/i]> [b]b[/b] [i]plural[/i] [i]capitalized[/i] [b]:[/b] The United States of America
[b]8[/b] [b]:[/b] the territory of a state

I see nothing about "funds taken from non-agressors" (by which I am assuming you mean any and all taxes). Whether taxes are just or not is a different debate. According to Webster, taxes are just as irrelevant to the essence of a State as unjust killing is. You can't just make up definitions.

[quote]
The essence of [i]government[/i] is good. The essence of the [i]State[/i] is not. The two terms are not interchangeable.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

You are right that they are not interchangeable. I have used them interchangeably in the past, though I am not sure that I did in this thread. When I said that the essence of the State was good, I meant just that.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='26 November 2009 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1259282392' post='2009917']
Yes, the Church obviously frowned upon the efforts of King Louis IX of France because he caused the deaths of many Muslems.
[/quote]

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='26 November 2009 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1259284154' post='2009937']

[/quote]

sarcasm

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='26 November 2009 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1259283731' post='2009931']
You can, actually. That's why the end and the means have different names. That's not really the point, though, since I was addressing neither the end nor the means.[/quote]

Please review my updated post.

[quote]If the end or the mean is evil, the action is evil. If a State unjustly takes a life, of course that action is evil. That action is not essential to what a State is. If you remove the action, the State remains a State, and is therefore NOT intrinsically evil.

If you remove the same action from an abortion clinic, it is no longer an abortion clinic. Abortion clinics are therefore intrinsically evil.[/quote]

Again, I did [i]not [/i]say that the intrinsically evil aspect of each institution was the [i]killing of innocents.[/i] I said that both institutions are intrinsically evil because by their very natures, they do intrinsically evil things.


[quote]From Webster:

[b]5 a[/b] [b]:[/b] a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; [i]especially[/i] [b]:[/b] one that is sovereign [b]b[/b] [b]:[/b] the political organization of such a body of people [b]c[/b] [b]:[/b] a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the welfare state>
[b]6[/b] [b]:[/b] the operations or concerns of the government of a country
[b]7 a[/b] [b]:[/b] one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government <the fifty state[i]s[/i]> [b]b[/b] [i]plural[/i] [i]capitalized[/i] [b]:[/b] The United States of America
[b]8[/b] [b]:[/b] the territory of a state

I see nothing about "funds taken from non-agressors" (by which I am assuming you mean any and all taxes). Whether taxes are just or not is a different debate. According to Webster, taxes are just as irrelevant to the essence of a State as unjust killing is. You can't just make up definitions.[/quote]

Webster has this to say of an "annulment."
[list=1][*] an annulling or being annulled[*] an invalidation, as of a marriage, by the decree of a court.[/list]
A Catholic annulment is not an invalidation of a marriage, it is a statement that a marriage never existed. While it is sometimes a good starting point, it is best not to rely upon Webster's for philosophical distinctions.

A State is not merely a synonym for "government," as either a noun or a verb.

To quote author Stephan Kinsella, [font="Arial"][size="2"]"To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified." [/size][/font]

[quote]You are right that they are not interchangeable. I have used them interchangeably in the past, though I am not sure that I did in this thread. When I said that the essence of the State was good, I meant just that.
[/quote]

You can't just make up definitions? Aristotle called man a "featherless biped." A definition, but hardly an exhaustive one. You don't just "make up" definitions, you're right: you look at reality and define real things by their natural attributes. Webster's definition would include a [i]bake sale [/i]to raise funds for a political candidate as an example of a "State."

~Sternhauser

Edited November 27, 2009 by Sternhauser

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 November 2009 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1259283197' post='2009927']
That is precisely what I said. The goodness of an act must include the means [i]and [/i]the end. You cannot separate the end and the means of killing innocents. Both the means and the end must be good in order to have a good act. If I want to convert people to Catholicism, that is a good act. Attempting to convert them through [i]torture[/i] would make my entire act immoral.
[/quote]

I would still respond thus. I have already recognized that both must be good in order for an action to be good.


[quote name='aalpha1989' date='26 November 2009 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1259283731' post='2009931']
You can, actually. That's why the end and the means have different names. That's not really the point, though, since I was addressing neither the end nor the means.

If the end or the mean is evil, the action is evil. If a State unjustly takes a life, of course that action is evil. That action is not essential to what a State is. If you remove the action, the State remains a State, and is therefore NOT intrinsically evil.


[quote name='Sternhauser' date='26 November 2009 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1259284578' post='2009942']
Again, I did [i]not [/i]say that the intrinsically evil aspect of each institution was the [i]killing of innocents.[/i] I said that both institutions have intrinsically evil attributes.
[/quote]

It is not merely attributes of the abortion clinic that make it intrinisically evil. It is the essence. Attributes do not have the power to render something intriniscally evil because they are by definition not the essence of the thing. Abortion clinics are essentially evil. States [i]can have[/i] but [i]do not essentially[/i] have evil attributes.


[quote]
Webster has this to say of an "annulment."
[list=1][*] an annulling or being annulled[*] an invalidation, as of a marriage, by the decree of a court.[/list]A Catholic annulment is not an invalidation of a marriage, it is a statement that a marriage never existed. While it is sometimes a good starting point, it is best not to rely upon Webster's for philosophical distinctions.
[/quote]

fine, but this is a different issue. Catholic annulments are internal affairs and have been defined by the Church. The word "State" has not been, and the Church often upholds certain rights of the State. The Church has never decreed that taxes are essential to the State.

[quote]
A State is not merely a synonym for "government," as either a noun or a verb.
[/quote]
Again, I am not aware that I ever used one for the other in this thread, though if I did I meant "State" rather than "government", and never vice versa.

[quote]
To quote author Stephan Kinsella, [font="Arial"][size="2"]"To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified." [/size][/font]
[/quote]

Catholic doctrine is that the State is sometimes justified in using aggression (however rarely). I also contend that States do NOT necessarily employ aggression, it is only the trend. Again, aggression is not essential to a State, only an attribute that is usually present.

[quote]
You can't just make up definitions? Aristotle called man a "featherless biped." A definition, but hardly an exhaustive one. You don't just "make up" definitions, you're right: you look at reality and define real things by their natural attributes. Webster's definition would include a [i]bake sale [/i]to raise funds for a political candidate as an example of a "State."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Alright, but to use a definition in an argument the definition has to be mutually agreed upon, and I refuse to admit taxes or unjust aggression as part of the definition of the State.

[Sternhauser]

Aalpha wrote: [quote]It is not merely attributes of the abortion clinic that make it intrinisically evil. It is the essence. Attributes do not have the power to render something intriniscally evil because they are by definition not the essence of the thing. Abortion clinics are essentially evil. States [i]can have[/i] but [i]do not essentially[/i] have evil attributes.[/quote]

For the third time, I am not saying that the injustice of taking a life is intrinsic to the State. I am saying that the initiation of aggression in order to fund its operations [i]is[/i] intrinsic (essential) to the State.

Sternhauser wrote:
[quote]Webster has this to say of an "annulment."
[list][*] an annulling or being annulled[*] an invalidation, as of a marriage, by the decree of a court.[/list]A Catholic annulment is not an invalidation of a marriage, it is a statement that a marriage never existed. While it is sometimes a good starting point, it is best not to rely upon Webster's for philosophical distinctions.[/quote]


AAlpha wrote: [quote]fine, but this is a different issue. Catholic annulments are internal affairs and have been defined by the Church. The word "State" has not been, and the Church often upholds certain rights of the State. The Church has never decreed that taxes are essential to the State.[/quote]

How can an unspecified entity have rights? Can you say, "Something has rights, but I don't know what it is?" and have it actually [i]mean [/i]something? You are right to say that the Church has never decreed that taxes are essential to the State. But the definition of the State is not a religious matter. It is a logical matter.



Sternhauser wrote: [quote]To quote author Stephan Kinsella, "To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And,therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified." [/quote]

AAlpha wrote: [quote]Catholic doctrine is that the State is sometimes justified in using aggression (however rarely). I also contend that States do NOT necessarily employ aggression, it is only the trend. Again, aggression is not essential to a State, only an attribute that is usually present.[/quote]

Catholic doctrine is that the undefined State may use [i]violence[/i], not aggression, which by definition is an [i]unprovoked[/i] and also unjust act. Violence is morally neutral. Aggression is morally wrong. Taxation is aggression, and I hold that it is an essential aspect of the State. If I washed your windshield at a stoplight, and you did not ask you me to do so, I would have no right to threaten you to pay me for washing your windshield.


[quote]Alright, but to use a definition in an argument the definition has to be mutually agreed upon, and I refuse to admit taxes or unjust aggression as part of the definition of the State.[/quote]

All right. I agree with you: bake sales are not intrinsically evil.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 27, 2009 by Sternhauser

[MissyP89]

I started a Facebook group a long time ago called C.R.A.P.--Catholics Resenting American Politics.

[Era Might]

The philosophy of politics is more likeable than politics itself. To paraphrase Plato, either politicians need to become philosophers or philosophers need to become politicians.