WISE WORDSHomeWords of wisdom by Pete Moore April 2, 2013 58 9 yrs Tweet Click to rate this post![Total: 0 Average: 0] Words of wisdom Post navigation Previous postNext post 58 thoughts on “WISE WORDS” Who decides whether it is immoral or not in the first place, O Libertarian Pete?! I decide for myself. I can’t decide for anyone else, no-one else can decide for me. What about you? No you miss my point Pete. Your Walter is saying that it is the majority who decide what is legal, but not necessarily moral. As in the time of the Nazi Party or Soviet China/Russia. What I am saying is that individual people whether for religious or philosophical reasons offered up moral values which they believed were either God given or intrinsically right in themselves. Williams doesn’t say that the majority get to decide what is legal. He’s not a child, he’s not deceived by this democracy silliness and he doesn’t go along with the infantile notion that the majority get to decide what is legal because of it. Why are his words wise? Is there some imaginary friend who Williams thinks he is debating with who claims that because something is technically legal in some place or time it must be moral? If the majority don’t decide then who does? When did you last vote on legislation? That’s not generally how it works here. We have representative government, for better, and worse. We vote for representatives. Mr. Williams is likely aware of that. The peons thinks they get to decide the law. Bless. I decide for myself. I can’t decide for anyone else, no-one else can decide for me So morality is subjective? I’ll remember that in the future. The current system stinks, but I’ll take it any day over a Paulie / Gold Bug cabal. Pete – Since no one wrote that they get to decide the law I have to ask – Are you taking up the flag of false claims about others’ arguments for Troll now that he has left? Isn’t conspiracy nonsense enough of a credibility gap to maintain? Where’s Patty? I need to ask her something “He’s not a child, he’s not deceived by this democracy silliness and he doesn’t go along with the infantile notion that the majority get to decide what is legal because of it.” So when you write that the collective can legitimately restrict immigration from certain countries to 0, how did you imagine that the collective would go about deciding to do so? How would anyone know what the ‘collective’ had or had not decided? Mahons – Agit8ed and Phantom seem to believe “the majority decides what’s legal”. You seem to have weighed in on their side. Figure out for yourself what you’re saying. We seem to have Christians in these here parts. I wouldn’t mind if they started discussing the kind of thing Williams posits in his first sentence. Well spotted Frank. Maybe a bit of direct democracy, referendums, that kind of thing could be used with a pretty high bar for any resolution being adopted. The majority rules, subject to protection for minorities, etc in accordance with the rule of law. That’s the plan, anyway. If the majority did not rule, what would be the point of elections? Oh I forgot, you don’t like them. When did you last get to rule? One person does not rule. But I had a say in the election of some pretty great people, including Mayor Giuliani. We changed this city for the better, and I played my small role in that. Agit8ed, “What I am saying is that individual people whether for religious or philosophical reasons offered up moral values which they believed were either God given or intrinsically right in themselves.” So what? People who have committed all sorts of atrocities have done the same. Pete, “Maybe a bit of direct democracy, referendums, that kind of thing could be used with a pretty high bar for any resolution being adopted.” That sounds kind of like the majority deciding what is legal. Anyway, it could be, but how would anyone decide what kind of thing would be used or what the bar should be? What happens if some troublemaker starts saying it doesn’t apply to him because he doesn’t consent? There is nothing wonderfully insightfull about the quote. It’s basically a bit of both common sense and meaningless platitude. I don’t see where Phantom or Agit8ed claimed exactly what you say they did. The majority certainly votes for representatives who in turn vote for legislation (usually a majority vote) that in my country is then signed or not signed by the executive and challenged possibly in the Courts. None of which seems to make Mr. Williams an oracle. Colm’s right This is a quote that is a bunch of piffle. A high school kid might find it profound but why would anyone else Yes Frank, it could be the majority deciding what’s legal. An innovation outside of Switzerland! I don’t foresee many troublemakers saying it doesn’t apply to them because they don’t consent. In my world property rights would be protected, not routinely violated. You want your money to go to someone else? You want to live with communists and pool everything you have? Go for it. Mahons – I refer you to Agit8ed’s 7.42pm: “Your Walter is saying that it is the majority who decide what is legal”. Property rights are protected in the US and UK. Which is why rich Russians, Venezuelans, Brazilians, Chinese and others are buying high end properties here. Pete – Now you’ve lost me. Agit8ed’s statement is an interpreation of Williams, not a position he himself is advocating. But as I said, Williams is offering nothing here. Colm – I disagree. There are many things government agents can do which you and I would be locked up for doing. This is, in my opinion, indefensible. If something is wrong for you or I to do then it is wrong for the government to do it. The brains trust is in. Mahons – Yes, that’s Agit8ed’s interpretation. I think Agit8ed is mistaken. I said so in the next comment. However, it’s still Agit8ed’s view. Phantom backed up Agit8ed at 8.08pm. That’s as simple as I can make it. Phantom – You not been taxed lately then? So according to your theory, individuals should have the authority to wage war according to their personal foreign policy? “I don’t foresee many troublemakers saying it doesn’t apply to them because they don’t consent” You’re dodging the question. Unless the decision is unanimous it’s entirely foreseeable that ‘freeborn Englishmen’ would stand up and tell you to get stuffed and they’ll employ, rent a house to, or sell to whoever they like from wherever they are from, and it’s none of your business. And your answer to them would be what? Surely you’re not going to start telling your countrymen what they may do with their property??? Pete Is it right for government agents to arrange the imprisoning of convicted criminals. If you say yes then surely all individuals must be allowed to forceably hold and imprison anyone they believe to have commited a crime. If you say no, then surely you must be calling for all the prison doors to be opened. So according to your theory, individuals should have the authority to wage war according to their personal foreign policy? Try the opposite and see if it works: individuals have the right not to wage war. There – that’s better. Individuals should have the power to levy taxes on their neighbors or anyone they like. I hereby levy a tax upon mahons and Pinky of $10 per word they type on this blog, which I will spend on a stimulus program for Jeremy’s Ale House. Frank O’Dwyer – They might do and I might even be swayed. Even though I believe that national defence is a metter for the collective, at least I’d understand where he’s coming from. Yet because forced, collectivised welfare would be verboten the numbers would be pretty negligible anyway, in my opinion. And who will be employed, an educated Aussie or American or a Somali? There wouldn’t be too many problems coming from that. Phantom – Assuming your 9.38pm is sarcasm (and you and Colm are looking at this through the wrong end of the telescpe), individuals do have the power to levy taxes/loot. They’re called politicians and they have no more moral right to do so than you have. So what if people have voted for them? The voters have no right to tax you, therefore they have no magic taxing power to transfer to politicians. Pete I gave you an example of something government agents do that would be wrong for individuals to do. Do you agree or disagree ? Rulers / governments have always had the power to tax, Mr. Canute. This is common to every society. You are a rebel with a most loopy cause. “Yet because forced, collectivised welfare would be verboten the numbers would be pretty negligible anyway, in my opinion. And who will be employed, an educated Aussie or American or a Somali? There wouldn’t be too many problems coming from that.” So the number isn’t 0 after all then. It’s almost as if some criteria should be applied to individual cases on their merits. Much like the present system. Frank O’Dwyer – Individual cases, on their merits? Not for 400 million people living in the EU. Those cases have already been approved en masse. Colm – “Is it right for government agents to arrange the imprisoning of convicted criminals. If you say yes then surely all individuals must be allowed to forceably hold and imprison anyone they believe to have commited a crime.” The government doesn’t arrange the imprisoning of convicted criminals. It does the imprisoning. Is this right? Not necessarily. Criminals don’t commit crimes against government or society. There are only two parties to a crime: the criminal and the victim. The government interposes itself into the relationship. What then should be a punishment from a criminal act? The criminal should lose his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights. It must be proportional, and a sentence should be a maximum, but at present sentences are a compulsion on the victim also. He has no say in the sentence even though he is the wronged party. In almost all crimes it’s possible to enforce real, meaningful compensaton for the victim. At present this is not happening. Oh for Christ’s sake Phantom – “Rulers / governments have always had the power to tax, Mr. Canute.” I think you have Cnut wrong. Rulers have only had the power to tax through force of arms, which is why the ruled must be as well armed as the rulers. Power, ultimately, flows from the barrel of a gun. That’s all. Criminals do commit crimes against society and the social order. Hence People v. John Doe, Regina v. John Doe. Of course if Pete is robbed he will go to a phone booth, put on his cape and go sort out the bad guys himself. “Not for 400 million people living in the EU. Those cases have already been approved en masse.” Well yes that was the deal as long as Britain is part of the EU – the British can live and work freely around the EU and vice versa. Nobody who believed in free trade would have it any other way of course. I know that was the deal Frank, but none were individually vetted or assessed on their merits. So it’s not the way the system works. “none were individually vetted or assessed on their merits. So it’s not the way the system works.” I said it was much like the present system, and that’s the way it generally works for people who aren’t automatically entitled by law. I’m not sure why anyone would object to that either. As long as people can get a job or can otherwise legally pay their way then why shouldn’t they be allowed to. What does the right of an individual to freely trade and freely associate mean if it doesn’t mean that? You likened the present system to one where individual cases are decided on their merits. Clearly this is the case only if you overlook that 400 million people weren’t assessed on their merits. We don’t have anything like the right to trade or associate freely. What do you think this is, a free country? Pete If I could make head or tail of your convoluted 10.19pm comment about imprisonment I might be able to respond to it. “You likened the present system to one where individual cases are decided on their merits.” Because I was talking about your proposal to restrict immigration from certain countries to 0. In the original context all the places mentioned were outside the EU. “We don’t have anything like the right to trade or associate freely.” That’s your justification for arguing for restrictions on free trade and association? No, I’m stating that we have nothing like the right to trade or associate freely. Neither do we have anything like the right to speak freely. In great part this is a consequence of the vast numbers of aliens from the Third World who have been shipped in. “No, I’m stating that we have nothing like the right to trade or associate freely.” As long as you’re arguing that other people shouldn’t have the right either, it’s hard to take you seriously. “Neither do we have anything like the right to speak freely.” So you’d be happy with immigrants as long you could call them names? Is that it? If that were arranged would you be content or is it just another red herring? Frank O’Dwyer – As long as my liberties are curtailed because of immigrants, yeah, I’ll curtail their’s to associate freely. Having read the crap you’ve come up with this evening, you need to worry about people taking you seriously. Pete – And people should take you seriously because you claim the Colorado Cinema shooter was set up, that Mr. Williams offered a pearl of wisdom and you can personally take care of criminals. What I was saying is that discoveries or pronouncements are not made by the masses (cute and noble as they may be, Petr) They are made by the inquisitive by the philosopher, by the prophet. These discoveries or moral pronouncements are offered to the rest of the community to investigate or believe as they will. It is the leaders of the community who decide whether they should be accepted or not, and the more authoritarian the leadership the more likely the masses will believe what they are told. Thus when Galileo invented the telescope he ran into problems with the church even though his telescope proved that the sun not the earth was the centre of our solar system. The church condemned Galileo as a heretic and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest and was banned from speaking on the subject.. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy Then of course you have the obvious though fictional example of Winston Smith in 1984. Through brain washing and mind control and using (especially) terror he is forced to accept what in his deepest being he knows to be untrue. The Nazis using the Jews (or Khazars or whatever) as scapegoats for Germany’s ills is another. “As long as my liberties are curtailed because of immigrants, yeah, I’ll curtail their’s to associate freely.” Nothing says ‘morality’ quite like abandoning your principles to lash out in hypocritical collective punishment of the blameless. Comments are closed.