Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What limits to liberty?

Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 6:37:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Should a person be able to restrict the liberties of another person in the pursuit of their own liberty?

We all know that government aims to keep people from encroaching on the liberties of others, but isn't this in and of itself a denial of liberty?

How ought the government decide which actions to restrict or criminalize?

In a society as densely populated as the currently emerging global society, it has become nearly impossible to do anything that does not affect many others, either directly or indirectly. Innocent actions often help to create situations in which other innocent people are made to suffer. Under these conditions, what value should we place on liberty, in comparison to other basic values?

Liberty vs. life?

Liberty vs. happiness?

Liberty vs. fairness?

Liberty vs. equality of opportunity?

Liberty vs. community?

Liberty vs. honor?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 6:45:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 6:37:38 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
Should a person be able to restrict the liberties of another person in the pursuit of their own liberty?

We all know that government aims to keep people from encroaching on the liberties of others, but isn't this in and of itself a denial of liberty?

How ought the government decide which actions to restrict or criminalize?

In a society as densely populated as the currently emerging global society, it has become nearly impossible to do anything that does not affect many others, either directly or indirectly. Innocent actions often help to create situations in which other innocent people are made to suffer. Under these conditions, what value should we place on liberty, in comparison to other basic values?

Liberty vs. life?

Liberty vs. happiness?

Liberty vs. fairness?

Liberty vs. equality of opportunity?

Liberty vs. community?

Liberty vs. honor?

Depends on how you define "liberties." I've had this conversation with many a libertarian. The main argument is that once you cross to infringing on someone else's liberty (or freedom), it is no longer a liberty of yours.

This is based on the NAP.

If you take an absolutist view of liberties and freedom (meaning doing anything you are physically capable of doing), then pretty much all libertarians support putting restrictions on that definition of "liberty" based around the NAP.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 7:00:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 6:45:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Depends on how you define "liberties." I've had this conversation with many a libertarian. The main argument is that once you cross to infringing on someone else's liberty (or freedom), it is no longer a liberty of yours.

This is based on the NAP.

If you take an absolutist view of liberties and freedom (meaning doing anything you are physically capable of doing), then pretty much all libertarians support putting restrictions on that definition of "liberty" based around the NAP.

That concept is riddled with inconsistencies. For instance:
Is pollution aggressive? If you own a company that has altered the immediate environment to such an extent that it harms others, have you committed an act of aggression against them?

If a person kills another and steals something and then leaves that stolen property to a descendant, do the descendants or relatives of those who were stolen from have a right to seek justice?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 7:11:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Those aren't inconsistencies, those are questions. Polluting the body of a nonconsenting party is aggression.

Descent has nothing to do with rights.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 7:38:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 7:11:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Those aren't inconsistencies, those are questions. Polluting the body of a nonconsenting party is aggression.

What constitutes consent? If a person breathes poisonous air polluted by another, have they consented? What if they work for the company that is doing the polluting?


Descent has nothing to do with rights.

This doesn't answer the question.
How about this: A man kidnaps another man and sells him to yet another man who then forces him into servitude. The slave owner gets wealthy from the other mans' unpaid labor. Several generations later, the children of the man forced into slavery want justice. The children of the slave holder are still wealthy because they were able to invest the inherited wealth, which was the product of that unpaid labor.

How does the NAT propose to deal with such a dilemma?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 8:34:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 7:38:27 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/12/2011 7:11:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Those aren't inconsistencies, those are questions. Polluting the body of a nonconsenting party is aggression.

What constitutes consent? If a person breathes poisonous air polluted by another, have they consented?
Typically no, unless they themselves create the same sort of pollution just as generally. (For example, breathing out CO2 everyone does and thereby everyone necessarily consents-- no one has standing to complain).

What if they work for the company that is doing the polluting?
Yes, unless the company has defrauded them.



Descent has nothing to do with rights.

This doesn't answer the question.
It certainly does-- justice for crimes against you by definition cannot be sought be your heirs.

How about this: A man kidnaps another man and sells him to yet another man who then forces him into servitude. The slave owner gets wealthy from the other mans' unpaid labor. Several generations later, the children of the man forced into slavery want justice. The children of the slave holder are still wealthy because they were able to invest the inherited wealth, which was the product of that unpaid labor.

How does the NAT propose to deal with such a dilemma?
Hands off. Anything else would be aggression. Neither the victim nor the perpetrator nor even an accomplice is present, only some bystanders with luck. Only the victim has just standing to sue for that property,not his children-- indeed, the people who spent labor investing it have a far stronger claim.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:13:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There should be none.

If I want to rape babies I should be able to because I'm making a rational, selfish decision based on my personal desires (which is paradoxically moral). I should not have to be a slave to the collective will or traditional morality which tells me my desires are wrong. As long as it's in my self interest - and it is, as raping babies is the only activity that gives me pleasure - I should be allowed to do it without the state interfering.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:26:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 8:34:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This doesn't answer the question.
It certainly does-- justice for crimes against you by definition cannot be sought be your heirs.

How about this: A man kidnaps another man and sells him to yet another man who then forces him into servitude. The slave owner gets wealthy from the other mans' unpaid labor. Several generations later, the children of the man forced into slavery want justice. The children of the slave holder are still wealthy because they were able to invest the inherited wealth, which was the product of that unpaid labor.

How does the NAT propose to deal with such a dilemma?
Hands off. Anything else would be aggression. Neither the victim nor the perpetrator nor even an accomplice is present, only some bystanders with luck. Only the victim has just standing to sue for that property,not his children-- indeed, the people who spent labor investing it have a far stronger claim.

Interesting. So then in a libertarian state, a person could conceivably take up a side project as a sort of Robin Hood type, rob the wealthy blind, kill them, and then give it all away. As long as they commit suicide before they are caught, there is no way for any of the descendants of those wealthy folks to get that property back. So there is a Libertarian method for the redistribution of wealth.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:34:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:13:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
There should be none.

If I want to rape babies I should be able to because I'm making a rational, selfish decision based on my personal desires (which is paradoxically moral). I should not have to be a slave to the collective will or traditional morality which tells me my desires are wrong. As long as it's in my self interest - and it is, as raping babies is the only activity that gives me pleasure - I should be allowed to do it without the state interfering.

I think that might be considered an act of aggression against the baby, so in a Libertarian state, you might get into trouble. Unless of course the baby is unable to seek justice - I am not sure if the parents of the one who was harmed would be allowed to do it, since they were not the victims of the aggression, themselves.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:43:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:34:59 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/12/2011 9:13:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
There should be none.

If I want to rape babies I should be able to because I'm making a rational, selfish decision based on my personal desires (which is paradoxically moral). I should not have to be a slave to the collective will or traditional morality which tells me my desires are wrong. As long as it's in my self interest - and it is, as raping babies is the only activity that gives me pleasure - I should be allowed to do it without the state interfering.

I think that might be considered an act of aggression against the baby, so in a Libertarian state, you might get into trouble. Unless of course the baby is unable to seek justice - I am not sure if the parents of the one who was harmed would be allowed to do it, since they were not the victims of the aggression, themselves.

In traditional libertarianism, sure, but if man's highest value is the free pursuit of his self-interest I don't see why I should be constrained. If it's anarchy who knows how people respond. My guess is either lynch mob, private police force (do I have to sign a contract to get arrested?) or raping babies becomes so common that there are too many offenses to bother going after fellow baby rapists.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:46:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How many libertarians actually believe in a private police force? I know most, if not all an-caps do, but what about libertarians?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:47:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:13:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
There should be none.

If I want to rape babies I should be able to because I'm making a rational, selfish decision based on my personal desires (which is paradoxically moral). I should not have to be a slave to the collective will or traditional morality which tells me my desires are wrong.
The infant (or, if the infant is not a person yet, it's owners) are being made a slave to your will. Slavery isn't a concept that can non-contradictorily be introduced into such a discussion.

As long as it's in my self interest - and it is, as raping babies is the only activity that gives me pleasure
I highly doubt the premise there, especially as you are on a debate site right now instead of raping babies..

I should be allowed to do it without the state interfering.
What, you expect the state not to be rationally selfish too? that's the problem with such Nietzschean conceptions of self-interest, they get you killed when you try to act on their craziness, which isn't in your self-interest.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:52:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:26:25 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/12/2011 8:34:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This doesn't answer the question.
It certainly does-- justice for crimes against you by definition cannot be sought be your heirs.

How about this: A man kidnaps another man and sells him to yet another man who then forces him into servitude. The slave owner gets wealthy from the other mans' unpaid labor. Several generations later, the children of the man forced into slavery want justice. The children of the slave holder are still wealthy because they were able to invest the inherited wealth, which was the product of that unpaid labor.

How does the NAT propose to deal with such a dilemma?
Hands off. Anything else would be aggression. Neither the victim nor the perpetrator nor even an accomplice is present, only some bystanders with luck. Only the victim has just standing to sue for that property,not his children-- indeed, the people who spent labor investing it have a far stronger claim.

Interesting. So then in a libertarian state, a person could conceivably take up a side project as a sort of Robin Hood type, rob the wealthy blind, kill them, and then give it all away. As long as they commit suicide before they are caught, there is no way for any of the descendants of those wealthy folks to get that property back. So there is a Libertarian method for the redistribution of wealth.
He wouldn't be libertarian nor would the method, though if somehow this person were omnipotent and suicidal the resulting ruling among the living would be consistent with a libertarian state.

The descendants never had the property to get back. If the libertarian court could restore the life of the property owner from the proceeds of the property in question (without taking the property of some unrelated third party of course), they would, but that's not an option. (Any more than it's a serious option for lib'ruls in a libertarian society to expect someone to become some sort of god among thieves killing all the rich people successfully, be absolutely altruistic, and then kill themselves. I mean seriously, that's ****ing crazy. If you can get that to happen, you're already the dictator of the earth anyway and don't have to worry about us libertarians).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:53:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The infant (or, if the infant is not a person yet, it's owners) are being made a slave to your will. Slavery isn't a concept that can non-contradictorily be introduced into such a discussion.

So what? The baby isn't me. I'm happy, and the only thing that matters is me.

I highly doubt the premise there, especially as you are on a debate site right now instead of raping babies..

I can't rape babies freely because our oppressive democracy imposes the collective will on the population.

What, you expect the state not to be rationally selfish too? that's the problem with such Nietzschean conceptions of self-interest, they get you killed when you try to act on their craziness, which isn't in your self-interest.

The state is only a collection of individuals with their own preconceived notions about right and wrong. They have no right to stop my pursuit of happiness, and my favorite form of happiness is the sexual violation of infants. Raping infants is my selfish desire!
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:54:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:46:14 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
How many libertarians actually believe in a private police force? I know most, if not all an-caps do, but what about libertarians?

Ahh, which of course means that if you are among the poor, and cannot afford a private police force, there is simply no way to seek justice against any aggression committed against you. That will make it much easier to keep people poor. Just keep taking their stuff before they have enough to hire anyone to defend them.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:56:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:43:00 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/12/2011 9:34:59 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/12/2011 9:13:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
There should be none.

If I want to rape babies I should be able to because I'm making a rational, selfish decision based on my personal desires (which is paradoxically moral). I should not have to be a slave to the collective will or traditional morality which tells me my desires are wrong. As long as it's in my self interest - and it is, as raping babies is the only activity that gives me pleasure - I should be allowed to do it without the state interfering.

I think that might be considered an act of aggression against the baby, so in a Libertarian state, you might get into trouble. Unless of course the baby is unable to seek justice - I am not sure if the parents of the one who was harmed would be allowed to do it, since they were not the victims of the aggression, themselves.

In traditional libertarianism, sure, but if man's highest value is the free pursuit of his self-interest I don't see why I should be constrained.

The right not to be attacked is stronger than the non-existent right to attack, sorry.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 9:59:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:53:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The infant (or, if the infant is not a person yet, it's owners) are being made a slave to your will. Slavery isn't a concept that can non-contradictorily be introduced into such a discussion.

So what? The baby isn't me. I'm happy, and the only thing that matters is me.

I highly doubt the premise there, especially as you are on a debate site right now instead of raping babies..

I can't rape babies freely because our oppressive democracy imposes the collective will on the population.
Whining about it won't help. Raping babies in secret might.


What, you expect the state not to be rationally selfish too? that's the problem with such Nietzschean conceptions of self-interest, they get you killed when you try to act on their craziness, which isn't in your self-interest.

The state is only a collection of individuals with their own preconceived notions about right and wrong.
And their own interests.

They have no right to stop my pursuit of happiness
How can you coherently speak of rights with such a notion?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:01:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:52:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He wouldn't be libertarian nor would the method, though if somehow this person were omnipotent and suicidal the resulting ruling among the living would be consistent with a libertarian state.

The descendants never had the property to get back. If the libertarian court could restore the life of the property owner from the proceeds of the property in question (without taking the property of some unrelated third party of course), they would, but that's not an option. (Any more than it's a serious option for lib'ruls in a libertarian society to expect someone to become some sort of god among thieves killing all the rich people successfully, be absolutely altruistic, and then kill themselves. I mean seriously, that's ****ing crazy. If you can get that to happen, you're already the dictator of the earth anyway and don't have to worry about us libertarians).

No need to be omnipotent. Bonnie and Clyde certainly weren't. They redistributed wealth this way. There are lots of people who would do this without regard for their own lives. They simply believe that in doing so they are righting a terrible injustice. They don't have to be rational about it... or even sane. So in such cases a criminal could become a real hero to the poor among the libertarians. Perhaps provide them with enough money to hire their own private police, so that they could keep things.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:06:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:59:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/12/2011 9:53:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The state is only a collection of individuals with their own preconceived notions about right and wrong.
And their own interests.

Yes, and no self-respecting libertarian would imagine that they might have interests in line with those of government. Law Enforcement? Not with my tax money.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:07:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 10:01:13 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/12/2011 9:52:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
He wouldn't be libertarian nor would the method, though if somehow this person were omnipotent and suicidal the resulting ruling among the living would be consistent with a libertarian state.

The descendants never had the property to get back. If the libertarian court could restore the life of the property owner from the proceeds of the property in question (without taking the property of some unrelated third party of course), they would, but that's not an option. (Any more than it's a serious option for lib'ruls in a libertarian society to expect someone to become some sort of god among thieves killing all the rich people successfully, be absolutely altruistic, and then kill themselves. I mean seriously, that's ****ing crazy. If you can get that to happen, you're already the dictator of the earth anyway and don't have to worry about us libertarians).

No need to be omnipotent. Bonnie and Clyde certainly weren't. They redistributed wealth this way.
They robbed mostly small businesses, not wealthy people. Have you any evidence that they gave full proceeds to the poor?

There are lots of people who would do this without regard for their own lives.
Unevidenced assertion.
Perhaps provide them with enough money to hire their own private police, so that they could keep things.
"Private police" is a vague concept. do you mean user fee police (which I support) or police not working for a monopoly sovereign of a jurisdiction (a contradiction)?

Presumably it's cheaper to protect a little property than a lot you know.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:08:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whining about it won't help. Raping babies in secret might.

Gotcha.

How can you coherently speak of rights with such a notion?

I can if my self interest is threatened. This talk about being coherent or non-hypocritical just seems to be an obstacle to my rational self interest.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:08:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 10:06:43 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/12/2011 9:59:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/12/2011 9:53:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The state is only a collection of individuals with their own preconceived notions about right and wrong.
And their own interests.

Yes, and no self-respecting libertarian would imagine that they might have interests in line with those of government. Law Enforcement? Not with my tax money.

With my user-fee money on the other hand, and a minarchist government...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:08:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:56:30 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/12/2011 9:43:00 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
In traditional libertarianism, sure, but if man's highest value is the free pursuit of his self-interest I don't see why I should be constrained.

The right not to be attacked is stronger than the non-existent right to attack, sorry.

But what is going to stop them from attacking? You may have a right to not be attacked, but if you cannot afford to enforce that right, it hardly matters.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:10:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 10:08:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How can you coherently speak of rights with such a notion?

I can if my self interest is threatened. This talk about being coherent or non-hypocritical just seems to be an obstacle to my rational self interest.
The first rule of rationality-- non-contradiction.

It is not rational of you to speak in a manner that makes everyone pay no attention to your speaking as it contains no sense-- it means you are wasting your time by speaking at all.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:14:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 10:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/12/2011 10:01:13 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
There are lots of people who would do this without regard for their own lives.
Unevidenced assertion.

You need evidence for this? People assert their own morality without regard for the law or for their own lives all the time. Terrorists, for instance. If some people are willing to suicide bomb, others will be willing to steal from the rich and give to the poor.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:14:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 10:10:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/12/2011 10:08:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How can you coherently speak of rights with such a notion?

I can if my self interest is threatened. This talk about being coherent or non-hypocritical just seems to be an obstacle to my rational self interest.
The first rule of rationality-- non-contradiction.

It is not rational of you to speak in a manner that makes everyone pay no attention to your speaking as it contains no sense-- it means you are wasting your time by speaking at all.

No, it's rational because it's in my self interest. I would only be verbally pronouncing an embracement of rights if absolutely necessary. I'm quite certain you would do the same.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:20:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 10:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Presumably it's cheaper to protect a little property than a lot you know.

Cheaper still to become a vigilante.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:23:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 9:13:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
There should be none.

If I want to rape babies I should be able to because I'm making a rational, selfish decision based on my personal desires (which is paradoxically moral). I should not have to be a slave to the collective will or traditional morality which tells me my desires are wrong. As long as it's in my self interest - and it is, as raping babies is the only activity that gives me pleasure - I should be allowed to do it without the state interfering.

Okay now, here we have a serious problem. Government, as Thomas Paine put it in Common Sense, exists because man cannot be ruled by his mere moral virtue. If morality stands on the basis that all human beings are guaranteed fair and free opportunities at life, such that each may live his life to its fullest potential, then raping babies is indeed objectively morally wrong. The government, hence established in the defense and enforcement of morality and human right, has the power and the right to interfere should you rape a baby. Honestly, you should not need this explained to you, why would it be okay to impede on the freedom of another?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2011 10:32:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/12/2011 10:23:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/12/2011 9:13:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
There should be none.

If I want to rape babies I should be able to because I'm making a rational, selfish decision based on my personal desires (which is paradoxically moral). I should not have to be a slave to the collective will or traditional morality which tells me my desires are wrong. As long as it's in my self interest - and it is, as raping babies is the only activity that gives me pleasure - I should be allowed to do it without the state interfering.


Okay now, here we have a serious problem. Government, as Thomas Paine put it in Common Sense, exists because man cannot be ruled by his mere moral virtue. If morality stands on the basis that all human beings are guaranteed fair and free opportunities at life, such that each may live his life to its fullest potential, then raping babies is indeed objectively morally wrong. The government, hence established in the defense and enforcement of morality and human right, has the power and the right to interfere should you rape a baby. Honestly, you should not need this explained to you, why would it be okay to impede on the freedom of another?

I believe the context under which OMGJustinBieber made that statement was the assumption of Anarchy. No government.. no law enforcement. Perhaps a Libertarian state, in a location where the bulk of the populace are too poor to be able to pay for a police force and those who are not poor might have police forces, but they would be too busy protecting the wealthy from the poor and would not be able to spare the time to protect the poor also. Perhaps the would-be rapist is wealthy, and simply pays the police force to not to do their job. Raping babies is pretty awful, though, so it might cost a great deal to meet the price of the police for such a service, but surely someone on the force is corruptible enough to have a price that can be met. It only takes one person to compromise the chain of evidence.