Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Animal Abuse in a Libertarian-Based Society?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 4:48:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I had this thought/question about 2 weeks ago.

In a libertarian-based society (whether that be minarchist, anarchist, etc. I group all that under the banner of a society based on libertarian principles), how would animal abuse be handled?

Specific to a libertarian society with a state: would the state protect animals from abuse/mistreatment/neglect? Would there be regulations on businesses to keep them from mistreating animals? Would there be legislation against individuals mistreating animals?

Specific to an anarchistic society: would it be fair to assume that societal shunning/shaming/etc. be the response to a business/person/etc. mistreating animals?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 5:00:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good question!

Specific to an anarchistic society: would it be fair to assume that societal shunning/shaming/etc. be the response to a business/person/etc. mistreating animals?

This better not be all they have to say.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 5:08:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Specific to an anarchistic society: would it be fair to assume that societal shunning/shaming/etc. be the response to a business/person/etc. mistreating animals?
That or community laws.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 5:27:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Animals should not have any rights. They are functionally little more than biological robots.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 5:29:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 4:48:02 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Specific to an anarchistic society: would it be fair to assume that societal shunning/shaming/etc. be the response to a business/person/etc. mistreating animals?

I don't know. I mean assuming a polycentric society you could expect a diverse range of customs and community standards to be in place. Like in community X it might just be social custom not to or community shunning might actually be introduced while in community Y it wouldn't.

Society doesn't work where you just say "States should do this" and then that's that so I can't see much relevance in these hypotheticals since I can say just about anything and ask how States would fix it. I mean you could probs conceptualize some State-based or non-State based solution to any conceivable problem but where exactly does that come into play in the actual functioning of the society? Anarchism is all about letting people themselves come up with practical solutions to various problems instead of just trying to theorize a perfect government into existence who can do everything we want.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 5:31:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 5:29:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/28/2012 4:48:02 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Specific to an anarchistic society: would it be fair to assume that societal shunning/shaming/etc. be the response to a business/person/etc. mistreating animals?

I don't know. I mean assuming a polycentric society you could expect a diverse range of customs and community standards to be in place. Like in community X it might just be social custom not to or community shunning might actually be introduced while in community Y it wouldn't.

Society doesn't work where you just say "States should do this" and then that's that so I can't see much relevance in these hypotheticals since I can say just about anything and ask how States would fix it. I mean you could probs conceptualize some State-based or non-State based solution to any conceivable problem but where exactly does that come into play in the actual functioning of the society? Anarchism is all about letting people themselves come up with practical solutions to various problems instead of just trying to theorize a perfect government into existence who can do everything we want.

I wasn't really making an argument. I was just curious what each INDIVIDUAL libertarian/anarchist would envision.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 5:41:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let's start by seeing how animal rights and abuse is handled under States. To get any piece of legislation through you need either popular support or large scale special interest support. If you can get popular support in a statist society through voluntary means like campaigning and socio-intellectual evolution, I think that leads some credence to the possibility of ostracization under anarchism. On the other hand I don't see special interest influence on legislation as a net good for States considering it opens itself up to various public choice problems. So leaning on popular support is a turn for anarchism, leaning on special interest simply lends itself to criticism of the legislative style of States.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 5:50:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 5:47:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Are we basing a society that uses a NAP? Wouldn't they not fall under the NAP?

I think that would depend on what the NAP applies to. If one says it applies only to humans, than abuse would be permissive.

However, if NAP applied to animals, then any types of pet ownership, animal vaccinations, etc. would be wrong because all those would be done without permission/coerced.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 5:59:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Vague question. What is animal abuse? Farming could fall under that definition. Animals would be subject to private property of either land or as other commodity. Their owners would have rights over them that nobody could violate.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 6:04:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 5:47:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Are we basing a society that uses a NAP? Wouldn't they not fall under the NAP?

I don't think that's necessary. I mean even AnCap is only partly theorized under the NAP, see David Friedman. Furthermore I don't really see any reference to it by mutualists like Kevin Carson or libertarian socialists like Chomsky.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 7:57:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 6:04:15 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/28/2012 5:47:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Are we basing a society that uses a NAP? Wouldn't they not fall under the NAP?

I don't think that's necessary. I mean even AnCap is only partly theorized under the NAP, see David Friedman. Furthermore I don't really see any reference to it by mutualists like Kevin Carson or libertarian socialists like Chomsky.

Well, there's a significant amount of deontological libertarians. Libertarians can appeal to consequentialism as well, but that's often to persuade others and to have another argument up their sleeve.

I also don't think of mutualism or libertarian socialist in the same way I think the OP was referring to.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 8:21:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 4:48:02 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I had this thought/question about 2 weeks ago.

In a libertarian-based society (whether that be minarchist, anarchist, etc. I group all that under the banner of a society based on libertarian principles), how would animal abuse be handled?

I dunno. I do know that human exceptionalism is prohibitively difficult to justify.

Specific to an anarchistic society: would it be fair to assume that societal shunning/shaming/etc. be the response to a business/person/etc. mistreating animals?

I don't know why it would be fair to assume anything about particulars. In a post-state world, all that remains is a large, amorphous space within which we can attempt genuinely (i.e., without hindrance by a heap of fictive, arbitrary constructions) to rethink all of the "big issues" without reference to transcendent mediators (e.g., utility, natural law, Manifest Destiny, generic teleological constraints). I think it's wise, on this view, not to promise anything. Maybe a compassionate regard for the being of other sentient creatures will motivate people to largely refrain from engaging in abuse in the first place; maybe some cultures will require more. There isn't really an answer, because one cannot make accurate mechanical predictions about about heterogeneous, dynamic cultures.

Political discourse isn't about who offers you the better completed package--it isn't as if I have some kind of "model anarchism" that I want to persuade you to swap out for statism. The work is much more nuanced than that. My goal is merely to suggest that anarchism is a priori superior to statism, which entails a philosophical commitment to anarchism regardless of how particular instances are structured. Thankfully, I don't work in the penal industry--I think I'll leave the deliberations over practical needs to them.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 8:29:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Question: How does social shunning not count as force, if it can lead to an increase in stress levels, which in turn then lead to health problems? In the end, there seems not to be much difference between social shunning to the point of driving someone to suicide and killing them yourself.

At 10/28/2012 5:41:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Let's start by seeing how animal rights and abuse is handled under States. To get any piece of legislation through you need either popular support or large scale special interest support. If you can get popular support in a statist society through voluntary means like campaigning and socio-intellectual evolution, I think that leads some credence to the possibility of ostracization under anarchism. On the other hand I don't see special interest influence on legislation as a net good for States considering it opens itself up to various public choice problems. So leaning on popular support is a turn for anarchism, leaning on special interest simply lends itself to criticism of the legislative style of States.

But the problem with that idea is that states are usually large. Individual communities aren't. So in the United States as a whole, it may be unacceptable to abuse animals, but in Redneck, Missouri, people shoot cats for fun. And since I live in Redneck, Missouri, I get to say that. Keep in mind that rural areas often have more animals--especially wildlife. It's socially unacceptable in most of the United States to kill wolves for the heck of it. It is socially acceptable in a lot of places where the wolves actually are.

Individual communities aren't microcosms of the state they're part of. That's how you can see places where it is socially acceptable to drive LGBT+ people to suicide, despite it not being socially acceptable in the United States as a whole.

Part of democracy is that when the minority does something really f@cking stupid the rest of us can tell them to knock it off. Sometimes, due to geographical isolation, the minority that's doing something really f@cking stupid is out of reach of social shunning.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 9:17:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 8:29:39 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Question: How does social shunning not count as force, if it can lead to an increase in stress levels, which in turn then lead to health problems? In the end, there seems not to be much difference between social shunning to the point of driving someone to suicide and killing them yourself.

How is there not much difference? In the end result perhaps but then again the end result is everyone dying so your reasoning logically extends itself to justification of outright mass murder.

At 10/28/2012 5:41:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Let's start by seeing how animal rights and abuse is handled under States. To get any piece of legislation through you need either popular support or large scale special interest support. If you can get popular support in a statist society through voluntary means like campaigning and socio-intellectual evolution, I think that leads some credence to the possibility of ostracization under anarchism. On the other hand I don't see special interest influence on legislation as a net good for States considering it opens itself up to various public choice problems. So leaning on popular support is a turn for anarchism, leaning on special interest simply lends itself to criticism of the legislative style of States.

But the problem with that idea is that states are usually large. Individual communities aren't. So in the United States as a whole, it may be unacceptable to abuse animals, but in Redneck, Missouri, people shoot cats for fun. And since I live in Redneck, Missouri, I get to say that. Keep in mind that rural areas often have more animals--especially wildlife. It's socially unacceptable in most of the United States to kill wolves for the heck of it. It is socially acceptable in a lot of places where the wolves actually are.

So you're saying it's better to have a macro-political community to make centralized decisions because micro-political communities might make the wrong decisions. I don't see why people don't just take this a logical step further and support world government or inter-national political force (not just a proxy for U.S. political interests like the U.N.). I mean it's obvious that not all States do things that you happen to like so why not just establish a world government to mitigate against this?

The reason is because (a) centralized polities run into mega-public choice problems (akin to multiple times worse than a simple small scale democracy) and (b) centralized polities aren't conceptually more likely to enact legislation that you happen to like and you haven't even given reason to think so. You're just theorizing up the perfect centralized government without substantiation on why that would actually ever come to be.

Individual communities aren't microcosms of the state they're part of. That's how you can see places where it is socially acceptable to drive LGBT+ people to suicide, despite it not being socially acceptable in the United States as a whole.

Cross-apply this to macro-political entities where it's acceptable to do terrible things to LGBT people i.e., Uganda. To me, being able to leave backwards rednecks by a simple small drive to a neighboring community vastly outweighs having to relocate to an entirely different country. You seem to be harboring a presupposition that large scale political entities are more likely to produce favorable policies.

Part of democracy is that when the minority does something really f@cking stupid the rest of us can tell them to knock it off. Sometimes, due to geographical isolation, the minority that's doing something really f@cking stupid is out of reach of social shunning.

See above. Not all small scale political communities are full of anti-social, LGBT hating, cat shooting rednecks and not all large scale political communities are full of enlightened, liberals. There doesn't seem to be anything inherent in either of these organizational structures to suggest so and the reason why we default to small scale rather than large scale is because (a) political power isn't as far reaching i.e., if abortion is illegal you can just drive a few hours to get one as opposed to it being illegal nation-wide and (b) communities seem to be just as likely to be full of dlcks in large communities than small ones, see socially backwards countries like Uganda and Saudi Arabia.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 11:18:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's a safe bet that people will oppose animal cruelty regardless of the existence of a state.

Shamming and shunning will occur, but people will also 'vote with their dollars', so to speak, and see to it that companies they don't like don't get their business.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 1:16:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well there are different kinds of animal abuse.

First, there's angry beating of pets. Throwing Fido against the wall because he didn't finish his fancy feast, and then choking him out, is probably not going to be regulated very well. This sort of angry person beats people too and that's illegal already! The threat of the law is not really effective against people who are subject to fits of anger. These people can be arrested after the fact, but does regulating make it really go away? Sounds kind of silly if you ponder it. The only sensible alternative is to let the natural repercussions of this individual's behavior weigh on them. Yes, shaming and shunning is one of them, and keep in mind that no person is truly independent - being shunned could be the worst social punishment ever. I would also say that beaten pets don't make good pets. If disincentives naturally exist to vicious acts, then regulating them seems redundant and subjective.

Second, there's neglect of pets. This is mostly a function of modern society than anything else, and regulating it is downright laughable. A person I know kennels his dog all day long while he's at work to protect his "stuff." That dog's existence consists of spending most of the day in a small cage, then being let out to piss late in the day and hopefully played with a bit unless the dude plans on going out (in which case it's back in the cage). Modern society is pretty sick when it comes to pets, and as property laws increase (which libertarianism would condone) animals must be contained more and more to work within this system of property rights.

If you notice, those people which live in rural areas have much less trouble with this. Dogs and cats are let out to have social lives and explore the landscape, and stop back for food, shelter, and companionship. In areas with lots of property, pets are sterilized, choked off from the outside world, and forced to live meaningless existences locked in a small carpeted area while they slowly go retarded from lack of social exposure. I don't know how socially developed I would be if my only exposure to humans was occasionally seeing one outside being walked.

Third, there is the destruction of our ecological resources. Regulation has been the only check on our giant Tragedy of the Commons, and technology has allowed us to essentially put on the blinders and step on the gas. Externalities from our processes are exported to other communities, and the communities that accept these externalities are compensated so that they can buy products and services and begin to export their own environmental destruction abroad, as well as at home. Who gets the town with the landfill in it? Anybody want to volunteer? No? Well I guess the poor have to shoulder that one because they draw the short straw. A capitalistic system only destroys wildlife, and while, yes, theoretically these companies should "get it" and maximize the value of the ecological resources they use, in practice it turns out that the surest way to compete economically often comes at the expense of not only the ecology of the community but of the consumer. Why else would businesses position themselves near each other instead of spread out through the community where it would be most efficient for us to get there?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 1:16:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well there are different kinds of animal abuse.

First, there's angry beating of pets. Throwing Fido against the wall because he didn't finish his fancy feast, and then choking him out, is probably not going to be regulated very well. This sort of angry person beats people too and that's illegal already! The threat of the law is not really effective against people who are subject to fits of anger. These people can be arrested after the fact, but does regulating make it really go away? Sounds kind of silly if you ponder it. The only sensible alternative is to let the natural repercussions of this individual's behavior weigh on them. Yes, shaming and shunning is one of them, and keep in mind that no person is truly independent - being shunned could be the worst social punishment ever. I would also say that beaten pets don't make good pets. If disincentives naturally exist to vicious acts, then regulating them seems redundant and subjective.

Second, there's neglect of pets. This is mostly a function of modern society than anything else, and regulating it is downright laughable. A person I know kennels his dog all day long while he's at work to protect his "stuff." That dog's existence consists of spending most of the day in a small cage, then being let out to piss late in the day and hopefully played with a bit unless the dude plans on going out (in which case it's back in the cage). Modern society is pretty sick when it comes to pets, and as property laws increase (which libertarianism would condone) animals must be contained more and more to work within this system of property rights.

If you notice, those people which live in rural areas have much less trouble with this. Dogs and cats are let out to have social lives and explore the landscape, and stop back for food, shelter, and companionship. In areas with lots of property, pets are sterilized, choked off from the outside world, and forced to live meaningless existences locked in a small carpeted area while they slowly go retarded from lack of social exposure. I don't know how socially developed I would be if my only exposure to humans was occasionally seeing one outside being walked.

Third, there is the destruction of our ecological resources. Regulation has been the only check on our giant Tragedy of the Commons, and technology has allowed us to essentially put on the blinders and step on the gas. Externalities from our processes are exported to other communities, and the communities that accept these externalities are compensated so that they can buy products and services and begin to export their own environmental destruction abroad, as well as at home. Who gets the town with the landfill in it? Anybody want to volunteer? No? Well I guess the poor have to shoulder that one because they draw the short straw. A capitalistic system only destroys wildlife, and while, yes, theoretically these companies should "get it" and maximize the value of the ecological resources they use, in practice it turns out that the surest way to compete economically often comes at the expense of not only the ecology of the community but of the consumer. Why else would businesses position themselves near each other instead of spread out through the community where it would be most efficient for us to get there?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 1:53:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/28/2012 5:47:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Are we basing a society that uses a NAP? Wouldn't they not fall under the NAP?

No because then I couldn't eat them.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 4:29:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, it doesn"t, and to think it does is completely illogical and ridiculous. We"re talking about actions here, things that were consciously undertaken. Social stigma drives up stress levels, and has been linked time and time again to mental health problems as well as physical health problems. Social shunning leads to a demonstratable decrease in overall welfare except in very particular cases; in such cases we must ask if physical or legal force would not also be justified. My point is merely that one can"t classify legal/political forces as "force" under something like the NAP and ignore societal pressures.

And no, my philosophy does not legitimize mass-murder, and you might want to be a bit more familiar with it before you say it does. My philosophy recognizes that our actions have consequences beyond what we might think of them, so an act that does not seem aggressive can in fact still lead to negative consequences for someone else. It then states that from a consequentialist perspective, there is fairly little difference between me letting someone starve and me directly causing them to starve, or between not helping a person who would otherwise die or causing their death myself. Far from legitimizing mass-murder, my philosophy states that we have a responsibility to each and every single other living thing in the universe.

And you"re coming up with the idealized decentralized society. The question is as to relative likelihoods if our different plans were implemented, to which I say: In the United States, which is more likely? For problems to be ameloriated by decentralization, or for them to be worsened? I would say that environmental problems are more likely to be of issue in micropolitical entities, not because of innate properties of micropolitical entities, but because of what reality happens to be right now. Larger cities, which have high populations and few wildlife, are on average more likely to be friendly to certain charismatic megafauna. Rural areas often aren"t. A centralized government gives people half a continent away an opportunity to prevent some community in, say, Montana, from doing something really f@cking stupid. It also naturally lends itself to a structured, coordinated approach to wildlife issues"and wildlife doesn"t respect national boundaries already; they won"t respect the boundaries of city-states. You see the same coordination problem with the response to global warming. There aren"t any binding treaties or anything, so fairly little gets done. Imagine if instead of a few dozen major industrialized countries trying to figure something out, you had thousands of counties and city-states. It would be even worse for trying to figure out wildlife plans; already many species have their habitat fragmented, and decentralization doesn"t give us a very good weapon to fight that trend.

Meanwhile, a centralized society makes it so a single political win can have a much larger effect, and the same argument could be made for cultural wins. For example, the New York Times regularly covers events on the West Coast as well as the East Coast, because they are part of the same nation, but does not cover events in Canada or Mexico with the same frequency. Victory in California, and the whole United States can see it in the Times. Victory in Canada or Sweden, not so much. Is the same trend likely to hold true if decentralization took place?

You have argued in the past that a decentralized society would require a war of attrition that would likely be lost (which I doubt, mostly because the same thing was tried in Spain, if I remember correctly, and it apparently did not turn out very well), yes? Regardless of whether or not that"s true, what if the same thing holds true for culture wars? If that"s the case, then creating social change in many areas will become that much harder"among other reasons, changes in laws can alter societal norms. For example, when gay sex was legalized, gay sex could become more acceptable. Not because of a magical change, of course, but because you could provide an example of someone who had gay sex and wasn"t corrupt without fear of police harassment.

I am less concerned with someone who consciously fights than someone who has internalized abuse by (for example) parents and might require outside aid. I regard the latter as a greater suicide risk.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 5:27:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 5:19:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
My new political philosophy: people should be good.

my new political philosophy:
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 5:28:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 5:19:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
My new political philosophy: people should be good.

I know you're trolling, but as a moral nihilist, can you really judge which actions are and aren't good.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 5:42:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And for the anarchist who state that troll with the statement "I want good government as well", well I want good institutions as well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:00:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 5:28:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 5:19:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
My new political philosophy: people should be good.

I know you're trolling, but as a moral nihilist, can you really judge which actions are and aren't good.

"I know you're trolling, but serious question about your statement"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 8:16:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 7:00:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/29/2012 5:28:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/29/2012 5:19:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
My new political philosophy: people should be good.

I know you're trolling, but as a moral nihilist, can you really judge which actions are and aren't good.

"I know you're trolling, but serious question about your statement"

alright, you go on to state previous that you believe that anarchy is superior to government. But what metric are you using? Superior in what way?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 1:08:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Quickly and efficiently, delivering your dinner in 15 minutes or less.
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.