Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 133
  1. #106
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    Not confused at all. You dont like the fact that in a "free market" with absolutely no morals, and no restrictions....slavery is very possible. Only if you have some morals do you see slavery as distasteful.

    But your contention is that the free market should be amoral and so should the government.

    Without morals, there are no rights just the law of the jungle. We can keep going back and forth but it's not going to do any good, you're not going to admit that your free market without any morals or beliefs justifies slavery because you might have to admit that a little morality or regulations is a good thing.
    Again, nothing in a free market eliminates inalienable rights.... Amorality doesn't either.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  2. #107
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    Again, nothing in a free market eliminates inalienable rights.... Amorality doesn't either.
    Nothing in a free market guarantees rights to anybody or thing.

    Inalienable rights....comes from a moralistic viewpoint, or even a religious viewpoint in that they come from GAHD!!!!.......GAWD has no place in a discussion of a society without morals.

    The concept of inalienable rights didnt even exist til a few hundred years ago. So again, your inalienable rights...dont exist in a free market....mainly because in your view, there is no moral government and it isnt the governments job to protect the people from the market and the market isnt contrained by morals. Therefore...slavery is viable and good.

    Stop trying to bring morals and beliefs into your amoral government and market.

  3. #108
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    Nothing in a free market guarantees rights to anybody or thing.

    Inalienable rights....comes from a moralistic viewpoint, or even a religious viewpoint in that they come from GAHD!!!!.......GAWD has no place in a discussion of a society without morals.

    The concept of inalienable rights didnt even exist til a few hundred years ago. So again, your inalienable rights...dont exist in a free market....mainly because in your view, there is no moral government and it isnt the governments job to protect the people from the market and the market isnt contrained by morals. Therefore...slavery is viable and good.

    Stop trying to bring morals and beliefs into your amoral government and market.
    Government doesn't create our rights, they simply are. So where they come from is irrelevant to the notion that gov't ought to be amoral......

    So, yes, my inalienable rights do exist in a free market.

    And once again, despite the fact that it's not relevant, nowhere did I suggest that gov't cease to exist. Gov't has a role and it is clearly defined. Market manipulations is not one of its roles.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  4. #109
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    Nothing in a free market guarantees rights to anybody or thing.

    Inalienable rights....comes from a moralistic viewpoint, or even a religious viewpoint in that they come from GAHD!!!!.......GAWD has no place in a discussion of a society without morals.

    The concept of inalienable rights didnt even exist til a few hundred years ago. So again, your inalienable rights...dont exist in a free market....mainly because in your view, there is no moral government and it isnt the governments job to protect the people from the market and the market isnt contrained by morals. Therefore...slavery is viable and good.

    Stop trying to bring morals and beliefs into your amoral government and market.
    Religion does not have a monopoly on natural rights. One of the biggest defenders of natural rights was Rothbard. Even one of the biggest religious philosophers thinks that natural rights are not connected to religion and thinks it is a disservice to religion to say that they are connected.
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  5. #110
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    Government doesn't create our rights, they simply are. So where they come from is irrelevant to the notion that gov't ought to be amoral......

    So, yes, my inalienable rights do exist in a free market.

    And once again, despite the fact that it's not relevant, nowhere did I suggest that gov't cease to exist. Gov't has a role and it is clearly defined. Market manipulations is not one of its roles.


    No...your..."rights" dont exist. Your rights are allowed because the morals of society dictate that they be allowed from a moralist perspective. Otherwise, we would not have ...gun rights abridged/taken away, illegal searches, et al. ....they exist because people with more power than you allow them to exist. If those same people decide not to grant you those rights...guess what, unless you can kill them....you dont have those "unalienable rights"...of course I might be wrong...I'll wait for Jehovah or Zeus or Vishnu to correct me though.

  6. #111
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    No...your..."rights" dont exist. Your rights are allowed because the morals of society dictate that they be allowed from a moralist perspective. Otherwise, we would not have ...gun rights abridged/taken away, illegal searches, et al. ....they exist because people with more power than you allow them to exist. If those same people decide not to grant you those rights...guess what, unless you can kill them....you dont have those "unalienable rights"...of course I might be wrong...I'll wait for Jehovah or Zeus or Vishnu to correct me though.
    Might makes right huh? I think amongst the in crowd natural rights are recognized or they would not be able to work together. The problem is that the in crowd shrunk from general society to a very small group of people. All due to people like you who enforce their version of morality on those around them.
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  7. #112
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    No...your..."rights" dont exist. Your rights are allowed because the morals of society dictate that they be allowed from a moralist perspective. Otherwise, we would not have ...gun rights abridged/taken away, illegal searches, et al. ....they exist because people with more power than you allow them to exist. If those same people decide not to grant you those rights...guess what, unless you can kill them....you dont have those "unalienable rights"...of course I might be wrong...I'll wait for Jehovah or Zeus or Vishnu to correct me though.
    You need to read up on the Constitution. Your understanding of its fundamental premise; the premise for which it created gov't is severely flawed.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  8. #113
    7000+ EU1 Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,133

    Default

    No self respect.


    poor guy

  9. #114
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    Might makes right huh? I think amongst the in crowd natural rights are recognized or they would not be able to work together. The problem is that the in crowd shrunk from general society to a very small group of people. All due to people like you who enforce their version of morality on those around them.
    Not me...I dont push my morality on anybody. I am showing you and SSR that no morals = might makes right and in that situation slavery is possible, likely and is what you are striving for when you speak of a market and goverment with no morals.
    I'm not advocating it, and if I read you correctly, you are condemning me for having some morals like not putting other humans in chains.

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    You need to read up on the Constitution. Your understanding of its fundamental premise; the premise for which it created gov't is severely flawed.
    I know the premise...and it wasnt intended that the government would be amoral. Again, if the government decided tomorrow to impose martial law and house soldiers in your home and confiscate your weapons, and put you in jail for speaking against the government...you have two choices....either die fighting to keep them from doing it, or admit that the Creator aint going to do shit to protect your "unalienable rights" and submit to their power.

  10. #115
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    Not me...I dont push my morality on anybody. I am showing you and SSR that no morals = might makes right and in that situation slavery is possible, likely and is what you are striving for when you speak of a market and goverment with no morals.
    I'm not advocating it, and if I read you correctly, you are condemning me for having some morals like not putting other humans in chains.
    I am condemning you for thinking you can tell me what type of business I can run, what type of safety I should put there for my self, what type of people I can socialize with.

    Slavery always ended when government's stopped subsidizing it. Slavery existed almost exclusively when governments existed. So let's just summarize. I don't want slavery. If it happens to come out in a free market I would oppose it. If it happens so that the slave owners can enforce slavery, I doubt a government can stop slave owners so strong.

    I know the premise...and it wasnt intended that the government would be amoral. Again, if the government decided tomorrow to impose martial law and house soldiers in your home and confiscate your weapons, and put you in jail for speaking against the government...you have two choices....either die fighting to keep them from doing it, or admit that the Creator aint going to do shit to protect your "unalienable rights" and submit to their power.
    You have no idea what natural rights are then. In order to not be in a state of war between two people they must recognize each other's natural rights. Otherwise they must war. So if a group of people say they goal is peacefully live together they must admit that natural rights exist for one another.
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  11. #116
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    I know the premise...and it wasnt intended that the government would be amoral. Again, if the government decided tomorrow to impose martial law and house soldiers in your home and confiscate your weapons, and put you in jail for speaking against the government...you have two choices....either die fighting to keep them from doing it, or admit that the Creator aint going to do shit to protect your "unalienable rights" and submit to their power.
    Do you know the difference between amoral and immoral?

    Every misrepresentation you have made showing what an amoral gov't "could do" is misleading. You are citing possible actions of an immoral gov't.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

  12. #117
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  13. #118
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    I am condemning you for thinking you can tell me what type of business I can run, what type of safety I should put there for my self, what type of people I can socialize with.
    Well then, you have to allow slavery as well. Or are you one of those...some are more equal than others?
    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    Slavery always ended when government's stopped subsidizing it. Slavery existed almost exclusively when governments existed. So let's just summarize. I don't want slavery. If it happens to come out in a free market I would oppose it. If it happens so that the slave owners can enforce slavery, I doubt a government can stop slave owners so strong.
    Why yes...governments allowed it. And other governments were almost always responsible for ending it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Silverhandorder View Post
    You have no idea what natural rights are then. In order to not be in a state of war between two people they must recognize each other's natural rights. Otherwise they must war. So if a group of people say they goal is peacefully live together they must admit that natural rights exist for one another.
    Not all people agree on the same things. Natural rights..are created by men. Moral men. Without morals, and force to defend them, there are no rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    Do you know the difference between amoral and immoral?

    Every misrepresentation you have made showing what an amoral gov't "could do" is misleading. You are citing possible actions of an immoral gov't.
    1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
    2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.


    I am thinking it is you who does not understand what amoral is. If you take out the question of right or wrong, slavery is great. Everything I have been showing you, is to show you exactly that.

    immoral
    1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
    2. licentious or lascivious


    An amoral government and market will certianly look immoral ....to a moral person. Which is the mistake you have been making this whole time.

    You want a different level of morality. But you still want a moral government.
    Last edited by Ziegler; 06-02-2012 at 13:11.

  14. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    Well then, you have to allow slavery as well. Or are you one of those...some are more equal than others?
    Law of the land.

    You may not harm another individual or put that individual in hazardous danger. You may not steal another individuals labor, property or other valuables.

    Anyone that thinks we need more laws than this should be hanged at dawn.

    And slavery isn't possible.

  15. #120
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bissen View Post
    Law of the land.

    You may not harm another individual or put that individual in hazardous danger. You may not steal another individuals labor, property or other valuables.

    Anyone that thinks we need more laws than this should be hanged at dawn.

    And slavery isn't possible.
    social contract....with out a sense of right and wrong...why do I agree with this if I have the power to take your stuff and want it?


    Let me put it this way. Humans are not capable of being truly amoral. Animals are amoral. When you think of it like that, perhaps it will make it easier to see.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •