If he can't see it, then perhaps further conversation will reveal it to him. — Banno

Let's go. I'm waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is, and if it were to result in a refutation of my position then I am genuinely interested.

But what I think happened is you mistook my position as anarchist or 'all coercion is unjustifiable'. Or, as put it:

"Government = bad". The end. That's all you've got. — Pro Hominem

Moral obligations to do what? To care for one's fellow man? On a personal level I can get behind that. But I don't need to be coerced into doing that.

I can't tell what the point of the question is. I'll say that we're a social species and as such are born with moral intuitions. We're also largely shaped by whatever society we happen to be raised in and part of that shaping is developing a moral framework, which is based on our moral intuitions. There are moral frameworks, for example, that prioritize the moral intuition of liberty vs oppression, such as Libertarianism. Other frameworks favor other moral intuitions. — praxis

When discussing the responsibilities we may or may not have towards society, I think it is an essential question to ask how we ended up in that position.

Considering the fact that we do not choose the society we live in, what responsibilities towards it can we truly be said to have, other than the ones we take up voluntarily?

You were talking about a dangerous (to yourself and others) habit — praxis

I fail to understand how using one's own eyes to see is a dangerous habit. I wish more people would engage in it.

Living in society requires cooperation. Ideally, the cooperation is mutually beneficial. In order for the cooperation to be mutually beneficial, the more autonomous a citizen is the more responsible they would have to be. If a citizen just wants to freeload and take advantage of the cooperative nature of a society they can be as irresponsible as they like, at least until their freedom is curtailed. — praxis

Okay, I am mostly on board with this. Freedom requires individuals to take personal responsibility, sure. In view of this, how do you look at the fact that individuals do not choose the society they are born in, nor do they choose to be born in the first place?

That’s irresponsible because, if you look at driving like a skill, it forms a bad habit that puts yourself and other motorists at risk. Much of the mundane tasks in our lives are done on autopilot, so you’re basically training yourself (and your ‘autopilot’) badly. Again that’s irresponsible, which indicates an abuse of your freedom, and suggests that you’re not worthy of it. — praxis

I have no problem trusting in my own judgement. If you have trouble trusting in yours, then that problem lies with you. I encourage everyone to think for themselves and make their own decisions, rather than slavishly obey the rules without second thought.

Calling me unworthy of freedom based on the minimal interaction we've had seems rather silly, and it's hardly a decent way to start a conversation. Your earlier comment seemed reasonable enough, so why not continue in that way?

Also, as I initially touched on, there’s the issue of who pays for the traffic lights, roadways, the land they occupy, etc. If they’re not paid for with taxation then you would have to pay a private party or parties in order to travel. Either way you have to pay. — praxis

The issue doesn't lie with things or services costing money, the issue lies with forcing people to pay for them. It is easy to think of examples which are universally useful, like roads, a justice system, etc., but what of some counter examples? Where I live, a part of one's tax money goes to maintaining the properties of the royal family. Why is that normal? Or why is it normal to be forced to pay for the wars one's government decides to partake in?

You were refuted. You just can't see it. — Banno

Let's be frank. You assumed my position was something other than it actually was, but you're now so deep into chest-bumping with your goons that you cannot back off anymore.

If there's any bite to your bark, I'll be waiting.

Can yo offer an ultimate refutation of their position? — Banno

Probably not.

But discourse such as this:

What a swift refutation. :lol: :up: — JerseyFlight

↪JerseyFlight
It's what I do. — Banno

Would get one's hopes up.

Do you like the idea of their being penalties for other folk? Or do you think we should leave it up to other people to decide for themselves the utility of following traffic rules? — Banno

Do I like the idea of coercion? No. That much should be clear.

I do appreciate that, as I have stated earlier, it can be a necessary evil at times.

Do you support the removal of penalties so that we may each decide how to behave on the road? — Banno

I guess not, though I am mainly undecided. I could consider this the type of protection against direct physical harm a part of the 'minimum' a state should provide, much like how the state protects people against other forms of physical violence to them or their property.

However, don't most people follow traffic rules because they are convinced of the usefulness of doing so, rather than the penalty for not following them? I don't stop at a red light when there's no traffic to be seen, and I have no issue with people using their own judgement to do the same.

More generally, are you happy for other people to also be guided by your principle: "When it seems useful to me, sure." — Banno

Generally, yes. Though, there are exceptions, mostly pertaining to direct physical violence, and we can talk about those exceptions.

The point of my post was to have you think about your response. Try answering my questions, see what you think of your answers. No need to post them. — Banno

I was promised some ultimate refutation of my position.

And to clarify, that position can best be summarized as:

I consider government to be a form of coercion: a means to force individuals to do things by threat of violence. — Tzeentch

And therefore:

Keeping governments small with as little influence over individuals' private goings-on should be an active process. — Tzeentch

You are wrong. About almost everything. Your ideas are dangerous and if they ever become the norm, that society will be hell on Earth. I really wish there were something I could say that would help you and make a difference. Talk to a counselor or something. Unless you really are a sociopath there has to be some way for you to see value in something other than your own selfish interests. Just try. — Pro Hominem

That's what you keep telling yourself.

The truth is I hit the nail on the head in my original posts, and you know it. You have difficulty swallowing that pill, so your reaction is to get angry, misrepresent my point and demonize me so you can tell yourself you don't have to listen to my ideas.

Here, I'll repeat them for you:

Socialists want to spend other people's money because they think they know best. — Tzeentch

[Government is] a form of coercion: a means to force individuals to do things by threat of violence. — Tzeentch

Governments assert power over individuals based on what are essentially territorial claims, [governments are], at their basis, [...] no more legitimate than a despot — Tzeentch

Finally, and most importantly:

And beware those who see government as a legitimate means to an end. — Tzeentch

Now, that last sentence obviously didn't make it into a discussion about socialism by accident. That sentence is exactly about you.

Everything you've provided so far shows you have a great deal of trouble accepting the fact that people have different views than you, and that you would happily use coercion to force them to act in accordance to your beliefs. You're little tyrants, masquerading as philanthropists.

I like to think philosophy and psychology go hand in hand, and the gaggle of angry socialists on this forum being shown a mirror never fails to provide some interesting cases.

Now go on and reflect, as will I. I'm done conversing with you three.

Clarify your point, in that case.

Friend, you have already been utterly refuted by Banno. This is not just an opinion, it's a fact. It's why you didn't answer his valid questions. — JerseyFlight

You did not answer Banno's questions, you did not even engage his argument, which amounts to the total negation of your position. — JerseyFlight

It's pretty clear you have been refuted. — JerseyFlight

What a swift refutation. :lol: :up: — JerseyFlight

You don't win arguments by repetition.

I find it disingenuous, if not dishonorable, to disguise the simple desire to keep one's possessions from others by platitudes about limiting the power of government. Why not be honest about one's selfishness? My money, my property, my rights--what could be a more self-centered view of our place in the world? — Ciceronianus the White

I value freedom. Not wealth necessarily. I know there's no way of getting this message across, because you seem to have already decided I must be a terrible person for having different ideas.

One can be selfless without having to be forced by government.

I'll leave it at that.

Ah. So you are not coerced into following the traffic rules. You choose to out of a sense of utility.

You would follow then even if they were not attached to a set of penalties.

Do you like the idea of their being penalties for other folk? Or do you think we should leave it up to other people to decide for themselves the utility of following traffic rules?

Do you support the removal of penalties so that we may each decide how to behave on the road?

Or do you think that we ought coerce other people - not you - into stopping at red lights? — Banno

Come to a point.

Is it that coercion doesn't always produce situations which are highly undesirable?

I never said it did.

What I said is that coercion is something inherently problematic. When we apply that to politics, it results in the position that government is, at best, a necessary evil (, , pay attention next time). Thus I believe government interference in individual's goings-on should be minimalized at every opportunity. A classically liberal (read: not the "modern" use of the word), perhaps libertarian, view.

There is another way out of this, just let your beliefs about the topic alter. That's the value of other minds. It's pretty clear you have been refuted. Don't hold onto the error, move in the direction of the greater truth. — JerseyFlight

You have already lived way beyond your without-government life expectancy, so if you want to be true to your "values" you should take one of the guns you're undoubtedly stockpiling with your government-given rights and use it on yourself. — Pro Hominem

Pathetic.

You stand in opposition to ideas like everyone having access to medical care, every child having equal access to a useful education, ordinary people being protected from the poisoning of their food and environment by uncaring corporations, and levying higher taxes against people who are struggling to make ends meet than against people with access to many billions of dollars. — Pro Hominem

I didn't have to bid for moral superiority. — Pro Hominem

Mhm.

Do you stop at the red light? — Banno

When it seems useful to me, sure.

The real irony here, my friend, is that this fella is a beneficiary of government, and more importantly, he is not going to walk away from it any time soon. I mean, he can flee to the mountains with his anarchist gang and they can all be free, but they had better not be leeching off society in any way if they want to remain consistent with their principles. — JerseyFlight

This is, of course, the equivalent of telling an immigrant to go back to their home country if they do not like it here. In fact, it is even worse, because an immigrant made the voluntary decision to become part of another society.

They'd just have to contribute to the welfare of people around them, even though they don't want to or don't care to do so. — Ciceronianus the White

Using a system of coercion to force people to do things against their will seems highly problematic to me.

Someone who's concerned about socialism is concerned about his/her money and property being used, by government, for someone else's welfare. — Ciceronianus the White

Not really. For many, me included, it is the fact that a government may force individuals to part with their wealth.

This is the problem that is central to the political spectrum.

While I understand individuals may have different opinions on the implications of this inherent tension at the center of governance, I find it disconcerting that many cannot even recognize it.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not a particular state is worth it or provides sufficient value. — praxis

Shouldn't that be up to the individual to decide then?

You’re not interested in those things? You’d prefer to not pay taxes and live in a society where everything is privately owned? — praxis

This answers a question with a question. We can get to my interests later. For now I am wondering how one justifies that a person who is not interested in the things a state (supposedly) provides, nor is interested in having those things provided to him by a state, is still forced to pay for them.

In a world like that you’d still have to pay for travel, security, and everything else. — praxis

Of course. The difference being; there's no state that gets to take one's things, to provide one with services one didn't ask for nor wishes to receive.

I consider government to be a form of coercion: a means to force individuals to do things by threat of violence.

Furthermore, governments assert power over individuals based on what are essentially territorial claims, and therefore I consider governments, at their basis, to be no more legitimate than a despot.

For these reasons, government will, at its very best, be a necessary evil.

This is what the American constitution says: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Without some kind of government it would be exceedingly unlikely that you would secure any of these things. — JerseyFlight

What if an individual isn't interested in securing those things? Under the current system they are simply forced to pay for them anyways!

The key is to put the power of this apparatus in check, not to abolish it altogether (though I am totally open to serious conversations on the possibility, they just seem to me like romanticism). — JerseyFlight

I agree. Though, governments seem to have a tendency to, over time, grow corrupt and to consolidate more power. Keeping governments small with as little influence over individuals' private goings-on should be an active process. And beware those who see government as a legitimate means to an end.

When your tirade has settled I suggest you meditate on what I've said. You may think my remarks were ad hominem, but they hit the mark pretty well.

You seem to take issue with this statement:

The same arrogance that makes any socialist think they know best how to spend other people's money. — Tzeentch

Socialists want to spend other people's money because they think they know best. That's a statement of fact. If you don't understand why that is arrogant, you're ignorant.

This person is only concerned with their own welfare, and not that of the people around them. — Pro Hominem

Then there's the quintessential bid for moral superiority, which I interpret as terribly selfrighteous.

You may scream "Ad hominem!" as much as you want, but so far I consider you guilty as charged.

This person is only concerned with their own welfare, and not that of the people around them. — Pro Hominem

Oh, I am concerned with the welfare of people around me. I just don't believe such concern should be forced upon me or anyone else through government.

You speak with the self-righteous ignorance of a true socialist.

What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

The same arrogance that makes any socialist think they know best how to spend other people's money.

Egoism is the nature of humanity. — Gus Lamarch

Perhaps it is the nature of your humanity.

You'd not have come here to say this, if it wasn't fulfiling you individually. — Gus Lamarch

I believe what is truly good for the individual is also good for the whole.

The ego is an illusion based on past experiences and future aspirations. It is literally worthless and the cause of much personal grief. If one is interested in happiness for oneself or others, the ego should be regarded with nothing but suspicion.

If I could add to that;

Philosophy should teach one how little we know for certain. Once one gets that insight, one generally becomes a lot more reserved about telling others what to do.

Good thoughts. But can perfection finally happen in the universe? — Gregory

If you are talking about 'the Perfection of Beauty', according to Plato it can certainly be experienced. If I'm not mistaken Plotinus also goes into great depth about these experiences and he states to have had them on multiple occasions.

As I've understood the One in Plato, the One is not an object of knowledge, and since it is a pure 'one' any distinctions made in it or attributes ascribed to it turn it into a 'many', so one would inevitably err in its description.

The One is approached through dialectic, based on the experience that is called 'The Idea of the Good' (idea as in 'to behold'), where the One is said to be the source of this experience. This experience is also called 'the Perfection of Beauty' or 'Divine Luminousity'.

If you're interested in delving deeper into Plato (or maybe you already have), I can really recommend this YouTube channel:

Pierre Grimes and the Noetic Society

Pierre Grimes made many of his early lectures available in which he discusses a great deal of topics. He seems to have a real soft spot for Plato and Neoplatonic thinkers. His lectures really opened my eyes to the richness of Platonic thought, and how badly represented it is in contemporary education.

In my mind though the existence of a privilege doesn't imply reparations though. — BitconnectCarlos

What does it imply, then?

Your height is something over which you have some control? — Banno

No, and neither is skin color or sex.

We need to have a conversation about height privilege! And what about beauty privilege?

I am ready to receive reparations from all the tall and handsome people in this world, for I have been the victim of much injustice!

By inflicting it upon others?

Seems like a questionable idea; to be able to inflict suffering on others according to one's own vague and subjective notions of suffering.

Reminds me of the saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I think if you bring a poor child into existence you can't blame society (not the government) for not helping you as you are the one with the greater moral sin — Gitonga

How would you rate the sin of whatever government is forcing people not to have children?

Recent developments in Belarus look promising and should hopefully inspire many of the downtrodden populace in Russia. — Professor Death

I don't think the situation in Belarus looks promising at all.

A successful coup is unlikely, since both Lukashenko and Putin will do everything to avoid it from happening. If Putin's aid is required, it will only strenghten Russia's control over Belarus, bringing it one step closer to becoming a part of the Russian Federation.

Western aid is unthinkable. Even less likely than in Ukraine.

No, these small crises on Russia's border have had a tendency to work out in Russia's favour, as they have in Georgia and Ukraine.

As for China; China probably has more power over western internal affairs than vice versa. We all know the measures China is willing to take to ensure its population remains compliant, and under such circumstances a popular uprising is unlikely to get off the ground, let alone succeed.

The veil of civilization is thin indeed.

If it is such a universal good, as you say, then how come for such issues there exist also opponents? Are all opponents of such issues simply ignorant? Are the facts they quote wrong and are yours right?

they just might not know the facts or believe they know the facts when really they don't. — Aleph Numbers

What if the proponents of some collective action think they know the facts when they really don't?

And so what if we affect other people in the process of growing? That doesn't nullify the growth. — Aleph Numbers

What is growth for one, may not be growth for another.

I think this type of one-sided thinking lays bare exactly the type of tension I am talking about.

Here are a few sentiments that I think echo throughout your post:

"I know what is best for others."

"My facts are right, and their facts are wrong."

"I am right, so I may tell others what to do."

Pursuing personal growth is something that by and large only affects the individual. You can pursue whatever you believe is good for you.

When we project our preferences on society, it is no longer just ourselves that is affected. Issues that would 'require' collective action often have proponents and opponents, since what is considered an improvement by some, may not be considered an improvement by others.

The tension here seems obvious.

It is somewhat ironic that in my personal search for happiness and wisdom I've had to unlearn pretty much everything 'modern society' had taught me. I struggle to think of anything about modern society that can be considered 'enlightened'. It claims to hold some noble ideals, but when push comes to shove it seems very few are actually willing to act in accordance with those ideals unless it suits their agenda (agendas which usually involve money). It provides a whole lot of physical wealth, that much cannot be denied. Materialism and consumerism; those are the core ideals that modern society acts upon, and I find very little enlightenment in that.

To a moral relativist, what is the purpose of morality?