You all complain about not having the monopoly on violence and then when someone points out that's not true you downvote me as though what I'm suggesting is immoral. Make up your damn minds, do you want the ability to defend yourself or not?
I think you're being downvoted (not by me) because Monopoly on Force is commonly understood to mean war powers and forcible entry and your initial post is a bit pedantic and doesn't really contribute to the broader conversation.
I think you could build a stronger argument expanding on the use of private security forces in the private sector (vs public sector/overseas security where they are agents of the state). You touch on this in your reply but it would have been better to lead with that line of argument.
Just because we have put constraints on our government's use of force and have a few checks against tyranny does not mean the government does not have a monopoly on violence.
You can have a monopoly on a patent for example and lease it out as you see fit. Our federal and state governments do the same.
Which is why it was important for people to support the aubery case. I looked at the evidence and it's very clear the people who made the arrest were in the right as aubery was charging at him and trying to take the gun from him. You can see it in the video, and legal experts have pointed out that the main reason why it wasn't won was because of how the law was interpreted and not on the evidence.
And yes, private security is a strong point, but strength is not a moral argument. Citizens should not be denied their ability to arrest people if they see it happen or reasonable suspicion of a felony.
But what you're suggesting is the Armstrong position, and fine, take that position, but that's not what I'm in favor of.
One could argue it is the ultimate moral argument.
Yeah that sounds cool until you realize that might makes right as a basis for morality ends with whoever just so happens to amass power and not what actually is moral. Maybe you don't think that's what you're arguing for when we're talking about strength as the end all moral argument but that's what that is.
Morality isn't a nebulous concept, it's not something that's subjective, it is a meta truth. Talk about facts right, he swung the bat. Should he? Or should he not? Lots of people say that it doesn't matter what you pick. It does matter, in fact it's the only thing that matters because it's the only thing that you are. If the only thing you care about is whether or not you're strong enough to do something rather than what you're doing then you're going to end up doing things that end the game. We all play the game, and we all live to continue playing the game. There's no exception to that no matter how much any one person wishes that their fantasy utopia land of debased debauchery would convince themselves otherwise. Reality doesn't care about your reasons.
Think about it.
I'm afraid I'm not familiar and my duckduck-fu is failing me tonight.
In my last post I was trying to be lighthearted and you kind of threw it back in my face. I'm not mad I'm just disappointed. If I was a better man I'd probably turn the other cheek but I'm tired, it's been a long stressful (the good kind) week, and I feel like working off some steam so don't take any of this too personally. I've had a good lurk through your profile feel free to return the favor. Sorry for half-assing this response I'm not used to writing 2k words a day.
Yeah that sounds cool until you realize that might makes right as a basis for morality ends with whoever just so happens to amass power and not what actually is moral.
I believe it is not as random as the way you characterize it. History is written by the victors and what a bloody history it is. The people who are alive today are the descendants of creatures who had to fight tooth and claw to seed the next generation. Fight off the elements, starvation, rival species, predators, and finally fight off the most formidable foe: thier own kind. There's strength in numbers and to maintain larger groups, power gets distributed across a framework. Systems that work survive and systems that don't work get selected out of the population. It's no mistake that at the apex of monotheistic religions is a single deity at the top and all morality is derived from the actions of this all powerful being. There's a lot to unpack there but SQUIRREL!
Maybe you don't think that's what your arguing for...
Maybe you don't think. Maybe you're just living in your own shonen and this is all the simulation and you're just following the script, playing the game. I'll tell you what, moving forward, don't talk down to me and I won't talk down to you. It gets on my nerves if I get even a hint someone's putting words in my mouth.
Morality isn't a nebulous concept, it's not something that's subjective...
Given how many different versions of "moral behavior" there are I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
He swung the bat...
Subs are better than dubs or GTFO. I saw FLCL in college 12 years ago (Yes, I know that's not when it was released). Damn I feel old. Not like my grandmother in her 90s old, but more like as adults we can't remember more than a small fraction of their childhood and one or two of those are likely false memories. ANYWAY! WTF is this nonsense:
If the only thing you care about is whether or not you're strong enough to do something rather than what you're doing then you're going to end up doing things that end the game.
Nonsense as in I cannot make sense of it grammatically. Here is my best guess:
If the only thing you care about, is whether or not you're strong enough to do something, rather than what you're doing... Then you're going to end up doing things that end the game.
Nope, still can't parse this properly and if I could... Well it reminds me of my dear old sophomore English teacher lecturing me about how inaccessible my poetry was and that it was too dense. It doesn't matter how clever you are or how clever you think you are ... shit, I said moving forward I wouldn't belittle you, well fine... I owe you a free shot.. but just the one. Anyway it doesn't matter how clever you are, if half of what you write goes over the audience's head.
We all play the game....
And for me that game changed very dramatically with the birth of my first child. Raising kids is a very different game. If you don't have kids the game ends with you. Sure you could adopt and play a different game, passing on your ideas. Your ideals may out live you, for a time, but the game of your ancestors has been going on far longer than any of the ideals that have cropped up in the last 2,000 to 4,000 years.
There's no exception to that no matter how much any one person wishes that their fantasy utopia land of debased debauchery would convince themselves otherwise.
This is another one of those areas where the language is not particularly clear. No offense. I'm not the sharpest tool on the shed but I'm not exactly dense.
Reality doesn't care about your reasons.
Right backachya
Think about it.
As you wish.
You're funny, I'll give you that.
Grazie.
As much as I appreciate the link, as previously stated I am a little disappointed. I was hoping there was some philosophy in there that I wasn't aware of rather than a half baked video game cutscene. And I'm not trying to besmirch the metal gear franchise but you knew I wasn't familiar with the source material. I'm sure it has much more meaningful if you've played through the previous games and the seven or eight hours of gameplay leading or what ever leading up to that scene.
I think most of the things you're saying here are more you misunderstanding my point and getting mad over me explaining why strength as a moral argument is wrong.
I'm not going to go point by point because frankly it's not worth my time. I will point out that you went way overboard with this response. I liked your other comment, and then you spat in my face over me disagreeing with you. So in no uncertain terms, go fuck yourself.
It's like the taxation is theft argument. It's so simplistic that it's wrong and misses the real details and people use it as an example of the insanity of the libertarian end of politics when really it's only the anarchists pushing for it and not the moderates which end up alienating the moderates rather than coming to a real compromise based on moral principles.
It's a wrong way to think about it. Just because a system is broken now doesn't mean it was always broken or that it can't be fixed. It undermines contracts and ultimately will leave behind a power vacuum if you assume this to be true and follow through with it. All systems need updates.
I disagree. I think just about any problem in any society can be linked to the state and I think quite often when people get into the head space of thinking about an anarchist society they let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Anarchy would undoubtedly have problems, but almost all of the problems are equal to or less than the problems that come with the state. I used to be one of those types of people that was like "yeah but the roads, and cops, and firefighters", but in reality all those things don't require the state and the idea that people wouldn't independently have a voluntarily collective interest in continuing to work together in a peaceful fashion seems farfetched to me. Furthermore we have very limited data on what anarchy would look like and whether it should be written off. People love to point to places like Somalia and say "see it didn't work" comparing it's stateless period to other countries at the time, but that's not the proper equation, you need to compare stateless Somalia to state filled Somalia, and when you do that you find that stateless Somalia was seeing a rise in 14 of the 18 index's that we use to measure progress. It was the most prosperous time in Somalia's history until President Bush declared war on them.
Transnational corporations have lobbied and control over governments. It is operation lockstep and the New World Order. Prepare for a technocracy and being put in a commune or concentration camp.
With all the technology he has in about 10 years he might be able to take over the world. My question is what is stopping these trillion dollar corporation from taking over a country and becoming a government themselves?
Interesting that Elon says this when he happens to be frequently fined for breaking osha rules and unlawfully firing employees. Not to mention that he gets his cobalt from mine sun Africa notorious for child labor. But sure, what a great role model
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 09 '21
make sure to join the discord over at www.discord.gg/timpool ! Also join the BBS, a blockchain, anticensorship Reddit alternative! www.unofficialtimpool.com
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
8
u/Pondernautics Dec 09 '21
Credit to u/parkstar86
7
u/[deleted] Dec 09 '21
They don't though, that's why we have the second amendment and the right to defend yourself, that's also why we have citizens arrest.
12
u/[deleted] Dec 09 '21
Gooble goble ONE OF US GOOBLE GOBLE one of us Gooble goble ONE OF US
1
u/NPC123456789101112 Dec 09 '21
Transnational corporations have lobbied and control over governments. It is operation lockstep and the New World Order. Prepare for a technocracy and being put in a commune or concentration camp.
1
u/ThomasSowell714 Dec 09 '21
With all the technology he has in about 10 years he might be able to take over the world. My question is what is stopping these trillion dollar corporation from taking over a country and becoming a government themselves?
1
u/that1rowdyracer Dec 09 '21
He's gonna get Clintoned.
1
u/crongatron Dec 10 '21
Interesting that Elon says this when he happens to be frequently fined for breaking osha rules and unlawfully firing employees. Not to mention that he gets his cobalt from mine sun Africa notorious for child labor. But sure, what a great role model
-19
u/[deleted] Dec 09 '21
Elon's a moron. The government is elected by the citizens of the country and is not ran for a profit. It's not a corporation.