The future of the GOP

Laws cannot grant permissions because permission is the default. Everything is permitted in a state of nature. It is only when you start introducing prohibitions that we start calling the exceptions "permissions.."

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: Laws cannot grant permissions because permission is the default. Everything is permitted in a state of nature. It is only when you start introducing prohibitions that we start calling the exceptions "permissions.."   Which is why civilized people choose to live in societies with laws.    We could go back to living the way the apes did and fling our poo at each other, but really, do any but a fringe few want that?

I agree. I like some of our laws a great deal. The law that you cannot kill me is a particularly good one. The law that you cannot take my stuff and give it to someone else without my permission is also good. I am less of a fan of the exception to that last one you get if you happen to work for the IRS.

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: Laws cannot grant permissions because permission is the default. Everything is permitted in a state of nature. It is only when you start introducing prohibitions that we start calling the exceptions "permissions.."   Which is why civilized people choose to live in societies with laws.    We could go back to living the way the apes did and fling our poo at each other, but really, do any but a fringe few want that? I agree. I like some of our laws a great deal. The law that you cannot kill me is a particularly good one. The law that you cannot take my stuff and give it to someone else without my permission is also good. I am less of a fan of the exception to that last one you get if you happen to work for the IRS.   And it follows from laws and using your phrasing "all laws are coercive" it follows that someone is always going to be coerced against their will to do or refrain from doing something to benefit someone else.  In your example, your rights to not be killed are given priority over the rights of someone to stick a knife in your back.  Someone may really, really want to do that (not me, I assure you.  ) and the fact that he/she is unable to do so, limits his freedom, so that yours may be protected.    So, then, the argument that the IRS taking your property to give to someone else is coercive and therefore wrong is faulty, as we've already agreed that using coercion to force someone to do or not do something against their will is not necessarily wrong.  All laws are coercive.  But not all laws are bad.  Therefore, coercion is not always bad.

Maybe the concerned is that the level of coercion (which is constant and equal) does fit the severity of the prohibition the law is enacting  (ie punishment does not fit the crime) - don't kill people or we will kill you vs. don't rob from the rich or we'll kill you vs. pay your taxes or we'll kill you vs. don't jay-walk or we'll kill you.

Dean wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: Laws cannot grant permissions because permission is the default. Everything is permitted in a state of nature. It is only when you start introducing prohibitions that we start calling the exceptions "permissions.."   Which is why civilized people choose to live in societies with laws.    We could go back to living the way the apes did and fling our poo at each other, but really, do any but a fringe few want that? I agree. I like some of our laws a great deal. The law that you cannot kill me is a particularly good one. The law that you cannot take my stuff and give it to someone else without my permission is also good. I am less of a fan of the exception to that last one you get if you happen to work for the IRS.   And it follows from laws and using your phrasing "all laws are coercive" it follows that someone is always going to be coerced against their will to do or refrain from doing something to benefit someone else.  In your example, your rights to not be killed are given priority over the rights of someone to stick a knife in your back.  Someone may really, really want to do that (not me, I assure you.  ) and the fact that he/she is unable to do so, limits his freedom, so that yours may be protected.    So, then, the argument that the IRS taking your property to give to someone else is coercive and therefore wrong is faulty, as we've already agreed that using coercion to force someone to do or not do something against their will is not necessarily wrong.  All laws are coercive.  But not all laws are bad.  Therefore, coercion is not always bad.  Maybe the concerned is that the level of coercion (which is constant and equal) does fit the severity of the prohibition the law is enacting  (ie punishment does not fit the crime) - don't kill people or we will kill you vs. don't rob from the rich or we'll kill you vs. pay your taxes or we'll kill you vs. don't jay-walk or we'll kill you.

Wesley should have been executed because being that damned annoying has to be a crime.

thellama73 wrote: I never contended that coercion is always bad (although I think the violation of someone's property rights is always wrong, regardless of the agent), but my point was that you should be very careful about what you are willing to enforce using coercion, since any conflict in which neither party is willing to back down will ultimately result in violence. I find it perfectly acceptable to use violence to prevent killing, raping and stealing, but I do not find it acceptable to use violence to make one person pay another person's bills. I just think people are too careless about the laws they support and don't think through the logical consequences of enforcement. Before you support any law, you should think about how far you would be willing to go to enforce it, if you had to. That was all I was trying to say.

I accept all that. It would be lovely if many things were never ingrained in law and we could trust people (and by that I mean individuals, corporations and governments) to do the right thing. I like universal healthcare and do not perceive it as the demon spawn of a despotic tyrant - I do not trust the free market to provide healthcare and nothing I have seen of private healthcare makes me wish to change my opinion. It would be great if there was another way, but there isn't because the world has selfish people who would begrudge healthcare to those who cannot afford it and there are life-preserving health treatments that are prohibitively expensive to all but a very (very) select few. Insurance (in the classic sense of the word) can only provide universal healthcare if everyone signs up to it, so if that means a coercive law is required then so be it, because the alternatives don't appear to be that tenable to me.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: although I think the violation of someone's property rights is always wrong, regardless of the agent Because it's so fun to twist other people's statements to ridiculous degrees to make them look bad, let me ask you: Do you support slavery? Forbidding a person from owning another person limits their property rights.

I think your premise is false. There is no right to own another person, therefore no such right can be violated.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote:   Your statement reminds me of that ST:TNG episode where they wanted to execute Wesley for walking on the grass.   I would not agree with killing someone who did not pay their taxes, nor would the law.  The first step would be to freeze any liquid assets the person had (including bank accounts, which doesn't even require a confrontation).  The next step would be to take personal property and perhaps prosecution.  Violence would only enter the picture if the tax evader began the violence.  What if the evader had all his assets in physical form, inside his house, which he had barricaded against the police. Would it be worth it to forcefully break in and seize him? Wouldn't he be justified in trying to defend himself and his property from invading forces? If he said: "do not enter my house or I will shoot" would it be worth shooting him first rather than allowing him not to pay his taxes? All I'm asking is that you think about these sorts of questions. If you think it is okay to shoot him over not paying taxes, fine. I happen to disagree. But I think there is an intellectual dishonesty in saying vague things like "a society should take care of its poor" and avoiding the consideration of tough questions like this.

^Damn, I hope we don't drift so far to the right in this country that those are our only two options. 

If the country had moved so far to the left that Stalin was a viable candidate, then that would almost have to mean the GOP had moved considerably to the left, to at least the center if not the center-left.  In which case they would have my vote over Stalin.  If my choices were between Stalin and the GOP as it stands today, I would flee to just about any other civilized country so I wouldn't have to vote for either of them.