Well, I'm glad that you pointed that out, because as lc just mentioned, that makes our conversation more than a little pointless. I will say that I strive to live my life pretty much the way that you have stated, and do a pretty good job of it I think. But I do not share your optimism about our human race with regard to charity and kindness.

I don't understand "Forcing people to do stuff they don't want to do is unacceptable. " It certainly is inconsistent with "I don't tell other people what to do with their children."

My questions center around the rights of children before they reach an age of responsibility. One problem with not having a system is that if you believe children do have rights of protection, then you are faced with a major problem.

For instance, is it right for me to give my child a time out though that is forcing her to do stuff she does not want to? Is having her get a job at age 6 (where she may not even voice an objection) ok? What about marrying her off with her approval at age 8? I am not trying to be specious here, but I just don't see a model where your theories work. Apparently you don't either unless I mis interpreted the "I don't have a system" statement.

I am not one to say don't point out a problem if you don't have a better way of doing things (that is a pretty silly stance). I just don't really see the problems that you do. If you showed me a way things could be better, then I might agree that the current ways are bed (and I certainly don't think what we have is perfect). But I do see the benefits in a pragmatic way, and I can even see lots of philosophical arguments for them, counter to the philosophical arguments against them. (Hell, as far as I understand it, Confucius was basically making those arguments.)

Also, if you are starting with an individuals rights are paramount, I don't see how you can get to a less governance solution, either. (I do start with that belief, and I get to a completely different place than you do.) Perhaps we diverge at "earned wealth". I don't see me making money as something I do on my own, but as something I do in a complex system; there is a symbioses there. Another system may be better, but denying the impact of the current one is living in denial.

Perhaps I am just self serving. I know my wife would be dead and my daughters possibly doomed to early death if we did not have the medical advancement we have had, and that those advancement are in large part due to the system you decry. Government funded research has lead to myriad breakthroughs which have increased productivity and quality of life.

nope

There are plenty of other reasons, but bottom line is yes, that is why we got involved there. We overthrew the govt, hanged saddam, and now there is some sore of a democracy there. It's far from being perfect, but it'll take time.
Why do you think the US got involved in Iraq? Just to finish his Daddy's war? For Oil?

the daddy thing may have some merit to it ... but it's still to stop the injustices that were being done. That's why i think the US needs to stay there to make sure the democracy suceeds, or else the War was for nothing, like some many people think it was

if it was for oil, i'd like to know how. It's not like we took the oil, or the war has helped our oil prices or anything, so i fail to understand that rationale at all.

Clown,

I have already spent way too much time in this thread to really address all of your points. It sounds like you are taking a thelmetic approach (I think that is the correct term, basically doing is the law sort of thing). If that is the case then any system that exists is what should, because it got there by people doing.

If you believe that your rights end where someone else's begin, then you run into real problems.

Also, I would much rather live in Germany with all those dead beat college kids than say Uganda or Somalia. Again, no causality, only correlation.

Sorry I cannot really give this thread any more time, I have already blown off too much stuff this morning. These discussions run too deep.

(It is funny though that we are wasting time like those dead beat college kids discussing these ivory tower topics.)

mets, there's just no way that was the reason we went into Iraq. As clown points out, there are far worse human injustices being done in Africa and we're nowhere in sight.

fnord,

The issue of children's rights is a difficult one. Clouding the issue by equating a time out to forced labor doesn't make it easier. I would ask that you read The Ethics of Liberty which deals with all of these ethical topics from first principles much better than I could ever hope to. I will reread it myself hoping to understand the implications better.

The only measurement that should matter is the wealth of the nation. Last time I checked most nations that are usually concidered rich such as the US or Germany are in fact piss poor, living off credit.

I'm not amp but I'm assuming we are thinking somewhat along the same lines. Let's call it the "Yay for freedom" school of thought.
[x] No forced upon schooling
[x] Child labor is acceptable if not forced
[x] Letting a child starve to death is acceptable (but may be morally wrong)

As I said before the most tricky part is determining when a child becomes self responsible.

Interesting how you and Zurvan both think charity=give cash. Maybe it's a vocabulary problem but I was thinking more of charity as in part time teaching and using the money given to maintain schools and pay extra teachers. What overhead is there?
I think in a world with no centralized government people would mostly give to charities thet are geographically close to them and there would mostly be small charities and thus the situation of oversight and control would be quite different.

How so, I think it's the most relevant part of the argument. People are forced to do things that they would rather not do by being threatened with force. You can call it implicit gunpoint if you prefer.

Bunch of random points:
I could not live my life as a deontologist. I am not one, and I do not understand the point of deontology.

As for government, I don't know if it really does work. It has obviously benefited those of us here, right now, but we may just be lucky.

The decent people are not those who end up in power. And decent people will do immoral things when they are desperate. And people are often desperate.

Finally, if government did not exist, other systems, other forms of authority would seek to take it's place. Business, gangs, religion. These organizations would all happily take the place that government fills right now. I do not know how a vacuum of power, could, in reality, exist. And I believe this is what ACers propose.

Also, child labor is a terrible example for why ACism should not exist. To anyone who has watched season 4 of "The Wire," some kids need to work. In these places, the system has failed. School fails. If they do not work, they end up on the street. Work is one way to get kids out of "the game." Shutting that door hurts, it does not help.

what does it matter? capital is capital. Give the teaching labor or the $$ to hire it. Irrelevent.

it's part of why it was done. It was also done to send a message to other similar nations

Bush wanted someone to take the blame for Sept 11th. He chose Iraq. Yes, i agree that Iraq was not responsible for sept 11th, and that killing saddam was what he wanted based on his fathers legacy, but once we began fighting, what was the point? Why did we make it a democracy, for ****s and giggles? Or did we realize the injustices that were happening there, and did something about it.

The injustices being done in Africa aren't being done by a murderous dictator with murderous sons that happens to have access to, and ability to restrict access to, a large portion of the worlds Oil supply.

The US did not go in to Iraq for the oil. They didn't go to stop Hussein. They went for a combination of the two, along with the ability to have a protectorate in the middle east that they can control, post forces, and have easy access to potential trouble spots like Iran and India/Pakistan. Nobody in their right mind wants Iran to have nukes. Well, nobody in their right mind wants anyone to have nukes, but Iran, North Korea, Israel are far more dangerous holders of them than the US and even Russia.

good post zurvan

You've forgotton about Afghanistan then? Because they took the blame (probably correctly) for Sept 11. Bush (spuriously) tied Sept 11 to Iraq to justify doing what he wanted to do for the reasons I put above. I think there would be much less resistance ( in the US only ) to the war in Iraq had Bush been honest about his reasons.

Somebody said it earlier (ack, maybe?) and I want to restate it. now that the US is in Iraq, they have to stay until there's a solid government in place. By tearing down the country's infrastructure (such as it was) they've taken on a moral responsibility to put one back in place.

Maybe, maybe not, hard to say.

If you have a world full of clowntables and amplifys (and ackblehs and fnords, for that matter), the amplify and clowntable solutions probably work beautifully. But we don't. We live in a world full of selfish, ignorant, incompetent, racist, bigoted, mean, and angry people. As much as I embrace the principles you guys are putting forth, you can only form your society around those principles if all (or almost all) of the members embrace those principles. And since that's very, very far from true in 2008, and you have no way of forcing those principles on people (and who wants to force principles, anyways), I would much rather live as we are today. Even though there are a lot of flaws.

So I disagree with this, which brings:


As far as I know, this is a fairly accurate statement of why we went in. Which has a lot to do with oil and not so much with human rights violations.


I'm confused. I disagree with mets and mostly agree with zurvan, but now mets agrees with zurvan? Sigh.

yes

there are a lot of reasons we went. Zurvan's posts brought up good points and i agree with them to a point. I dont think it was to get oil per se, but the strategic advantages of having a presence there is huge

ack (or anyone else),

if we were writing a new constitution, would you make it any different than the current one? (change terminology to country of origin)

a) If the US can fight unconstitutional wars and invade sovereign nations at will let's just say I'm not exactly happy that the US has nuclear weapons.
b) Remember I asked the Iraq invasion question in the context of Georgia. How are the same resons Zurvan named for the USA invading the Iraq not also relevant for Russia invading Georgia?
That's what the initial question was all about.

well of course I would amp. I couldn't tell you exactly how and wouldn't make any decisions without a lot of thought, reading, dicussion, etc.... but yeah i'm sure it'd be different.

Online gambling would be legal, and it wouldn't mention god at all. That much I can tell you.

Oh come on ack, don't sweep these crucial practical implications under the rug.

a) "Unconstitutional". Who's constitution? At least they've shown reluctance to fire nukes outside of full scale war, over a period of 60+ years, and haven't pledged destruction of any other societies/countries. Can't say the same for Iran et al.
b) Didn't the Georgians start it? I'm not really sure I see the connection? The US is mad at Russia because Georgia is a US ally.

""" We the founding fathers hereby declare:
No constitution should ever apply to this country"""

;P

Well, wait a second. I'm saying we'd not be better off with your proposed changes. I'd take the current constitution over that.

You could improve it further by taking the god-stuff out and strengthening the separation of church and state stuff -- getting god off our money and out of the pledge of allegiance, etc. And by making online gambling (and homosexuality, I suppose) explicitly legal, etc. In general I'd add a lot of crap directed towards the same ends as you're trying to achieve, ensuring personal liberties and getting the law to more closely resemble the enforcement of non-interference... on most issues.

But I wouldn't end taxation or social services.

a) Their own of course. See Korean War et al.
b) The point is IMO it's pretty moot to discuss who "good nations" and "bad nations" are. I think everyone should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.

a) Explain, because I have nfi what you're talking about
b) Armageddon's not that bad, I suppose. I don't see how you can be against taxation, but for governments owning weapons capable of killing all life on Earth.