Originally Posted by simone

Ideal. Schmideal. Word without meaning.

Yeah when someone defines a word for you, precisely, it's logical to complain that it has no meaning. That makes you look intelligent.

As you've defined the debate, the ethics and argument for them you've proposed are virtually indistinguishable from Hoppe's argumentation ethics, themselves derivative mostly from Habermas. I have not heard a coherent argument against them. I don't know whether you're employing his argument here, or you have come across some parallel in libertarian philosophy that some other author has put together, Kinsella has something similar, I don't know who else.

Oh dear!

Article 48 and the Hindenburg proclamation!

And, what about proportionate representation?

Perhaps the two-party system, with all its flaws, is not so bad after all.

Originally Posted by simone

Ideal. Schmideal. Word without meaning.

So you do not have the concept of perfection?

Originally Posted by simone

According to whom? By what standards? When were these standards established? Where?

It seems the premise itself answers your questions.

Originally Posted by simone

What is your agenda?

It's my name. I believe that question was an off subject.

Originally Posted by simone

But ... are these values of value to any other individual?

It is possible. I believe that question was an off subject.

Originally Posted by simone

Why?

because others are the same form of being.
In other words the logical root of the golden rule.

Originally Posted by simone

And should I place a value judgment on whether or not a person can spell judgment?

Thank you for pointing that out, the error has been fixed.

Originally Posted by simone

What is the value in removing choice and judgment from another?

I see none, criminals disagree with me.

Originally Posted by simone

One wishes to use force? One places great value on using force?

Do their motivations matter?

Originally Posted by simone

"Natural" rights extend as far as the end of an individual's nose.

Societal agreement?

Unfortunately, an opportunist demagogue named Adolph Hitler engendered a great deal of universally conceived morality consistent with the "historical" observations and emotional outbursts of a particular religion.

The question is, if humans are not held in check, will the earth survivie?

Please remove these from your post and I will do the same to this response per the Formal Debate rules.

Please refrain from doing this again, you mixed some valid statements with these so I did respond but from now on I will simply report it.

Oh, and should I place a judgment value on whether or not a person can spell survivie?

Freedom?

From responsibility?

From accountability?

Freedom from not having to pay your fair share for the services you receive?

Is that what freedom means?

I think they're speaking about the freedom to be a modern day Libertaryan?

Which apparently is all about defending (rather than understanding or attempting to offer solutions) to the contradictions of the 'free?' market ideology. In other words, the freedom to be disconnected to reality.

Oh & it also seems to be about the freedom to be an apologist for the 'invisible hand.'

Oh & it also seems to be about offering baffling word salad 'band aids' & fantasizing about how? they will heal real wounds.

Oh & it also seems to be about offering no solutions. (most vexing)

& apparently they believe in time-travel.

Originally Posted by simone

Freedom?

From responsibility?

From accountability?

Freedom from not having to pay your fair share for the services you receive?

Is that what freedom means?

I merely wish to indicate that the concept of freedom is not easy to define. It cannot be reduced to simplistic terms.

Originally Posted by simone

I merely wish to indicate that the concept of freedom is not easy to define. It cannot be reduced to simplistic terms.

When I say freedom I mean especially the bolded definitions. Most precise is the philosophical definition #17.

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from ): freedom from fear. (unjust interference by other humans)
7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9. frankness of manner or speech.
10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12. a liberty taken. (all natural liberties)
13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17. Philosophy . the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity ( def. 7 ) .

Now my own definition.

Freedom is equivalent to a state of universal absolute liberty, liberty that is defined as the lack of unwanted interference from other people. The 'terms' of the 'equation' of freedom are rights.

Rights (proper ones at least) never specify a benefit only choices protected from other's force.

i.e. A man does not have a right to a home, he has a right to build a home without interference from others.

Rights can be determined simply using the following thought experiment.

A man is alone on earth.

The following premises apply:
- If rights are natural and not the verdict of society then no society can be required for them to exist, so he must have all rights that a human can have.

- If rights are natural then nature can never violate them.

The only thing in this world that is absolutely inviolate is his inability to be coerced or coerce, to be killed or harmed by another human or to harm or kill a human.

He does not have a right to life, to education, to free movement.

Those are revealed to be short hand for the actual rights (which look more like: He has a right to try to live, he has the right to learn, he has the right to move himself.)

It is only by realizing the actual nature of rights can you see that rights can never conflict and so any appeal made by collectivist about the necessity of society sacrificing some rights to preserve the greater amount is a noble name pasted onto the bane of rational existence.

Now please, before you answer consider that this is a formal debate, that it would be proper for you to respond to the resolution instead of trying to psycho - analyze me. Make an argument, I asked that anyone taking the negative choose an option.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Now please, before you answer consider that this is a formal debate, that it would be proper for you to respond to the resolution instead of trying to psycho - analyze me. Make an argument, I asked that anyone taking the negative choose an option.

I'd like to take this opportunity to exercise my freedom to be improper, inappropriate, whatever.

The ‘True Believer’ brand of Libertaryanism creates false dichotomy after false dichotomy ad nauseum, ad infinity. That is, to compare (& then prop up) implausible, unrealistic, idealized (however obviously advantageous) ideological choices to ANY opposing idea because said idea is not perfect. This is an example of the Nirvana Fallacy:

The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic possibility and another which is merely better.
Nirvana fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the real world, there are very often no perfect solutions to a problem, especially when the problems to be solved are complicated, multilayered & very often interrelated.

Positing nirvanic or utopian alternatives (with the awareness they have a snowball’s chance in hell at coming to fruition) is what I very often refer to as mental masturbation. Mental masturbation as defined by the Urban Dictionary:

1. Intellectual activity that serves no practical purpose.
2. Intellectual activity that serves no practical purpose. Excessively theoretical, and therefore a distraction from more practicable matters.
3. Dr. Richard Dawkins, noted biological theorist, in response to a student's philosophical question about skeptical attitudes towards science and reality, cited the following anecdote:
   <paraphrasing> James Boswell asked, "... nothing really exists unless there's somebody there to see it. How do you refute that?" Samuel Johnson replied, "I refute it thus!", and kicked a stone out of his way.
   
   <\paraphrasing> Dr. Dawkins, commenting on Boswell's question, and critiquing the attitude: "If you want to mess about with that sort of mental masturbation, thats fine, but, ... but the science of reality is what gets you through the day, ... and makes things work!"

I'm usually not overly impressed with Dr. Dawkins & the first time I heard this expression was in a Woody Allen movie (I think) where the meaning differed because of the context in which it was used. Whatever.

The biggest problem I can identify with the mental masturbatory nature of this way of thinking (this positing of nirvanic or utopian alternatives) is that it prevents anything from getting done! It serves no practical purpose, it produces no fruit.

Which is one of the reasons why I believe it remains fruitless to debate a Libertaryan.

Another one is this. The need for immediate gratification very often becomes a blind spot for viewing reality. It is not likely there is any ONE magical & IMMEDIATE solution to problems that have been growing for years & years. Wishful thinking maybe but really?

These two reasons are perhaps interrelated? That is, the need for immediate gratification prompts one to seek to gratify this need by using mental masturbatory techniques.

It may satisfy the need (to be right & to have control) immediately! But does it solve the problem? Does it serve any practical purpose? Actually, I think a case might be made that it perpetuates the problems by preventing any kindof action (however imperfect) from being taken, thus leading to stagnation.

Where are the choices between one plausible possibility & another?

Anyway I won't be back - my two cents - call me improper, inappropriate, whatever.

Carry on!

[QUOTE=Freedom;407234]I take the affirmative.
-------------------------------------------
Normally I think one would argue purely about the resolution, but in this case it is intertwined with many other subjects and to avoid creating multiple threads I am going to try to tie them together with this resolution by stating it's premises and the conclusions I draw from it.

I. Premises and Conclusions
I take this resolution to require the following premises:

1. Ideal means a standard of perfection or excellence, or what is most good.

1. What is good for one is not going to be what is good for all. What is most good for most will not be most good for all.
   
   If a homeless family decides to ake shelter in your house. It is most good for them to have shelter when they might die from the elements, it is most good that they not starve or become sick from malnutrition. Is your excessive comfort better than their suffering or potential death?
   
   
2. Good and Evil exist and are given definition by a person’s standard of value.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

What is good for one is not going to be what is good for all. What is most good for most will not be most good for all.

You confused the concept of good with that of values. Each person will have different values based on their judgment, and their values will be 'good' to them.

I would not refer to this subjective good except to use as a subjective premise (i.e. the ideal for Joe or Jane)

For something to be good period it must be objectively good meaning not changing with the subject.

That means the only true good period is that which is based on values common to everyone.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

If a homeless family decides to ake shelter in your house. It is most good for them to have shelter when they might die from the elements, it is most good that they not starve or become sick from malnutrition. Is your excessive comfort better than their suffering or potential death?

Since you asked me I will answer, however; my answer is based on my values not universal values.

I would value those not starving or becoming sick over excessive comfort.

You responded to the first premise but you did not seem to make an argument against it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

How does the collective agree to a standard with which to determine what is morally permissible and what is not if the choice remains the individuals.

You have asked this question many times in different forms, I wonder if you will ever tire of being told that it is not society or the individual who decides without reason what is morally permissible.

A person who has any values has already accepted morality, it is inescapable.

You responded to the second premise but you did not seem to make an argument against it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Abortion, minors, mentally incompetent and handicapped. Those who are incapable or lack the wisdom and experience to have sound personal judgment

You responded to the third premise but you did not seem to make an argument against it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

And when those judgments conflict how are they to be resolved when there is no clear evidence of one being superior to the other?

They are not resolved. I am not being sarcastic.

If you cannot convince someone and you may not force them there is no alternative.

The further premise which is often implied here is that the conflict must be resolved. A situation such as that is only possible as a result of rights violation.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

PETA saying it is cruel to test products on animals vs. Corporations claiming the need to insure wanted products are safe for human use.

If PETA cannot convince Corporations to stop and it cannot be demonstrated that it is immoral there is no alternative for PETA.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Abortion in cases of rape or incest as two examples

I do not understand how this is an example.
You responded to the fourth premise but you did not seem to make an argument against it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Your neighbors decide they want a freeway and an airport to be built on their land one one each side of the house you just purchased. The value just plummeted you can't sell even to lose money. How do you resolve this. They will buy your property for 1/5 of what you paid and don't want a partner.

I move. (if I can't) I live with it.

You responded to the fifth premise but you did not seem to make an argument against it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

His nature is not so simple as to warrant just one right

We may give specific names to the specific consequences but this is the root.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

We currently build an and maintain an infrastructure in the event of emergencies that many feel is an unwanted interaction/interference by others until a fire or earthquake or other disaster strikes. In the case of fire do firefighters wait to respond until someone who was willing to pay for them to do nothing but be prepared in the event of fire has a need. How would they know who to respond to if a power failure knocks out a verification system?

I do not understand the question.

You responded to the sixth premise but you did not seem to make an argument against it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

And when universal agreement can not be reached?

Universal agreement was not a term in the premise.

You responded to the seventh premise but you did not seem to make an argument against it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

It would be nice, but I can say so would a world where I could fly and teleport to wherever I wanted in the blink of an eye and everybody was good looking and we all agreed on everything which has about as much chance of happening as Freetopiaville

I do not hold your despair or ignorance as excuse for any immorality you may perpetrate under your delusion that what explicitly defined to be human choice is beyond control.

You responded to the 8th premise but you did not seem to make an argument against it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Then you permit yourself to respond to immoral acts by committing them yourself.

Why?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

At what point is it sufficient to respond immorally and to what degree is that response permitted.

No point

You responded to the first conclusion but you did not seem to make an argument against it. (save if that is supposed to be an appeal to absurd conclusions?)

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Criminals most likely will not consent to anything that may interfere with their way of life. Bartenders couldn't say you have had to much to drink. Parents couldn't say go to school.

I believe that was an appeal to absurd conclusions. I don't believe any save the last are even close to being valid.

The last is not valid because such a command could be a condition on which care is given.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

To bad it is necessary to infringe on rights in order to determine guilt or it pays to be a good crook.

Please make an argument for that conclusion.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

It good that it will live in caves or houses that fall down when the wind blows since if it looked like we do know some other country would invade since we have no military to defend us and doubt we could build on sufficiently once the need was known and agreed to.

This is an Appeal to Consequences of a Belief fallacy, and not even one I will accept without proof.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Good luck with a consensus on that universal morality

Or near consensus, thank you.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

which even if somehow achieved would be meaningless lacking true justice and equal protection.

Ah yes lacking the true 'peoples' justice, not the court of facts but of the proletariat.

You responded to the fifth conclusion but you did not seem to make an argument against it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

I see back to Nobility and peasants it is

You responded to the sixth conclusion but you did not seem to make an argument against it. (save if that is supposed to be an appeal to negative consequences?)

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Some facist pacifist hybrid always at odds with itself

You responded to the seventh conclusion but you did not seem to make an argument against it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

A & C

Both, well obviously since I wrote it I do not see how. The intention was for you to choose an option and explain why.

Looking at all your responses it suddenly become very apparent why we weren't getting anywhere in the last thread.

What did you expect I can argue, but never claimed I could debate. There was a reason I didn't come over to formal debate but I will give it another try and see if I a can at least accommodate your request to present something close to rational reasons that you can respond to.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

What did you expect I can argue, but never claimed I could debate. There was a reason I didn't come over to formal debate but I will give it another try and see if I a can at least accommodate your request to present something close to rational reasons that you can respond to.

Thank you. I would like to point out that debate is a synonym for argue.