The ethics of majoritarianism

That’s like saying that a tuning fork will produce silence each time it is struck. LG doesn’t impose itself on anyone, citizen or not.

Well, I just asked the Redcoat we have quartered upstairs, and he says you’re missing the big picture.

Even granting you that for the sake of argument, you’re ruining your own case. If people form armies and go around building empires, then that is definitively not libertarian. Therefore, your assertion that libertarian societies would do that falls flat.

Why didn’t you say that to start with? Why all this catty word play? Have you decided that whatever I write, you will begin by disagreeing?

I agree. But according to you, he was free to choose. Therefore, no one exercised their might against him.

:smiley: What a joke! Say, have you done a detailed analysis of Pearle Vision? Do you know exactly what it is they have done and how you would improve it? I want that answer right away. That’s in reference, of course, to your demand that I provide you detailed economic analysis of Libertaria, a hypothetical entity. And you cannot even provide detailed analysis of a real place that you fancy you could run better than its present officers.

Their actions wouldn’t even BE illegal unless they used deception or force in their practices.

Oh, please. One of those was an op-ed piece, and none of them provided the content of any law, regulation, rule, order, or ordinance. I’ll ask you once again to answer the question. You have claimed to have ready access to any law, regulation, rule, order, or ordinance on the books. Tell me what they are. And you already know Libertaria’s. You even just said how many words it is.

Another opinion piece, and this time from a right-wing gossip rag. But I already said he’d likely get around the flag burning, but he’s still stuck with resisting. What you claimed was that people aren’t “punished” for burning the flag. If being arrested and dragged to jail with trumped up charges of resisting isn’t punishment, then why are you bitching in the other thread about being arrested by Libertarian enforcers? And what about the dozens of other cases I linked you to? They are compiled by people who support illegalization of flag burning. They’re bragging about harassing people like Mr. Stout.

Really? Perhaps you’re just disagreeing to disagree. I mean, if he were burning charcoal and fixing people hamburgers, would your reasoning still apply? Haul his ass away and charge him with all that crap?

Unanswered in the sense of unfulfilled, and you knew that was what I meant. Even the portion you quoted proves what I said. You, as an individual, have no right to protection. Too bad for the ladies, I reckon, that they were not “the public at large”.

The most disingenuous statement from you yet. This entire discussion, from the get-go, is premised on the 8 words that you so often reference: “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion.” Why are you just now making such an argument? If you held the position genuinely, it would have been your first.

For the umpteenth time, it does that only when it knows for certain that the person is guilty.

What window? What are you talking about?

:smiley: Cite?

What the…? It is never okay for you to damage my property, unless you are acting in response to my initial force. Period.

It is against board policy to discuss who is on our ignore lists.
Incidentally, you made no comment whatsoever about the definition of “will”. Did you read any of the material? Am I again wasting (an awful lot of) time with you? You promised a good faith discussion if I resumed communications with you. Honor your word, or else I will honor mine.

Let me ask you this. You subscribe to Libertaria and I don’t. You accuse me of a crime. Which judicial system will I be tried under mine, or Libertaria’s?

And what is constitutes deception or force? What ever some guy decides.

Gee burning charcoal in a grill, flaming piece of cloth on the end of a 5 foot stick in the middle of a crowd, charcoal in a grill…, flaming piece of cloth…, charcoal in a grill… flaming piece of cloth. Nope can’t see any difference there.

Perhaps you are using a philosophical definition of unanswered here too but answering the phone and sending an officer constitutes answering the call. Unfortunately they fucked up and something horrible happened to these women. Its nice to see you are taking full advantage.

I don’t see how you aren’t understanding this. Libertaria is not omniscient it does not know for certain if anyone is guilty. Let me go ahead and quote for you what you said is necessary for a search.

Now if you think that can be classified as Libertaria knowing “for certain that the person is guilty” then I am afraid we have a drastically different definition of certain.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5824529&postcount=4

You certainly wasted an awful lot of time by using a different definition of a word then clearly everyone else was using. Everyone else was clearly using the definition of a ‘desire for a course of action’ but for some unbeknownst reason you decided to use a different one.

From a layman’s perspective that is a pretty clear law and from what I undersand of Pearle Vision’s business practice its obvious they are in violation.

Fine read the federal register for yourself.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/frcont05.html

You are the one saying that he is free to choose and it his fault for choosing wrong. Somehow this is supposed to justify giving him absolutely no rights under your judicial system.

I’ll try to add more later when I’m not so jammed up, but this just begs for rebuttal:

Well, I just asked Admiral Comte de Grasse and General Comte de Rochambeau, and they say you’re omitting some important historical details.

Mine if I can prove to the satisfaction of the arbiter that you’re guilty. I don’t care about your system. It is of no concern to me.

Well, sure. :smiley: That line of argument is just so hillarious. You’re willing to trust career politicians who can make laws on a whim to do exactly what you’re saying that a man with no legislative authority whatsoever ought not be trusted to do. It’s madness, I tell you!

What if the grill gets knocked over? A bunch of people’s feet would get burned, wouldn’t they?

If you are arguing that the police responded in a timely fashion considering the circumstance of torture and multiple rapes in progress, then I’m afraid your disingenuousness has sunk to new lows. I mean, here you are defending the hassling of flag burners and trivializing the plight of women in fear for their lives. All to avoid conceding a minor point. Holy cow.

I spoke too soon. That’s lower yet. I didn’t provide there a description of what is necessary for a search. That was a description of how a deliberate deception might be coercive.

Actually, the example I gave of certainty was satellite photos. In fact, I gave it repeatedly. Curiously, your search powers failed you in that regard.

Gah. Don’t they have books where you are? I mean more than 20 pages and without pictures? Didn’t you know that ETHICS is a branch of philosophy before you jumped in here?

That’s just it. You don’t understand squat. You’re not a lawyer. And you haven’t the time or means to find the laws. You even make the extraordinarily daft claim that you could do better than the CEO and all his lawyers. Oy.

Sorry, Charlie, but that’s only a tiny, miniscule portion of what I asked you for. And much of it is irrelevant. (When the Ecological Research Subcommittee will meet is not a law.) If you can’t provide what I asked for, just say so.

Giving? He DOESN’T WANT them. Do you understand what “free choice” means?

And incidentally, do we or do we not have an agreement on what we mean by will. If you do not intend to return to a discussion about the ethics of majoritarianism, I do not intend to entertain your massive hijack any further. I’m sure you will console yourself that having the last word will signal your victory, but I’m just going to wait until someone comes along who is interested in the topic.

Another quickie rebuttal:

Your original question was:

The Federal Register is where such things promulgated by the federal government are published every day. At least insofar as the feds go, he has indeed answered your question – and answered it with precision.

If you’d like to know where to find that information with respect to other jurisdictions, name the jurisdiction. It’s a bit silly to ask someone to post a comprehensive set of resources covering all fifty states and every municipality in the United States. (Findlaw.com is a good place to start, though).

Lib, you’re trying to run this debate unfairly. In your very first response to me in this thread, you wrote

It is pretty clear, even to people that don’t know you, that the system you’re suggesting here is libertarianism. You’re asking me why not use that system instead. Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to answer because then I’m not talking about majoritarianism anymore but libertarianism.

So, if we run this debate according to your desires, every argument ends when you say “why not do it this way instead?” and we cannot answer without going off-topic, according to you. Can you see why trying to hold the majoritarianist side of such a debate would be futile and impossible?

If you didn’t mean to constrain the debate in this way, what kind of answer were you expecting to the question “Why not simply a process that ensures each may exercise his own will without imposing upon the will of the other?”? How could I possibly answer that question without talking about the process you suggest?

quick reply before I scurry off to class.

Are you saying that everyone should pay every government on earth if they do not wish to be tortured?

Regardless that does not make it right nor ethically acceptable to torture someone just becuase they haven’t paid your fee.

Sure if you want will to mean that then we shall use that definition. Which word shall we use for ‘desire for a course of action’? Once you decide go ahead and replace ‘will’ in each of my posts and (without speaking for them of course) everyon elses post but yours. Then let us continue the debate.

And if I don’t consent to your system [drum roll] I am being coerced into it.

They cannot make laws on a whim they need to first get a majority in the house, next get a majority in the Senate and then have the President sign the bill into law. I get to vote for each of the ‘career politicians’ so there are three chances I have to influence that law. I also have the protection of the constitution so that they may not enact laws that violate said constitution. Like I and many other people have said nobody thinks this system is perfect or even can qualify as ‘good’ but its the best we have.

Lets try this again. Flaming piece of cloth in the middle of a crowd… charcoal in a grill… Flaming piece of cloth… charcoal in a grill. Nope can’t possibly see how one of those is reckless while the other isn’t. Its fairly amusing that you are making this argument immediately after calling mine ‘hillarious’.

Which minor point am I avoiding conceding?

My original point was that concentrating the power to go to war, interpeting the law, investigating people, trying people, convicting people, sentencing people when you continually point out the failure of governmental employees does not make sense.

Your response: The police don’t actually have to protect you. By making them liable for protecting you I am building more safeguards in.

You have not built anymore safeguards into the system. All you have allowed me to do is sue after Libertaria makes a mistake. Which if the mistake is going to war against a more powerful country won’t do me a whole lot of good when I am conquered.

That is odd becuase in your very next post after ** Martin Wolf ** asked for clarification you did not take that oppurtunity to correct him. In fact you responded it a way at least to this doper to suggest that ** Martin Wolf ** was correct in his analysis.

I am sorry friend but you used that example to illustrate when Libertaria might go to war.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5827648&postcount=13

A little personal insult nice.

When they taught me to read they told me when a word has multiple definitions to use the context of the sentence to determine the meaning. It is clear from reading everyones posts that they were using the ‘desire for a course of action’ definition of ‘will’. You are the one that should have adapted and used the definition everyone else was using or clearly stated you were using a different meaning. A page and a half of this thread could have been avioded if you did.

Well that crack team of lawyers and the CEO apparently missed the fact that they were told they were told to cease violating this law as recently as 1993. For some reason they have chosen to violate this law again and are now being prosecuted. I can safely say that I would have done better as a CEO than violate the same law we did a decade ago. If I were a lawyer for Pearle Vision I certainly would have advised the company not to violate the same law they did a decade ago.

Give me the jurisdiction and I will see what I can do. I have already provided the Federal level ones tell me which state and county you would like and I bet I could find those. This of course is ignoring that the media commonly reports on new laws that will greatly affect the populus.