3 ms·

I don't agree with laws - they are nothing but opinions backed by guns - therefore I don't need to respect any law in any part of the world - I need only respec

I don't agree with laws - they are nothing but opinions backed by guns - therefore I don't need to respect any law in any part of the world - I need only respect reasoned arguments that I can agree with. Respecting laws is no different from accepting bullying. I respect murder and rape laws not because they are laws but because the arguments against killing win over those for killing, and the arguments against rape win over those for rape. But the arguments against piracy lose to the arguments for piracy.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
This is correct. Laws only have significance in so far as those subjected to them have agreed to a consensus, and if there is sufficient investment in enforcing these laws.
andrepd 11y ago
I'm sure that Jack the ripper thought those murder laws very stupid indeed and that he very much disagreed with the arguments against murdering prostitutes. According to your argument, would it be fine for him to kill, seeing as "laws are nothing but opinions backed by guns"?
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Would it be fine? According to what/whom? The law: no, that was illegal. Reality: reality never stopped Jack. To the victims or their loved ones: no, but it wouldn't have been fine even had it be legal back then. The law had nothing to do with if they thought it was fine or not. To me: I wasn't there back then, my opinion back then didn't exist either way. To put it simply, that what Jack did was wrong has nothing to do with it being illegal.
- planfaster 11y ago
  > Jack the ripper thought It's not about what someone thinks. It's about arguments and principles that can be applied universally. > he very much disagreed It's not about disagreeing with arguments. It's about refuting arguments to show them wrong. I am less sure than you are that Jack the Ripper has ever produced refutations to the universalized principled arguments against the initiation of force that so many have written about through the ages. According to my argument, it would be fine to use lethal force against Jack the Ripper initiating violence, since it is morally OK to use violence for self-defense (according to universal arguments, meaning that all participants can abide by this principle without contradictions arising). Without wanting to sound condescending, the difference between what I am saying and what you think I said is that you think I am considering the ego of the persons involved. What Jack the Ripper's ego "thinks" and "agrees with" is irrelevant. What is relevant is facts that don't involve the ego - namely, did Jack the Ripper produce a universalized principled argument to justify his actions? The answer, so far as I know, is no. It's not about what an ego thinks, it's about whether an argument exists.
  - andrepd 11y ago
    >It's not about what an ego thinks, it's about whether an argument exists. I find it extremely ironic that you are making that point. What you are doing is precisely declaring a law about a complex and controversial issue to be invalid because there is an "universal and absolute argument" (aka, you think so) against that law. That's not how things work. Why would the things Jack the ripper thinks and agrees with be irrelevant and yours be "universalized arguments" that everyone must accept? EDIT: >According to my argument, it would be fine to use lethal force against Jack the Ripper initiating violence Precisely. According to your argument. Not a universal truth.
    - planfaster 11y ago
      > Why would the things Jack the ripper thinks and agrees with be irrelevant and yours be "universalized arguments" that everyone must accept? Because I can prove through propositional logic that "my" arguments can be universalized without contradictions, which proves that they are correct. It's not that I think there is a universal and absolute argument. It's that I have proven these things myself with pen and paper and rules such as Modus Ponens, De Morgan, etc. Not just me, many before me. Do mathematicians think pi is irrational? No, they've proven it is. Do philosophers think that if all humans are mortal and Socrates is a human, that therefore Socrates is mortal? So, they've proven it is. Maybe you are not aware that there is a method to this. I learned this from Irving Copi, his logic books are famous for teaching these concepts solidly. I'd recommend you peruse his work so you can understand what bweitzman and I are doing here. >> According to my argument, it would be fine to use lethal force against Jack the Ripper initiating violence > Precisely. According to your argument. Not a universal truth. I say "my" argument because I am making it now, not because I was the first to make it. Others before me have proven that "anyone should be able to initiate force" is self-contradictory (see sketch of proof in [1]). This much is trivial. What is less trivial is the work done to prove that "anyone should be able to use force against the initiation of force". If you want to read the proof for this, the book is called Universally Preferable Behavior by Stefan Molyneux. [1] Proof by ad absurdum: If anyone is should be able to initiate force, then I should be able to initiate force towards someone so as to strip them of their ability to initiate force. This leads to a contradiction: if everyone is able to initiate force, then some will not be able to initiate force. This contradiction means that the idea that anyone should be able to initiate force cannot be universalized.
bweitzman 11y ago
FWIW, I meant respect as in follow, not to agree with or to look upon with reverence. Anyways, I'm not saying that the conclusion is wrong, just the argument
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  If I follow a law depends on a cost/benefit analysis of breaking the law and how I morally feel about the action. Most laws I never desire to break, so it is not a problem. For those I do, it is a matter of what is the chance of being caught and the penalty, and if I find moral issue with doing that action. Every time you choose to go 58 in a 55, you are doing the same thing.
  - bweitzman 11y ago
    Sure, I don't disagree. The thing that just boils my blood is people talking about how they are entitled to pirate content because content creators don't make it available in the way they want it. If you want to pirate stuff, that's your business. Just don't try to justify it.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

This is correct. Laws only have significance in so far as those subjected to them have agreed to a consensus, and if there is sufficient investment in enforcing these laws.

andrepd 11y ago

I'm sure that Jack the ripper thought those murder laws very stupid indeed and that he very much disagreed with the arguments against murdering prostitutes. According to your argument, would it be fine for him to kill, seeing as "laws are nothing but opinions backed by guns"?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Would it be fine? According to what/whom? The law: no, that was illegal. Reality: reality never stopped Jack. To the victims or their loved ones: no, but it wouldn't have been fine even had it be legal back then. The law had nothing to do with if they thought it was fine or not. To me: I wasn't there back then, my opinion back then didn't exist either way. To put it simply, that what Jack did was wrong has nothing to do with it being illegal.
planfaster 11y ago
> Jack the ripper thought It's not about what someone thinks. It's about arguments and principles that can be applied universally. > he very much disagreed It's not about disagreeing with arguments. It's about refuting arguments to show them wrong. I am less sure than you are that Jack the Ripper has ever produced refutations to the universalized principled arguments against the initiation of force that so many have written about through the ages. According to my argument, it would be fine to use lethal force against Jack the Ripper initiating violence, since it is morally OK to use violence for self-defense (according to universal arguments, meaning that all participants can abide by this principle without contradictions arising). Without wanting to sound condescending, the difference between what I am saying and what you think I said is that you think I am considering the ego of the persons involved. What Jack the Ripper's ego "thinks" and "agrees with" is irrelevant. What is relevant is facts that don't involve the ego - namely, did Jack the Ripper produce a universalized principled argument to justify his actions? The answer, so far as I know, is no. It's not about what an ego thinks, it's about whether an argument exists.
- andrepd 11y ago
  >It's not about what an ego thinks, it's about whether an argument exists. I find it extremely ironic that you are making that point. What you are doing is precisely declaring a law about a complex and controversial issue to be invalid because there is an "universal and absolute argument" (aka, you think so) against that law. That's not how things work. Why would the things Jack the ripper thinks and agrees with be irrelevant and yours be "universalized arguments" that everyone must accept? EDIT: >According to my argument, it would be fine to use lethal force against Jack the Ripper initiating violence Precisely. According to your argument. Not a universal truth.
  - planfaster 11y ago
    > Why would the things Jack the ripper thinks and agrees with be irrelevant and yours be "universalized arguments" that everyone must accept? Because I can prove through propositional logic that "my" arguments can be universalized without contradictions, which proves that they are correct. It's not that I think there is a universal and absolute argument. It's that I have proven these things myself with pen and paper and rules such as Modus Ponens, De Morgan, etc. Not just me, many before me. Do mathematicians think pi is irrational? No, they've proven it is. Do philosophers think that if all humans are mortal and Socrates is a human, that therefore Socrates is mortal? So, they've proven it is. Maybe you are not aware that there is a method to this. I learned this from Irving Copi, his logic books are famous for teaching these concepts solidly. I'd recommend you peruse his work so you can understand what bweitzman and I are doing here. >> According to my argument, it would be fine to use lethal force against Jack the Ripper initiating violence > Precisely. According to your argument. Not a universal truth. I say "my" argument because I am making it now, not because I was the first to make it. Others before me have proven that "anyone should be able to initiate force" is self-contradictory (see sketch of proof in [1]). This much is trivial. What is less trivial is the work done to prove that "anyone should be able to use force against the initiation of force". If you want to read the proof for this, the book is called Universally Preferable Behavior by Stefan Molyneux. [1] Proof by ad absurdum: If anyone is should be able to initiate force, then I should be able to initiate force towards someone so as to strip them of their ability to initiate force. This leads to a contradiction: if everyone is able to initiate force, then some will not be able to initiate force. This contradiction means that the idea that anyone should be able to initiate force cannot be universalized.

bweitzman 11y ago

FWIW, I meant respect as in follow, not to agree with or to look upon with reverence. Anyways, I'm not saying that the conclusion is wrong, just the argument

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
If I follow a law depends on a cost/benefit analysis of breaking the law and how I morally feel about the action. Most laws I never desire to break, so it is not a problem. For those I do, it is a matter of what is the chance of being caught and the penalty, and if I find moral issue with doing that action. Every time you choose to go 58 in a 55, you are doing the same thing.
- bweitzman 11y ago
  Sure, I don't disagree. The thing that just boils my blood is people talking about how they are entitled to pirate content because content creators don't make it available in the way they want it. If you want to pirate stuff, that's your business. Just don't try to justify it.