4 ms·

Other people can't consent for me. That's not real consent. You can call it consent, but it's really just an excuse. There's no court that would uphold that in

by pitaj 10y ago

Other people can't consent for me. That's not real consent. You can call it consent, but it's really just an excuse. There's no court that would uphold that in any other context. The state doesn't get a special exemption from definitions just because. > which is a pretty good system that we have not seen fit to radically change Slavery was "a pretty good system". Any action the state takes can be justified using this line of reasoning.

ajkjk 10y ago
You sound like a college kid who read some libertarian propaganda but has never learned anything about political philosophy and thinks (s)he knows everything anyway. You really need to go back and at least get to the point where you could argue (ideally, steelman[0]) for the other side, and then show where they're mistaken. Right now it just sounds like you've never learned anything about any Enlightenment-era principle of government, much less anything past that, and, well, I don't really feel like explaining any more basic concepts to you. Easy retorts: * Slavery was morally wrong (per almost all moral frameworks), but it was just per the government at the time. You should be opposed to immoral things regardless of how just they are under a government. * You're still using the wrong definition of consent. Imagine there are two words - ConsentI and ConsentP. You're arguing against the phrase "taxation is done with ConsentP" by saying "well I didn't ConsentI!!!". No shit, we're talking about ConsentP. Get with the program or you just sound ignorant. * The state does get a special exemption from definitions. That's the point of having the definition of 'just' come from the state. This is basic stuff. (Specifically, defined in the constitution of the state. The behavior of the agents of the state are not exempt from the definitions.) [0] steelmanning is the opposite of strawmanning: instead of fighting a fake, weak version of your opponent's argument, you go out of your way to fight the strongest possible version of it - which should be easy if your position is the correct one.
- aminok 10y ago
  Ironically, I viewed libertarians exactly the way you do many years ago. I would have long grueling debates on the internet with American libertarians. They may as well have been speaking to a wall, because I discounted them and their views the same way you're doing now. >The state does get a special exemption from definitions. That's the point of having the definition of 'just' come from the state. This is basic stuff. No it gets no exemption. The state does not define justice. We categorize many state actions as unjust.
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    As long as you're speaking in absolutes, not relative to a framework of thought, talking to you will continue to be like speaking to a wall. "The state does not define justice." It does for me. It does in America. So you're talking about "in your fantasy system, it doesn't". Who cares? You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. If you can't, won't, or are incapable of it, then talking to you is, indeed, like talking to a wall.
    - aminok 10y ago
      'Justice' is not conventionally understood as being synonymous with law. You're employing a highly unconventional definition of 'justice' which would make your statements misleading to most. >You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. Everyone else does not use the same definition of justice as you. This is how justice is usually defined (first definition found through a Google search): >Justice definition, the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. just: >just jəst/ adjective 1. based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. When used in the context of laws, justice refers to a legal remedy that is morally right, equitable, etc. Legal rulings are not automatically considered justice on account of being from the state. State actions everywhere, including in the US, are widely characterized as unjust, a miscarriage of justice, etc., when they are considered immoral. I suggest you stop being stubborn, because you're wrong.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > It does for me. No, I really don't think so even in your case. You must have a limit where if a law was passed saying it was okay to .... something, that you'd object. Even if only such that you'd recognize it in a movie and say "Not in my America." It really is the people who define justice. The state codifies and enforces that. We try people (Nazis, Saddam Hussein, etc) for crimes that were legal by the laws of their state. The Italians try American CIA agents with kidnapping for extraordinary rendition. This is a widely held, almost universal view, that justice transcends law. > It does in America. We (my government and likely yours) recognize North Korea as a country, but we don't recognize it's actions as legitimate. So pure minimalistic statehood - the ability to have and hold land - isn't enough for legitimacy. What, beyond statehood, does America have that makes it legitimate. Can you put your finger on what parts matter to you? > You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using You're the steelman. I don't think that's compatible with definitional nitpicking. > > So the government is not made of normal people? Is the USA run by lizards or something? > you seem utterly incapable of understanding basic, well-known positions, and you imagine I am delusional when your comprehension fails you. The Lizard comment was valid sarcasm. You're not only not steelmanning, you're playing the victim. You're rightly being called on your use of the word 'normal' because you're hand-waving so much away with it, and being so dismissive with the article.
- dmichulke 10y ago
  Hmm, I believe consentp is only valid if rights we're specifically transferred from consenti. Otherwise, couldn't I just come up with consentx where you consent to everything that I say? If need be, I could have a few people sign this so we're really a majority in your town... Where is the reason that consentp is not just "other people taking away the rights of someone"?
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    ConsentP is sort of a proxy for collective ConsentI, because it's not feasible to build a society where we check everyone's ConsentI. As it happens, the system we implement says "ConsentP is officially derived when the constitution says it is, and the majority is allowed to change that if their ConsentI changes / they think it's a good idea." Fortunately, the majority also has a vested interest in the system being functional, so they don't necessarily change the constitution every time it rubs them the wrong way (and it's hard to change it, also, so it takes a lot of momentum and time for it to actually happen, giving everyone plenty of time to reconsider). In this case, it would be not in most peoples' interest to abolish taxation, because the country would immediately collapse. I was only talking about the two terms to make it clear that the argument against that specific phrase was missing the point of the phrase entirely - inventing new words to clear up overloaded ones can be quite useful.
xorcist 10y ago
Every person can not give explicit consent to every law and still form a society. That much should be self evident. How do we reconcile this with the unjust regimes practicing things such as slavery or capital punishment? It's not an obvious question, but one must be able to reason about it without resorting to trivialities such as universal unanimous consent.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by pitaj 10y ago

ajkjk 10y ago

You sound like a college kid who read some libertarian propaganda but has never learned anything about political philosophy and thinks (s)he knows everything anyway. You really need to go back and at least get to the point where you could argue (ideally, steelman[0]) for the other side, and then show where they're mistaken. Right now it just sounds like you've never learned anything about any Enlightenment-era principle of government, much less anything past that, and, well, I don't really feel like explaining any more basic concepts to you. Easy retorts: * Slavery was morally wrong (per almost all moral frameworks), but it was just per the government at the time. You should be opposed to immoral things regardless of how just they are under a government. * You're still using the wrong definition of consent. Imagine there are two words - ConsentI and ConsentP. You're arguing against the phrase "taxation is done with ConsentP" by saying "well I didn't ConsentI!!!". No shit, we're talking about ConsentP. Get with the program or you just sound ignorant. * The state does get a special exemption from definitions. That's the point of having the definition of 'just' come from the state. This is basic stuff. (Specifically, defined in the constitution of the state. The behavior of the agents of the state are not exempt from the definitions.) [0] steelmanning is the opposite of strawmanning: instead of fighting a fake, weak version of your opponent's argument, you go out of your way to fight the strongest possible version of it - which should be easy if your position is the correct one.

aminok 10y ago
Ironically, I viewed libertarians exactly the way you do many years ago. I would have long grueling debates on the internet with American libertarians. They may as well have been speaking to a wall, because I discounted them and their views the same way you're doing now. >The state does get a special exemption from definitions. That's the point of having the definition of 'just' come from the state. This is basic stuff. No it gets no exemption. The state does not define justice. We categorize many state actions as unjust.
- ajkjk 10y ago
  As long as you're speaking in absolutes, not relative to a framework of thought, talking to you will continue to be like speaking to a wall. "The state does not define justice." It does for me. It does in America. So you're talking about "in your fantasy system, it doesn't". Who cares? You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. If you can't, won't, or are incapable of it, then talking to you is, indeed, like talking to a wall.
  - aminok 10y ago
    'Justice' is not conventionally understood as being synonymous with law. You're employing a highly unconventional definition of 'justice' which would make your statements misleading to most. >You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. Everyone else does not use the same definition of justice as you. This is how justice is usually defined (first definition found through a Google search): >Justice definition, the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. just: >just jəst/ adjective 1. based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. When used in the context of laws, justice refers to a legal remedy that is morally right, equitable, etc. Legal rulings are not automatically considered justice on account of being from the state. State actions everywhere, including in the US, are widely characterized as unjust, a miscarriage of justice, etc., when they are considered immoral. I suggest you stop being stubborn, because you're wrong.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > It does for me. No, I really don't think so even in your case. You must have a limit where if a law was passed saying it was okay to .... something, that you'd object. Even if only such that you'd recognize it in a movie and say "Not in my America." It really is the people who define justice. The state codifies and enforces that. We try people (Nazis, Saddam Hussein, etc) for crimes that were legal by the laws of their state. The Italians try American CIA agents with kidnapping for extraordinary rendition. This is a widely held, almost universal view, that justice transcends law. > It does in America. We (my government and likely yours) recognize North Korea as a country, but we don't recognize it's actions as legitimate. So pure minimalistic statehood - the ability to have and hold land - isn't enough for legitimacy. What, beyond statehood, does America have that makes it legitimate. Can you put your finger on what parts matter to you? > You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using You're the steelman. I don't think that's compatible with definitional nitpicking. > > So the government is not made of normal people? Is the USA run by lizards or something? > you seem utterly incapable of understanding basic, well-known positions, and you imagine I am delusional when your comprehension fails you. The Lizard comment was valid sarcasm. You're not only not steelmanning, you're playing the victim. You're rightly being called on your use of the word 'normal' because you're hand-waving so much away with it, and being so dismissive with the article.
dmichulke 10y ago
Hmm, I believe consentp is only valid if rights we're specifically transferred from consenti. Otherwise, couldn't I just come up with consentx where you consent to everything that I say? If need be, I could have a few people sign this so we're really a majority in your town... Where is the reason that consentp is not just "other people taking away the rights of someone"?
- ajkjk 10y ago
  ConsentP is sort of a proxy for collective ConsentI, because it's not feasible to build a society where we check everyone's ConsentI. As it happens, the system we implement says "ConsentP is officially derived when the constitution says it is, and the majority is allowed to change that if their ConsentI changes / they think it's a good idea." Fortunately, the majority also has a vested interest in the system being functional, so they don't necessarily change the constitution every time it rubs them the wrong way (and it's hard to change it, also, so it takes a lot of momentum and time for it to actually happen, giving everyone plenty of time to reconsider). In this case, it would be not in most peoples' interest to abolish taxation, because the country would immediately collapse. I was only talking about the two terms to make it clear that the argument against that specific phrase was missing the point of the phrase entirely - inventing new words to clear up overloaded ones can be quite useful.

xorcist 10y ago

Every person can not give explicit consent to every law and still form a society. That much should be self evident. How do we reconcile this with the unjust regimes practicing things such as slavery or capital punishment? It's not an obvious question, but one must be able to reason about it without resorting to trivialities such as universal unanimous consent.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]