4 ms·

Since you reject any absolute definition of "force" and "fraud" (me too), you must be a true anarchist. Because any sort of dictated social order implies absolu

Since you reject any absolute definition of "force" and "fraud" (me too), you must be a true anarchist. Because any sort of dictated social order implies absolute definition of morality and justice. E.g. in democracy a cop supposedly represents majority in his violence (and thus it's just), or in monarchy a cop represents some god-given King (and thus it's just). In reality though, anyone who points a gun and claims justice, must present a good proof. "Majority voted for it" is not a proof, it's a yet-to-be-proven moral proposition. Usually no one bother with a proof — they assume their morality, take out a gun and go on "solving" social problems. Example: some people support war in Syria, some don't. Everyone has their argument pro and contra. Solution number 1: those who support it may go and fight/pay for it themselves. Opposing people may pay for protection or just stay on the side. Solution number 2: a bunch of guys forces everyone to pay for it, regardless of their own opinion.

rayiner 13y ago
> Because any sort of dictated social order implies absolute definition of morality and justice I don't believe that to be the case. Force or fraud are defined the way they are in a democratic society not because they have absolute definitions, but because that society acting through government finds particular definitions conducive to their collective prosperity. These are operating definitions, not absolute ones. I do find myself less flexible on the question of who is entitled to dictate operating definitions of "force" and "fraud." I believe that the majority, who is charged with enforcing any definitions of those terms, is morally entitled to pick the definitions. This is my key point of disagreement with Randianism--it's morally wrong to force the majority to conform to particular definitions of "force" and "fraud" that it does not get to define.

rayiner 13y ago

> Because any sort of dictated social order implies absolute definition of morality and justice I don't believe that to be the case. Force or fraud are defined the way they are in a democratic society not because they have absolute definitions, but because that society acting through government finds particular definitions conducive to their collective prosperity. These are operating definitions, not absolute ones. I do find myself less flexible on the question of who is entitled to dictate operating definitions of "force" and "fraud." I believe that the majority, who is charged with enforcing any definitions of those terms, is morally entitled to pick the definitions. This is my key point of disagreement with Randianism--it's morally wrong to force the majority to conform to particular definitions of "force" and "fraud" that it does not get to define.