Gibe Home
Annoy.com
Message Forum
Search
Log into your account
Create an Identity
Moments
Terms of Use
|
Paged Format
View all Replies
|
| Author |
Topic: Moral Responsibility in Institutional Actions |
| hogeye | Posted: 3/5/2000 4:07:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
From George Smith's essay...
If criminal accountability is restricted only to direct aggressors, then the vast majority of individuals in the State apparatus, including those at the highest levels of decision-making, must be considered nonaggressors by libertarian standards and hence totally innocent. We could not even regard Hitler or Stalin as aggressors, so long as they did not personally enforce their monstrous orders. The only condemnable persons would be in the police, military, and in other groups assigned to the enforcement of state decrees.
Why is it that people often impute greatest liability to the highest levels of political decision-making (presidents, legislators, etc.). even though these levels are far removed from physical enforcement"?
| | Liberator | Posted: 3/5/2000 7:00:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Hog:
Read the fucking Constitution. It may have little meaning to you, but it's all that matters to me. The primary purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual from physical harm of others or to their property.
We can agree that the government itself has become the biggest abuser of human rights. I'll not dispute you on that. But if you want to talk about agression, point a figure at the policy makers, the IRS and other non-elected representatives that have regulatory authority that carries the weight of law.
The Police and judiciary are necessary to ensure that the violators of Constitutional principle are are caught and punished. The military is necessary to defend our nation. Both of the functions are necessary in a Constitutional government.
The fact that the mind fucked, totalitarian fuck ups in D.C. could care less about the constitution does not deminish the need to either the police of the military.
Blame whomever you will, the real blame goes to elected officials and the people who elect them.
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/12/2000 1:46:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
I agree with you, Liberator, that the politicians and voters are blameworthy, and that an interventionist military policy is unconstitutional. Where we disagree is on whether the individual who did the deed for the state is also blameworthy. I.e. whether the cop enforcing an unjust law, or the soldier undertaking an unconstitutional mission, also has a share in the responsibility. So far, my impression is that you would exonerate pretty near any action, no matter how heinous, sanctioned by the state.Wouldn't you agree that, at some point, a rational person would reasonably conclude that the US military is used for political rather than constitutional reasons? How many years of interventionist policy will it take until you admit that, despite constitutional niceties, that's the way it is? What would have to happen for you to say, 'Yep, the US military is no longer a defensive force, and no right-thinking patriot should join or support it.'?
| | Liberator | Posted: 3/12/2000 6:56:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Hog:
It's very interesting that you should respond now. I am an active member of the Libertarian party and have had to engage many "average" citizens in Constitutional debates.
It is absolutely amazing the initial vile responses I get from people when I advocate individual rights and equality. But, for the most part, after we've talked for a while, they come to see the light, so to speak.
I'll agree that most of our problems would not exists, were it not for the masses who rpovide their tassid approval. But I also understand that many people have been brain washed by government propaganda and religious dogma. Most have never taken the time to question their beliefs. Sometimes it only takes a little effort to get them to start doing so.
Had a man, very authoritarian in his beliefs, come up to me last night. We'd had many heated debates in the past. I thought he'd NEVER change his views. He was definitely part of the problem masses. Seems he'd thought about our conversations and had come to believe most of the Libertarian philosphy. No one could'a been more surprised than me.
I guess the point I'm trying to make (and there is a point) is that you rightly blame the "masses" for the mess we're in, but you inflame instead of inform. I choose to inform and debate. Inflamatory comments ONLY cause defensiveness. In the end, you may feel better for having vented, but the ultimate prize of individual liberty is still a lost dream.
You may very well have been taught Libertarian beliefs from your childhood. I was not. I was raised to respect authoritarian rule. In that, I may have the advantage because I know where these folks are coming from. But I also know that if I can change, so can others.
Keep your eyes on the goal.
| | UncleBob | Posted: 3/12/2000 7:10:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Wow, a well thought out, accurate and articulate post with some very well defined, and very correct points, made against hogeye.
He will not respond to your points, if he does it will be to change the subject
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/13/2000 7:45:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
I ask again: Wouldn't you agree that, at some point, a rational person would reasonably conclude that the US military is used for political rather than constitutional reasons? IOW, what event or situation would have to occur before you decided that the US military was not in fact bound by the Constitution?
| | UncleBob | Posted: 3/13/2000 7:53:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
See ?
| | Liberator | Posted: 3/13/2000 9:29:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Again Hog:
Yes, I agree that the military IS unconstitutionally used. But most people, including me were not raised "knowing" about the constitutional abuses of government, not just in the military, but with a whole lot of other things. We just went around flag waving, and repeating the mantra…”America, land of the free, home of the brave…America, love it or leave it” …adnausium.
There are MANY laws today that advocate constitutional infringements:
1. Drug laws that create a criminal class where none exists.
2. Crimes against nature laws, that dictate acceptable private, consensual sex between adults.
3. Search and seizure laws, which assume guilt without a trial.
And the list goes on and on.
AND YET AGAIN...I will stress that most people have been brought up with these abuses, and have bought into the rhetoric of their convoluted justification. Had you talked to me only four years ago, I would have told you that your opinions were FLAT WRONG. Most people have not reached the "enlightened" level of true constitutional principles yet. So we have several choices:
1. We can totally turn them off by beating them over the head with constitutional ideology...not a good option in my opinion because the ultimate prize will remain allusive.
2. Totally ignore the problem and hope for the best...maybe an option for you, but not in my best interest, as I see it.
3. Debate and convince...really the only viable alternative for me.
Now far be it from me to tell you what to do, but ask yourself these questions:
1. Did you ALWAYS feel the way you do now?
2. If not, at what point did you begin to question the things you'd been taught?
3. Was it the writings of Libertarians or through discussions with others that caused you to choose this path?
4. Had you never been exposed to the writings, or never had those discussions, would you ever have questioned the beliefs you were raised with?
See my point? Some people have never been challenged! Their idea of patriotism is nothing more than saying the pledge of allegiance with a tear in their eye. We must, through debate, challenge LONG held beliefs, in order to convince these people that being an American is MORE than that.
| | MasterReprisaler | Posted: 3/13/2000 5:27:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
He can't see your point, Liberator. Remember, he already knows everything.
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/13/2000 10:05:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Liberator> See my point? Some people have never been challenged! Their idea of patriotism is nothing more than saying the pledge of allegiance with a tear in their eye. We must, through debate, challenge LONG held beliefs, in order to convince these people that being an American is MORE than that.Yes, I see that, in a long time, you may convince some people, although whether it will counteract the propaganda of the state, education system, and tax-consuming constituencies is debatable. Convincing people is indirect action. I prefer direct action, like opting out in various ways. But strategy is the other thread... This thread is about moral responsibility with regard to roles in institutions. You've said that the US govt regularly ignores the Constitution with regard to military action. Suppose that a young person agrees with you about this. Then would you agree that this person should not join the military? If someone realizes the immorality of the product of an institution, are they not morally obliged to refuse membership in it?
| | Liberator | Posted: 3/14/2000 11:11:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Agreed!
My sons have opted not to join precisely because they believe the military is used unconstitutionally, not because they think its an unconstitutional institution. They don't sit around smoking pot, berating others 'cause they join though, and that, in a nutshell, sums up my position. I was in the military, and I know why I was there. It's where I was supposed to be at that time in my life. That's just the way life works sometimes.
I personally do not hold against those who join, any malice, and I'm certainly not going to call them names...sounds kind’a childish. I respect them for where they're at in life, at that particular moment in their lives. The military is not the problem. It is a constitutionally mandated institution, necessary in a bad world. In your utopian vision, it may not be, but as I've said, people have looked for utopia and it hasn't been found yet.
The decision to join or not join the military is a personal one. I know that if this country were attacked, by another country's military, I'd re-up (if they'd let me). You may disagree with that. It is your right.
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/14/2000 1:01:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
So we agree that an institution may be predictably immoral (i.e. generate immoral actions.) We also agree that an individual should not participate in such institutions. So what do we not agree on? I'd say: Whether it is reasonable or necessary to criticize the act of joining an evil institution (such as the current interventionist US military or the DEA, and by implication, criticize those who choose to join.)Liberator, I'm confident that there are times when you would speak out against those who fill roles in evil institutions. Would you not castigate partners in a gang of thieves or extortionists? Perhaps you would morally condemn members of a crack-selling firm, or an outfit that rents out child-slaves for sex. Maybe you would condemn people even involved in totally legal outfits, like gambling enterprises, tobacco companies, special interest groups, racist hate-groups, whatever. My question is: When is it reasonable to criticize people for their roles in institutions?
| | Cleyon | Posted: 3/14/2000 3:05:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
The military is not an inherently "Evil" edifice. It is how ever inherently human. You know makes mistakes, and at times does the wrong things, or the right things for the wrong reasons.
Hogeye> Liberator, I'm confident that there are times when you would speak out against those who fill roles in evil institutions. Would you not castigate partners in a gang of thieves or extortionists? Perhaps you would morally condemn members of a crack-selling firm, or an outfit that rents out child-slaves for sex. Maybe you would condemn people even involved in totally legal outfits, like gambling enterprises, tobacco companies, special interest groups, racist hate-groups, whatever. My question is: When is it reasonable to criticize people for their roles in institutions?
The groups high-lighted above have none of the redeeming values of the military. They do not give anything back to society. You are grasping at straws Hog, just admit that the military is not the evil wastfull institution that you claim it to be. Inner city youths that go into the military have a 85% better chance of staying out of prison, they make on average 62% more than the kids they grew up with. Many of them actually get degrees. These things allow them to be more productive citizens, tell me where these groups up above do any of those things.
Cleyon
| | Liberator | Posted: 3/14/2000 4:12:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
As Clay said, you take the position that the military is inherently evil, a belief I do not share. Some of the actions taken by the President are wrong. I will agree that the most principled thing to do would be for military members to just say no. I could not do it when I was in. I takes an extraordinary person to take such a stand, and a few have.
The only option available to me was to resign. And the only viable option available to my sons was simply not to join.
Evil, like many other things are in the eyes of the beholder. I would not tell people in the military that they are "evil". I would debate some actions of the military, but that's a different mind set than what you're advocating...and have done.
The military serves an important, constitutional role. The Presidents both present and past, have chosen to abuse that role. That is the argument I would make.
It does not absolve those who go along, any more than it absolves me of my escapades in Asia, South America and Europe, but it is understandable to me why most within the system fear speaking out.
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/14/2000 4:57:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Excuse me, both you Liberator and Cleyon are putting words into my mouth. I never said militaries were inherently evil. I said the US military is "predictably immoral." Also, I have not criticised a purely defensive military at all. I have made it clear from the outset that I oppose an interventionist military.Both of you seem to want to ignore the facts, the history of US intervention, and talk about the utopian how it should be/could be if only all those politicians and voters would just see the light and follow the Constitution. Hey man, if you build an automobile factory, you shouldn't be surprised when it produces automobiles instead of cantelopes. From your answer, Liberator, I assume you agree that it is reasonable to morally condemn a member of a "bad" institution. Thus, I'm sure you will now agree that it is reasonable for me to condemn those who go on milfare. Until and unless someone can convince me that statist military aggression is a good thing, or the US military stops its policy of intervention, I must condemn those who fill the roles of that institution.
| | Liberator | Posted: 3/14/2000 6:51:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
No. I do not believe it is right to condemn those that go on "milfare" as you call it. You throw the baby out with the bath water.
The military is a constitutionally mandated institution. Repeat this three times or more. Mayby, eventually you'll get that very important point.
If my sons do something stupid, I don't call them stupid. I say "THAT THING" they did was stupid. But I don't relagate their very existance to stupidom.
If military action is used beyond the bounds of constitutional mandate i.e., to protect the U.S. against agression foreign and domestic, then I call that action wrong, not the entire military establishment.
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 3/14/2000 7:35:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Hog - please answer Cley about kids going in the military and gaining hugely from it. Personal growth that help the whole community is a win win thing. What's your specific gripe with that?
| | UncleBob | Posted: 3/14/2000 7:39:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
The fatal flaw with that argument is that it contradicts one of his long held beliefs
| | Cleyon | Posted: 3/15/2000 5:37:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
I think this is the coolest I've ever stayed in a debate, and I'm enjoying it. Hog, you are continuing to dig a hole with your half truths and lies. You have called the US military evil on several different occasions (i'm to lazy to look up examples, could someone assist?).
Where looking at only the good of something is wrong, looking only at the bad is certainly just as foolish (i'm sure you agree with that). You claim the military has made your life less-safe, how? I'm probably at least as well traveled as you possibly more so, yet I have never been threatened or anything because of my status as an American.
This is a common misconception that has been perpetrated by the media. I think you need to re-check the facts. I have traveled to the standard European destinations GB, Italy, France, Spain, and I have also been to more unique locations Russia, Japan, Africa, but I've had reletively few problems. The matter of fact the worst problem I had was in France, and that was just personality conflict (I'm sure you've experienced that).
The point I'm trying to make is that even though you believe something doesn't mean it's correct. It would also be a nice change if you took on the challenging questions instead of sticking to your pre-written answers. The "Straw-Men" you keep throwing up to avoid the facts are getting old, explore different areas of the debate, you might find it more interesting.
Cleyon
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/15/2000 6:45:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Re Cleyon's kids on milfare: Yes, poverty-oriented welfare helps some people, too. What's your point?Re danger of holding US passport: Look up the stats on terrorist hijackings, hostages, and such. It is clear Americans and American firms are targeted. Back to the subject: I agree that actions are stupid, not (most) people. I think that a part of our disagreement is verbal - when you say "the military" you mean the ideal of what the Constitution says, while when I say "the military" I mean how it really is. Thus you think I throw the baby out with the bathwater, while I think you are evading reality. Liberator> If military action is used beyond the bounds of constitutional mandate i.e., to protect the U.S. against agression foreign and domestic, then I call that action wrong, not the entire military establishment. Why? By what criteria do you excuse individual responsibility for someone in the US military, but not for someone in a robber gang, or the Nazi brownshirts? I'm sorry, but to me (at this point) it looks like you are making an ad-hoc exception for the US military.
| | Cleyon | Posted: 3/15/2000 1:29:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
Hog> Re danger of holding US passport: Look up the stats on terrorist hijackings, hostages, and such. It is clear Americans and American firms are targeted.
Clear? to who you? You have once again answered the question without your brain.
95% of all airline hijackings take place on trips that are scheduled to be 1000knm or more. Hijacking a plane is a way to get publicity, nothing else. Terrorists know that, that's why they don't hijack "Air Mexicana" flights. They want to scare rich and powerfull people, not poor starving people. Where do you think you have a better chance of finding rich and powerfull people? You just assume that since it is more likely to have Americans and British on board that all unclaimed acts are against them. It's OK, the media has been feeding you that line for a long time, you just need to go back nad re-evaluate the situations.
As far as the good our military does why are you overlooking it?
Cleyon
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/16/2000 9:58:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Yes, and the Nazi military sponsored childrens' clubs. Good deeds don't excuse atrocities. If you go to a foreign country and kill on order of politicians, you are a fucking murderer. If you are a party to an institution that does such, you're an accessory to murder. If you were involved in the invasion of Panama, or any of the other hundreds of US aggressions that murdered innocents, then you have moral culpability. All the good deeds in the world won't erase that fact.
| | UncleBob | Posted: 3/16/2000 10:02:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Kinda like Bill Gates giving money to charity
| | Liberator | Posted: 3/16/2000 5:20:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
"By what criteria do you excuse individual responsibility for someone in the US military, but not for someone in a robber gang, or the Nazi brownshirts? I'm sorry, but to me (at this point) it looks like you are making an ad-hoc exception for the US military. "
Hog:
By the same criteria you use to excuse welfare recipients. You have stated many times, and very recently, that you do not blame people for taking money that the government has stolen, i.e., taxes. Yet you quickly, and very suspiciously jump on "milfare" recipients
So Hog, it looks like you are making an ad-hoc exception for the welfare recipients.
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/16/2000 8:18:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
I just answered this in another thread! The great Hogeye said:Milfare recipients clearly "join" the state. Liberator, I don't see how you could say welfare recipients "join" the state. They take no oaths, can take or not take jobs, don't work for the state in any real sense... Folks on welfare are not members of the state institution, but government soldiers are. Obviously.
| | Cleyon | Posted: 3/17/2000 6:04:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Man Hog, your parents must be really ashamed.
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/17/2000 9:15:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Back to ad-hom one-liners again, Cleyon? I)gnore
| | Cleyon | Posted: 3/17/2000 12:08:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer |
That's not ad-hom any more than me calling you a moron is, or have you forgotten the deffenition so quickly? Remember in order for it to be ad-hom I would have to be using your parents shame as a reason your argument is not valid.
But then again your parents are just victems aren't they Hog? It's not their fault they don't agree with you they grew up in more conservative times. I'm really considering given your parents a call and seeing what they think of your political attitude. I don't know if they mean anything to you, but I know that when my parents are ashamed of something I say or do it cuts me to the bone.
On a different note, I'm suprised at how stupid you seem next to Liberator. I don't agree with everything he's said, but I do admit that he has made me think about my stance on some issues. You are your own worst enemy Hog. You say you want things to change, but what do you do? Op-out, that's just another way of saying run-away. You are proving yourself a coward by actions. Yeah, in pixels you might be a hollier than all tough guy, with an uncaring demeanor, but in real life your running away from the things you don't like.
A more serious approach might be to protest the actions you see as unfair, or even take a non-violent approach to changing peoples beliefs. You initiate violence against people who have done nothing to you, you hide in fear of the government hoping they don't notice that you're spending money while not filing a tax return. Maybe someone should tip off the IRS as to William Orton's location and tax evassion techniques? Don't say that I don't know where you are, because as you know I can find out. Don't worry however, I don't want to meet you face to face.
Another odd thing about the cowardly pig is how you have refused to make more than one comment on the 1st annual Gibe Fest. While we all sit around talking and planning this grand meeting that will take place in a couple of months you've tried to move it once and then said no more (due to getting a virtual smack down). So are you going to come to the REAL Gibe Fest?
Cleyon
P.S.
I love how you've started responding to posts in different topics to avoid direct confrontation. Is it Lib, Atlas, Me? or are you just scared of the collection of nobodies punching holes in your ideology?
| | MasterReprisaler | Posted: 3/17/2000 1:06:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Hogeye coming to the Gibe fest? I'd like to SEE that.
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/17/2000 6:34:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
You've forgotten our defs already, Cleyon. It was an ad-hom attack (not ad-hom argument) as is most of your last message. Tee-hee-hee. LOL. You have no idea where I am, turkey! BTW, I'm totally tax legal - I won't have any income by their def since I live off a margin account and don't sell stock anymore. Only the little landbound people pay taxes!
| | MasterReprisaler | Posted: 3/18/2000 12:12:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
How very small of you, Hogeye. Yes, I really feel inclined to listen to someone who incessantly insults, badgers and belittes anyone who doesn't adhere to his ideals.
You reap what you sow. I have no doubt that the ill-will you wreak now will soon return upon you with a vengeance.
How much will you laugh then.
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/18/2000 7:54:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Yeah, yeah, you've been predicting disaster since day one. Meanwhile, I've freed myself from the US, have moved to paradise, and my tech stocks keep going up and up and up... I figure you're one of envy-heads, who can't stand to see someone happy and successful.
| | MasterReprisaler | Posted: 3/18/2000 3:48:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Hehehe... Yeah, right. I wish I would be so ignorant.
We'll see just how fond you are of that island paradise and all of the money that you supposedly have once your health starts to FAIL. Remember, you aren't exactly in your prime anymore.
Tick... Tick... Tick...
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/19/2000 6:23:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
After all the grandiose notions you ascribe to me, it's nice to know that, at least, you realize I have a finite lifespan. (First time I've ever been "insulted" by being called mortal! Tee-hee.)
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 3/19/2000 8:55:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
If you could only understand what people were saying Hog, you would know that you have been insulted lots of times. You're so cute with that little disability of yours.
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/19/2000 9:37:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Oh, I know people have tried to insult me. But that's the first time I've heard, "Junior Barnes, you.... you.... mortal!"I find that quite humorous. Don't you?
| | MasterReprisaler | Posted: 3/19/2000 4:35:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
It's just the way you act, Hog. You act as if everything you say or do is derived from infallible logic. You're like a little kid who reads one book and suddenly thinks he's a god. Your actions don't suggest that you have a firm grasp of reality, including the imminence of your own mortality.
| | Cleyon | Posted: 3/19/2000 8:35:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
Cleyon> Don't say that I don't know where you are, because as you know I can find out.
HogEye> Tee-hee-hee. LOL. You have no idea where I am, turkey!
Did I claim to know where you were? Oh, I didn't think so moron.
Your location is of no concern to me, unless you are residing in the US and trying to steal from the honest. Ok, well I'm tired, and it looks like Hog's stoned so I'll let him go back to his pipe and see you all tomarrow.
Cleyon
| | hogeye | Posted: 3/20/2000 5:37:00 AM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
MR, you are very quick to assert what you think are my attitudes and thoughts ... but you are invariably wrong. (Jealousy of a confident intelligent person, I suppose. Why else would you belittle knowlege and honesty?)
| | Roadrunner | Posted: 3/20/2000 11:16:00 PM - Reply with Quote ~ Find Messages From this User ~ Refer
So, how do YOU spell overcompensation?
Pretty obvious.
|
|
Back ~ Post New Topic ~ Post a Reply
Black and White Version
Full color Version
Copyright © 2006 Innoventions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Gibe and Gibe.com are trademarks of Innoventions, Inc.
|
