An awesome video that I'd love to see someone argue against.

[Oldguy]

Come on now. People do the "right thing" on their own all of the time. Free from government coercion.

If they do, then why must we have laws to prohibit certain behaviors? Why do we have laws which make stealing and murder and forgery and lying under oath illegal?

But man is inherently immoral. To serve himself absent any moral code which is learned.

Toddlers lack morality.

Right. That's why we have laws...to protect the rest of us from....well...the rest of us.

 

[Oldguy]

Of course it is.

But we did not agree to the system that supports the cultural shift and mindset of more in the wagon than pulling the wagon.

You missed that part too.

Apparently we still do, to this point, because the system has not yet been changed.

The wagon is full and the axles are about to break. That will bring on the "yet".

It may very well be. But, until "yet" comes about, this is the system we have and we cannot just opt out of it at our pleasure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Coercion for the common good is the basis of any government. Without compulsory obedience to an agreed upon set of rules, there is simply anarchy and government doesn't work at all.

For instance, if cops couldn't write speeding tickets, what good is a speed limit? That's coercion.

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

Perhaps you'd like to answer that.

You obviously didn't get the point. There's nothing "moral" about complying with orders under threat of compulsion. Even if someone wouldn't "do the right thing," where does anyone else get off thinking they have the authority to determine what's right and compelling you to comply?

It's called representative government. I believe we spend about twice as much as we should on defense,

but I don't get to opt out of half of the taxes I pay for it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If they do, then why must we have laws to prohibit certain behaviors? Why do we have laws which make stealing and murder and forgery and lying under oath illegal?

Because there are those who either dont have a specifc learned moral code (as alluded to previously) or choose to ignore a basic moral code which universal and self-evident.

 

[Oldguy]

If they do, then why must we have laws to prohibit certain behaviors? Why do we have laws which make stealing and murder and forgery and lying under oath illegal?

Because there are those who either dont have a specifc learned moral code (as alluded to previously) or choose to ignore a basic moral code which universal and self-evident.

Right...like taking care of the poor and hungry.

Unless, of course, you don't think feeding them is moral in the first place.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Coercion for the common good is the basis of any government. Without compulsory obedience to an agreed upon set of rules, there is simply anarchy and government doesn't work at all.

For instance, if cops couldn't write speeding tickets, what good is a speed limit? That's coercion.

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

Perhaps you'd like to answer that.

You obviously didn't get the point. There's nothing "moral" about complying with orders under threat of compulsion. Even if someone wouldn't "do the right thing," where does anyone else get off thinking they have the authority to determine what's right and compelling you to comply?

How else can government work? If people would naturally do the right thing, we'd have no need of government, would we?

Yet, we have forms of government which necessarily includes legal coercion. Do you know why human beings created government in the first place?

Because people are doing the right thing now while we have government right? You lose the morality argument when you have to coerce someone.

 

[bripat9643]

So long as you continue to live in this country, and agree to abide by our laws, you give your consent to it all.

Horseshit. Being born doesn't constitute agreement with anything, niether does declining to move from where I was born. That's the logic of a fascist.

If you decline to give your consent, you have two options:

1. Move to somewhere else.

2. Become a criminal who claims the individual right to exist outside the law.

I'm fully aware of the fact that government will impose its will on me whether I agree to it or not. That's irrelevant to this discussion.

No, working to change the law doesn't work for you simply because by working to change the law, you're giving your implied consent to the rule of law.

Wrong again. Working to overturn bad law no more implies consent than taking penicillin implies I wanted to have syphilis.

If you deny the authority of the law, you have no reason to seek to change it.

Of course you have a reason to change it. Only a stupid A-hole would disagree.

If you accept the authority of the law, and work to change it from within, you imply your willingness to abide by the law even if you lose your campaign to change it.

Wrong. By working to change the law I acknowledge only that the law needs to be changed. My actions imply nothing else. Only my explicit agreement with the law constitutes agreement with the law. Any other claims are the work of fascist shysters and con artists.

 

[bripat9643]

If they do, then why must we have laws to prohibit certain behaviors? Why do we have laws which make stealing and murder and forgery and lying under oath illegal?

Because there are those who either dont have a specifc learned moral code (as alluded to previously) or choose to ignore a basic moral code which universal and self-evident.

Right...like taking care of the poor and hungry.

Unless, of course, you don't think feeding them is moral in the first place.

Feeding the poor and refraining from murdering people are two separate things. Society can function perfectly fine if I decide I don't want to help the poor. However, if I decide I like to earn my living my killing people and taking their stuff, the existence of society is threatened. We need laws to prevent the later because it threatens the existence of society. The failure to enforce the former only threatens your sense of sanctimony.

 

[bripat9643]

Coercion for the common good is the basis of any government. Without compulsory obedience to an agreed upon set of rules, there is simply anarchy and government doesn't work at all.

For instance, if cops couldn't write speeding tickets, what good is a speed limit? That's coercion.

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

Perhaps you'd like to answer that.

You obviously didn't get the point. There's nothing "moral" about complying with orders under threat of compulsion. Even if someone wouldn't "do the right thing," where does anyone else get off thinking they have the authority to determine what's right and compelling you to comply?

It's called representative government. I believe we spend about twice as much as we should on defense,

but I don't get to opt out of half of the taxes I pay for it.

That still doesn't make paying your taxes a moral act. It's simply an example of following orders to avoid punishment.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, but he did not directly answer the question. Neither did you.

He did answer the question. You just don't like that answer. I'll sum it up for you: charity is one thing, robbery is another. The transaction the questioner was asking about is robbery, so there's no moral issue involved.

The question was (to paraphrase): Since the speaker himself said that people are inherently immoral, thereby incapable of doing the "right" thing on their own, by what right would he suppose that people would do the right thing without compulsion?

No, that wasn't the question.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I knew that it was the same old BS from the Right, a soon as he started talking about Obama riding up on a horse and putting a gun to his head. There was no point in listening to the rest of it.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I knew that it was the same old BS from the Right, a soon as he started talking about Obama riding up on a horse and putting a gun to his head. There was no point in listening to the rest of it.

Guess ignorance is bliss

 

[Vandalshandle]

I knew that it was the same old BS from the Right, a soon as he started talking about Obama riding up on a horse and putting a gun to his head. There was no point in listening to the rest of it.

Guess ignorance is bliss

I guess that you would know....

 

[g5000]

In a planned society, we shall all know that we are better or worse off than others, not because of circumstances which nobody controls, and which it is impossible to foresee with certainty, but because some authority wills it. And all our efforts directed towards improving our position will have to aim, not at foreseeing and preparing as well as we can for the circumstances over which we have no control, but at influencing in our favour theauthority which has all the power.

Who plans whom, who directs and dominates whom, who assigns to other people their station in life, and who is to have his due allotted by others? These become necessarily the central issues to be decided solely by the supreme power.

Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation, most of those features of totalitarian regimes which horrify us follow of necessity. From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual, are essential and unavoidable consequences of this basic premise, and the collectivist can admit this and at the same time claim that his system is superior to one in which the “selfish” interests of the individual are allowed to obstruct the full realisation of the ends the community pursues.

And while the planning authority will constantly have to decide issues on merits about which there exist no definite moral rules, it will have to justify its decisions to the
people-or, at least, have somehow to make the people believe that they are the right decisions. Although those responsible for a decision may have been guided by no more than prejudice, some guiding principle will have to be stated publicly if the community is not merely passively to submit but actively to support the measure. The need to rationalise the likes and dislikes which, for lack of anything else, must guide the planner in many of his decisions, and the necessity of stating his reasons in a form in which they will appeal to as many people as possible, will force him to construct theories, i.e. assertions about the connections between facts, which then become an integral part of the governing doctrine. This process of creating a “myth” to justify his action need not be conscious.

Excerpts from The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek.

 

[Oldguy]

He did answer the question. You just don't like that answer. I'll sum it up for you: charity is one thing, robbery is another. The transaction the questioner was asking about is robbery, so there's no moral issue involved.

The question was (to paraphrase): Since the speaker himself said that people are inherently immoral, thereby incapable of doing the "right" thing on their own, by what right would he suppose that people would do the right thing without compulsion?

No, that wasn't the question.

Yes, it was....at 3:21 into the video (hint: Ya hafta watch the whole thing)