> As some of you have no doubt surmised...I have a bad attitude...I know I
do
> because I've been told so since I was a wee tot....usually by an elder or
> other "authority figuref" whom I was getting the better of in an argument
(I
> thought of it as reasoned debate).
No, it's *them* who have the bad attitude!
> Also no doubt noticed by some of the more astute members of this list is
my
> bent toward anti-authorianism. Hence one of my favorite questions over
the
> years to proauthoritarian types is
There's not such thing as anti-authorianism, just normal and cattle.
> "At what point is it morally and ethically correct for a group to do
> something which is morally and ethically incorrect for an individual?"
When they have the power to break the individuals kneecaps!
> That is...presumably it is incorrect for individuals to steal...but if it
is
> called taxation (by a group) then it is OK.
>
> Presumably it is incorrect for individuals to kill....but if it is called
> "execution" (by a group)..then it is OK.
>
> Presumably it is incorrect for individuals to extort, ....but susrely you
get
> the point. My question has always been what is the minimium group size?
Most groups can't get away with taxation, execution and extortion. You have
to either use offense, divinity or both.
> Isn't it written somewhere (Federalists Papers? Constitutional supporting
> documentation...some political speech by muckity-muck?) that the
governments
> just rights are derived from it's citizenry? Suppose the citizenry
doesn't
> HAVE that right...then how can the coersive and oppressive state claim any
> moral justification toward exercising same?.....other than force that is.
"rights" are a form of coercion. You only need a 'right to free speech' if
there's someone trying to take it away. In the case of most Western
governments they're taking freedom away and then giving you 'rights', and the
thing about rights is - unlike freedom - they can be forgotten, looked over
or just plain ignored.
> Another thing that I've often wondered. Suppose a politician is making a
> speech saying things that I think are admirable and true...only the
> politician doesn't beleive what he is saying...he is only saying it to get
> my support....
>
> Is that politican lying? Even though he is telling the truth... ? Does
> beleif in what you are saying influence whether it's true or not...?
Short answer "hell no."
> At which point I was generally accused of having a "bad attitude"...which
> presumably won the argument in favor of authoritarianism.
It's like those people who ask for a fight and then say "you're not worth
it.." and walk away like they've won (A fun thing to do is approach them
later and don't give them the chance to say *anything*)
--Wax