Self-Defense: The Individual Right

[Bester]

I knew of a Man once who had a bout with bad luck.

His wife left him.
He lost his job.
He was left homeless with a child to raise.
He lived in the restrooms in the NYC subway system, bathing in the sink, begging and scrounging to feed his son, feeling the gaze of a world filled with cold unfeeling hearts, empty souls, and the blindness of the 'haves'.

Today, he drives a car that is worth more than most of us will make this year.
He is a leading businessman, and a motivational speaker.
He gives back to the community, even though he owes it nothing.

Sadly, I don't recall his name but A&E did a profile on him some months back.

People like Phil would have had him 'removed' as an 'creature'.

Perhaps, the 'creature' isn't the so called 'Homeless', but the unfeeling, uncaring heartless and calious individuals among us today?

You can also look at Les Brown, who homeless, slept in his office until the landlord threw him out. Today, he is much more successful, but for a time, was very much one of those 'creatures' Phil babbles on about.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Bester said: "...feeling the gaze of a world filled with cold unfeeling hearts, empty souls, and the blindness of the 'haves'."

Not everyone in NYC is like that, as Pete stated. New Yorkers tend to have blinders on while in the street because that's the safe way to live your life - some people take a direct look as a challenge. To say that we are all cold and unfeeling is to do us a disservice. And, not everyone who rides the subways is one of the 'haves'. Empty souls? I think not.

Otherwise, however, a good post. Just wanted to clarify that we're not all neanderthals here. BTW, ever been to NYC? Your public profile doesn't give any info. KT

 

[Mark Weiser]

I know this may sound out of place but after reading your postings Phil. I would like to ask a few questions so I can get a possible handle on your responses.

1. What religion do you practice? I have seen some indications of socialist type thinking in your arguements this does not make you a horrible person just trying to understand.
2. I would be interested in what type of work you do. I am curious as to your daily interactions with people in general?

That is it for now. Thank you in advance

Mark E. Weise r

 

[Baoquan]

There is no such thing as a "collective right," and there is no "collective good." The term is an oxymoron designed to help people feel better about taking what they have not earned in order to be generous and compassionate with other people's earnings.

Hey Phil,

Bob Hubbard runs this board out of his own pocket, so other people, including you, will have a place to come and discuss the martial arts in a friendly atmosphere. We all as members benefit from his action.

He is currently also trying to raise money to move the MT to a new server, so it can continue to grow and engender some more collective good. He isnt charging us for the benefits of MT, he's offering advertising space, the choice to become a supporting member, to sponsor a forum or just give a donation.

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but your profile doesn't suggest you're a supporting member (and of course, doesnt indicate whether or not you've made a donation). So i guess if you don't like people taking what they haven't earned, etc etc, and you haven't made some donation already (kudos if you have), you'll be ponying up for the new server, right??

I think i've seen some advertising for The Martialist around here somewhere, but given that you are getting some benefit from that, i dont think you can claim it as a credit towards the net benefit you've gained from your participation on MT.

I have utter contempt for the homeless, that is true. I have watched my city's downtown become a wasteland in which no citizen can walk freely from point A to point B without being accosted by stinking, diseased, increasingly aggressive panhandlers. I have witnessed and have personal knowledge of numerous threatening incidents. It sickens me. These are no longer people at all, but some manner of societal predator. At the very least they are societal parasites -- scavengers who are only too content to play the roles of predators when they see victims of suitable weakness.

I just Googled the words *homeless* and *attacked* (in that order), and looked at the top 10 results. In order to ensure the search engine wasn't priveleging one word over the other, i then googled *attacked* and *homeless*. Each time i got:

Eight (8) results recounting homeless people being attacked.

One (1) result reporting the NSW (Australian) health service being attacked for failing to provide adequate health care to the homless.

and One (1) story of a psychiatrist being attacked by a homeless man.

I then googled *homeless* *assaulted* and *assaulted* *homeless*. I got another set of ten results, this time;

Nine (9) recounting either assualt occaisioned on homeless people or the rate at which homeless people are assaulted,

and One (1) story of a young woman being assualted by a homeless person.

Now, it seems there is a lot of assault being occaisioned in the homeless community, but that little eensy-weensy googling effort indicates that 85%-90% of that is assault *on the homeless*, not *by the homeless*.

It seems that you may be able to effect a net result of improving the numbers of assaults involving the homeless by offering your services as a bodyguard to the homeless.

Pro bono publico, of course.

See you out there, big boy.

Or, on the other hand, if you are truly interested in the "inalienable right" to self defense, you could start training and arming the homeless. :uhyeah:

 

[Phil Elmore]

No, what you do is fail to answer valid questions.

No, what I do is fail to fall for rhetorical ploys designed to divert the argument from a substantive discussion of issues to a personal discussion of personalities. Still not falling for it, sorry.

You're "article" was an opinion piece, so other people's opinions, and questions towards the validity of your opionion based on your own life experiences are just as valid.

Opinions can be judged by the degree to which they correspond to reality. They are also judged by how well they are substantiated and supported. I have constructed a very logical argument in deriving, supporting, and applying natural rights to the topic of self-defense. In order to call into question the validity of the conclusions, you must address the substance of the arguments contained therein.

Every time someone has questioned you, you either reply with "No, thats not valid," or "No, you don't get it."

No, I have provided lengthy explanations for precisely why a given critique has been invalid or a participant has failed to grasp the concepts at play. Don't waste our time by deliberately mischaracterizing the exchange.

If it was "thorough", and the rights were "natural", why wouldnt the argument be more compelling?

To those who think rationally, it is extremely compelling (in my humble opinion). No amount of rational argument will sway someone who is determined to believe irrationally, or who substitutes emotional conviction for reasoned, critical thought.

Why would so many respondants disagree?

Right and wrong are not a matter of majority opinion. "So many" people disagree because "so many" participants -- even in martial arts fora such as this one -- do not truly understand the realities of force, the appropriate role of government, or their natural rights as human beings. Articles like this I write in an effor to help make more people aware of these concepts. Pointless arguments such as this one don't convince most of the respondents, but they do help lurkers form opinions. If I can help at least one person understand the moral foundation for his or her right to self-defense, it has been worth the effort.

Mebbe because your arguments dont track, your opinion is unconvincing, and your article reads like a first year philosophy paper.

Perhaps your opinions aren't logically based, your own attempts to refute the piece are less than compelling, and your attitude reads like an angry child who is outraged that someone else's opinion is both different and strongly professed. We can go 'round and 'round like that all day, but it does not change anything.

Its about as convincing as wearing a mass-produced necklace declaring yourself an individual.

I don't know about you, but every piece of clothing I wear and most of the items I own are "mass produced." Funny thing about mass production; it makes one's clothing, DVD players, computers, and automobiles a lot more affordable -- and in a free market economy, that's a wonderful thing. If the symbolism is lost on you, that's fine.

Umm...nope, i won't.

Didn't think so.

You see, I understand that once you place your opinions in the public sphere, any response is valid.

No, it isn't. Placing an opinion in the public sphere certainly does open one to critism. For that criticism to be valid, however -- for it to be anything but meaningless hostility, empty jeering, or intellectually bankrupt heckling, one's criticism must be substantive. It must be targeted to the points made in the original argument if one is to engage in debate rather than pointless bickering. This is the standard you must meet if your responses are to be "valid."

To put it another way, opinions aren't all created equal. Some correspond to reality better than do others. Some are supported more thoroughly than others. Some are, in fact, uninformed -- and some are simply wrong. Unless you're one of those people who believes that all reality is subjective, there is no truth, and we all create our lives based on what we want rather than what truly is, this is unavoidable. (Even if one does believe such things, reality is still unavoidable, but much evasion occurs between here and there.

Mebbe not constructive, or salient, but valid, nonetheless.

A response that is neither constructive nor salient is not "valid" in the context of a discussion or debate. We must then stop and define what we mean by "valid." If we consider "valid" to mean "free to state whatever opinion one possesses, no matter how uninformed or unsubstantiated," then that does fit. If, however, we use a more commonly applied connotation of "valid" as applicable and substantiated in the course of a debate on a given topic, then no, a response that is not constructive and is not salient is not "valid."

You on the other hand, thank everyone that agrees with you...

Should I get angry at them for agreeing? Should I not be polite?

...and state that anyone who disagrees "doesn't understand".

No, this is both false and a deliberate mischaracterization. If someone disagrees with me, I will explain why they are incorrect in doing so (unless they can provide a compelling argument to support their disagreement). That is what has occurred here. Of course, to address an argument I must be provided with arguments; refuting heckling isn't exactly an intellectual process.

So I'll continue to express my opinions on yours, and you, based on my experience of such. It might not be constructive, or salient, but it will be valid.

No, it won't, for the reasons previously discussed. You may continue to make comments that are not supported and for which you have no compelling or logical arguments, but this does not make your input "valid." It does not, in fact, further the process of discussion at all. It constitutes simply bickering. If you enjoy bickering, I suppose that is a worthwhile activity, but you will not be able to convince an objective observer that your responses are in any way credible or that they constitute a "valid" refutation of the opinions you are attempting to address.

Finally, quoting oneself is really not done unless one is the leading authority on a subject, and it's really quite gauche even then.

Quoting an article previously written on the same subject an entirely acceptable tactic in supporting one's opinions.

His wife left him.
He lost his job.
He was left homeless with a child to raise.
He lived in the restrooms in the NYC subway system, bathing in the sink, begging and scrounging to feed his son, feeling the gaze of a world filled with cold unfeeling hearts, empty souls, and the blindness of the 'haves'.

Today, he drives a car that is worth more than most of us will make this year.
He is a leading businessman, and a motivational speaker.
He gives back to the community, even though he owes it nothing.

Sadly, I don't recall his name but A&E did a profile on him some months back.

People like Phil would have had him 'removed' as an 'creature'.

Yes, whenever the topic of the homeless comes up, we are always treated to the spectre of poor, down-on-their luck nuclear families living in cars through circumstances beyond their control, or single individuals who've simply had the misfortune of misplacing their means of support who are really good people -- just misunderstood. Callous, cruel members of society look down on them, failing to see that if not for the grace of God, they too are a paycheck away from donning several pairs of winter coats and joining their grimy brethren on the off-ramps of their local highway system.

While this is very touching and makes for entertaining Lifetime movies, it is not reality. The overwhelming majority of homeless street people suffer from mental problems and from substance abuse issues. Their presence in contemporary society is, in part, the legacy of the mental health diaspora in the last two or three decades, when group homes were shut down, larger mental health facilities were closed, and thousands of people who really cannot function as individuals in a free society were turned loose onto that society.

While you will always be able to find exceptions and you will always be able to compose tear-jerking stories of human tragedy, this does not alter the individual threat posed by street people, nor does it change the conditions in which so many people must live every day. I have a friend who works in a public facility downtown, and he and his coworkers must every day endure the threats and the aggressive panhandling and the inhuman stench of the small army of homeless people through whom he walks to work every day. He and his coworkers are on a first-name basis with these people -- and not because they'd like to be. Not a week goes by when there is not an "incident" in his workplace; just recently, one of these poor, misfortunate, misunderstood human beings started raving at the staff and threatening everyone with death after getting into a near-fistfight with one of the other customers. My friend and his coworkers live under constant threat of violence from these people and, because theirs is a public facility, they cannot remove any of the street people from the premises until it is too late to prevent the worst.

If I were to ask him about his lack of compassion for the people who threaten his life every week and who make his existence a living hell as he does his best to serve the public, his opinion will be greatly different from the false moral superiority of those who believe we just need to care more. His opinion will be based on the violence and the fear and the misery with which he must deal every day -- for no other reason than that he works in a public place that is overrun with homeless parasites.

Does this sound terribly cruel, terribly uncaring? I suppose it might -- to anyone who has not lived through it.

What religion do you practice? I have seen some indications of socialist type thinking in your arguements this does not make you a horrible person just trying to understand.

How on Earth could you accuse me of being a socialist when I spend most of time arguing against the collective and for the individual? That is truly amazing.

I certianly don't mind yapping on about myself, but I think a separate thread would be more appropriate so as not to divert this one to that. You could start it in my Martialist hosted forum at this site, if you want.

I would be interested in what type of work you do. I am curious as to your daily interactions with people in general?

I'm a professional writer. Most of my day is spent dealing with freelance clients long-distance and with engineers in person. I am fluent in that language that is not quite English called "Engineering-ese."

Bob Hubbard runs this board out of his own pocket, so other people, including you, will have a place to come and discuss the martial arts in a friendly atmosphere. We all as members benefit from his action.

He certainly does. I do the same at Pax Baculum. I also publish, despite the extensive amount of work required, a monthly magazine that, while it offers subscriber content, provides an extensive body of work for free to anyone who cares to read it. These could be seen as acts of altruism.

However, (and I can't speak for Bob, but I'll speculate), neither he nor I do what we do simply to "give back" to the community. We do it because we love the martial arts and because we derive much personal satisfaction from creating work in that field, from having online communities to which we can go (and which we can run as we see fit), and from furthering our beliefs about martial arts and self-defense.

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but your profile doesn't suggest you're a supporting member (and of course, doesnt indicate whether or not you've made a donation). So i guess if you don't like people taking what they haven't earned, etc etc, and you haven't made some donation already (kudos if you have), you'll be ponying up for the new server, right??

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do indeed seem to be a supporting member with access to all the features of MartialTalk -- and I distinctly remember seeing my own hosted forum at this site. Of course, there's also the free content that I previously mentioned, and the forum that I myself run elsewhere. If were' going to make this an argument about who's more generous, I suppose we could, but the fact remains that I don't expect anyone to give me their earnings without their consent and I would resent very much anyone presuming to believe such a thing.

I think i've seen some advertising for The Martialist around here somewhere, but given that you are getting some benefit from that, i dont think you can claim it as a credit towards the net benefit you've gained from your participation on MT.

Most people do things for "mutual benefit" rather than some altruistic need to sacrifice of themselves. Most people who become supporting members at any forum do so because to be a supporting member provides certain benefits -- the most abstact of which is the sustenance of the site they enjoy for their own reasons. Nobody is truly altruistic, when you come right down to it; we all get something in return for what we do, even if that something is just the satisfaction of having done it.

I just Googled...

Search engine games don't prove anything. If you truly want something approaching statistical results from news reporting (and forgetting for a moment how much of these types of things go unreported) you'll have to start doing Nexus searches. I hear they're expensive.

See you out there, big boy.

See you around, little boy.

 

[Bod]

Don't waste our time by deliberately mischaracterizing the exchange.

Don't waste whose time? Your time? My time? Shouldn't we each decide if the exchange was mischarecterised? Don't accuse Baoquan of deliberately mischarecterising it either, that is a wild inference, designed to imply dishonnesty. The words are written down, anyone can read them.

Do you think we can't see that that comment is simply a rhetorical ploy (to use a hideously loaded phrase designed to imply dishonesty)?

It is a disguised ad-hominem attack. Slick, yes. Honest, no.

From your fundamentalist view of the world, everybody either agrees wholeheartedly with you or is ignorant or dishonest.

Reminds me of when you used to write lines such as:

"Well, Jonathan, ..." In the hope that I hated my own name and preferred Jon, and that the patronising tone would get to me. Then claim that anyone who responded in a huffy tone, was lowering the standards of debate.

Well, Philip, you had to stop using that one when you realised how clear to everybody else it was, that you were using a 'rhetorical ploy'.

You'll be running out of 'play by my rules' tricks pretty soon I hope. Then you will have to discuss the professed logic of your arguments.

 

[Bod]

p.s. sorry about the appalling punctuation in the previous post. If I edit it now it'll look like I was trying to monkey with the meaning.

 

[OULobo]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Please, keep the conversation on topic..

-OULobo
-MT Moderator-

Intellectual sparring is fine, but attacks with a good vocabulary are still attacks. Let's keep to polite and friendly conversation or at least on-topic heated debate.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Don't waste whose time? Your time? My time?

Mischaracterizing the conversation wastes everyone's time, yes.

Shouldn't we each decide if the exchange was mischarecterised?

Not if you're the one doing the mischaracterization.

Don't accuse Baoquan of deliberately mischarecterising it either, that is a wild inference,

I rather think I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, given that I'm assuming he's smart enough to understand it.

...designed to imply dishonnesty.

To deliberately mischaracterize something is to be intellectually dishonest, yes.

The words are written down, anyone can read them.

They certainly are. This does not change the fact that one must not allow any participants to the debate to get away with scoring cheap shots in that manner.

Do you think we can't see that that comment is simply a rhetorical ploy (to use a hideously loaded phrase designed to imply dishonesty)?

If it was, an objective reader could see it. An objective reader, however, can just as easily see the ploy for which I was taking him to task.

It is a disguised ad-hominem attack. Slick, yes. Honest, no.

No, in this case it is simply a fair identification of what occurred.

From your fundamentalist view of the world, everybody either agrees wholeheartedly with you or is ignorant or dishonest.

No, but deliberately mischaracterizing the exchange as such (there's that term again) certainly does make it easier for you to attack things I've haven't truly said, or ignore things I have said in greater proportion to the thread.

I believe in addressing points fairly and honestly. I also don't believe in soft-pedaling anything in so doing. I'll address substantive points, but I'll also point out both ignorance and dishonesty when they occur. To do so is not somehow unfair.

Reminds me of when you used to write lines such as:

"Well, Jonathan, ..." In the hope that I hated my own name and preferred Jon, and that the patronising tone would get to me.

Who is making wild inferences now? To read some sort of patronizing slight into the use of your name seems a bit far-fetched. It sounds to me like you're just looking for reasons to get offended, Jonathan, and grasping at straws in so doing. I think you're so upset by my opinions that your emotions affect your ability to address them reasonably. Your post is a good example of that -- charge after charge that has nothing to do with the ideas being discussed, and everything to do with your assumptions and speculations about my motives or my tactics.

Then claim that anyone who responded in a huffy tone, was lowering the standards of debate.

I'd say your post was a good example of a huffy tone, neh?

Well, Philip, you had to stop using that one when you realised how clear to everybody else it was, that you were using a 'rhetorical ploy'.

(That's two ls, not one.) I, for one, do not get offended when people use my name to address me. My entire family calls me "Phillip;" "Phil" is just the usual truncation everyone else seems to find convenient.

It mystifies me that you read some sinister plot into the use of your full name and that you honestly seem to believe I sat at my Onyx desk deep within the Caves of Evil wherein my secret headquarters is located, cursing the fact that my devious plot to address other people by the names given them by their parents has been exposed, forcing me to move on to other equally dastardly schemes. "Damn them all! Next I'll have to start calling people 'sir' or 'madame' in order to unfairly sidetrack the conversation!"

Honestly, son. This is getting surreal.

You'll be running out of 'play by my rules' tricks pretty soon I hope. Then you will have to discuss the professed logic of your arguments.

At such time as you actually manage to make a post about that "professed logic," Jonathan, rather than simply spitting and shrieking and wailing about me, we might actually have a discussion that justifies the time spent on it.

 

[KenpoTess]

MOD NOTE

Personal attacks will NOT be Tolerated! Take it to PM or Email. This is NOT THE TOPIC of the Thread being discussed. End it or the thread will be Locked!

~Tess
-MT S. MOD-

 

[Phil Elmore]

I'll be glad to keep the discussion limited to the ideas originally presented.

 

[Bod]

OK, back to the topic of debate.

An aggressor who seeks to harm you without provocation and without justification -- he who initiates force -- is committing an immoral act,

You've specified here a very narrow definition of an aggressor. It assumes that:

A theoretical non aggressor becomes a theoretical aggressor when he seeks to harm me.

Seeking to harm is equivalent to initiating force.

That acts can be categorised objectively as moral or immoral.

Is this mischaracterisation of your argument? Deliberate or not?

Now what sort of thing can be an aggressor?

A brick?
A car?
An animal?
A human?
A child of 5?
A child of 12?
A child of 13?
A man of 14?

What can I categorise as harm?
Mental harm?
Theft of my life?
Mild pain?
A waste of my time?
Loud music at 2 in the morning?

That seeking is equivalent to commiting an act.

How do we measure seeking?
How do we characterise seeking harm objectively?
How do we characterise it in practice? How credible is a credible threat?
If a collection of people as an existent is theoretically unsound, how is a thought as an existent theoretically sound?

When you insist that there is such a thing as an objective 'right', you are still forced to make subjective judgement calls as to what to apply your categories of credible, harmful, intention, morality and so on.

This means that objective rights have as much application to the practical realm of self defence as the possibility of an unstoppable force, or an immovable object.

What is the point of rights in self defence, when two men can approach each other, both guess, calculate or suffer divine objective insight that the other is a 'credible threat' and shoot each other dead preemptively.

They were both right! Hey, let's celebrate, throw a party, and then all go home knowing that the world is no less right than it was yesterday.

 

[Phil Elmore]

A theoretical non aggressor becomes a theoretical aggressor when he seeks to harm me.

Seeking to harm is equivalent to initiating force.

That acts can be categorised objectively as moral or immoral.

Is this mischaracterisation of your argument?

This is correct, as far as I can see.

Now what sort of thing can be an aggressor?

A brick?
A car?
An animal?
A human?
A child of 5?
A child of 12?
A child of 13?
A man of 14?

Moral judgments only apply to mortal human beings. Where the line between a child who honestly doesn't understand his actions and a adult who does may lie, chronologically, is a topic worthy of debate. The law generally sets an age at which this is supposed to occur magically, but of course this is arbitrary, and the trend towards charging murderers as adults for crimes committed under that arbitrary age would seem to indicate a recognition of an "age of reason" lower than current standards (at least here in the US; I've no idea what that age is considered to be abroad).

What can I categorise as harm?
Mental harm?
Theft of my life?
Mild pain?
A waste of my time?
Loud music at 2 in the morning?

Generally "harm" would be physical injury or some manifestation of being deprived of assets rightfully yours (fraud and theft).

The topic of mental anguish becomes a bit stickier. The case that became the movie The Burning Bed involved a wife who was abused as much emotionally as she was physically, and it was the emotional abuse (her lawyer successfully argued) that prompted her to become "temporarily insane" and burn her husband alive while he slept. Was this "self-defense?" Many people still debate the issue (at least in the abstract). Personally, I believe it was, as we can construct an inductive argument that he would harm her again physically as well as emotionally and she reasonably believed only his death would prevent this future harm. But that is probably a topic for another thread.

That seeking is equivalent to commiting an act.

How do we measure seeking?

This is where human judgment must come into play. The standard of the "reasonable man" is most relevant. Would a reasonable man conclude that the initiation of force was imminent and that, without acting, he would suffer injury? If the answer is yes, morally, force is justified even when preemptive. Legally, our society does not always accept this measure.

How do we characterise seeking harm objectively?

We do this by applying reason to the available data, applying the science and art of non-contradictory identification (logic) as ruthlessly and thoroughly as possible. If we are wrong, everyone pays for it, so it behooves us not to act recklessly.

How do we characterise it in practice? How credible is a credible threat? If a collection of people as an existent is theoretically unsound, how is a thought as an existent theoretically sound?

Thoughts are not existents. A concept is an intangible. Actions, likewise, are not "existents" -- they are processes or incidents.

When you insist that there is such a thing as an objective 'right', you are still forced to make subjective judgement calls as to what to apply your categories of credible, harmful, intention, morality and so on.

Applying non-contradictory identification (logic) to the data provided and integrating that data into concepts (using reason) is and can be an entirely objective process provided we are careful to be rational in so doing. This requires us to leave our illusions and our evasions at the door -- to look at reality as carefully and as thoroughly as we can in context in order to make sound judgments.

This means that objective rights have as much application to the practical realm of self defence as the possibility of an unstoppable force, or an immovable object.

No, this is a spurious conclusion, based on the misconception that all judgment is subjective. Judgment can be... forgive me... judged by how well our conclusions and our opinions correspond to reality in context. Truth can be known and reality itself is not subjective.

What is the point of rights in self defence, when two men can approach each other, both guess, calculate or suffer divine objective insight that the other is a 'credible threat' and shoot each other dead preemptively.

The piont in making moral judgments -- and in identifying rights in order to make moral judgments -- is the very reason we require philosophy as mortal beings. Morality and moral principles are the means through which we determin ought from is -- the method by which we determine which actions further our goals and which actions do not, measured against the standard of value for our morality.

The only rational standard of value for morality is the promotion and sustenance of the life of the rational individual over the long-term. All other standards of value invariably lead us down blind paths, the only destination of which is premature death. The dead do not moralize, nor do they philosophize.

They were both right!

No, they weren't. Possibly, they were both wrong. Possibly, one man was right and the other man was initiating force. Possibly, both men acted immorally (in the case of two criminals shooting each other for drug territory). Being morally right is no guarantee of success; sometimes the other guy is faster (particularly if he has the initiative).

A man who shoots another man acts either morally or immorally. If he is wrong in his judgment, he has acted immorally even if he thought his actions were justified -- which is why it is important to learn to think critically if we are to make sound moral judgments. Two men whose opinions are diametrically opposed in the same context cannot both be correct, or the Law of Identity (A Thing is Itself, and thus constrained by its nature) is violated (which is impossible).

 

[Bod]

The only rational standard of value for morality is the promotion and sustenance of the life of the rational individual over the long-term. All other standards of value invariably lead us down blind paths, the only destination of which is premature death.

Incorrect. This conclusion is based upon the assumption that only actions have an effect on sustenance of life. Inaction also has an effect on the sustenance of life.
Since non-volitional forces will act without our effort - e.g. if we allow ourselves to beome filthy and lousy, the bacteria and lice will without our action infect those in proximity to us - often the most benefitial way to promote and sustain life is to make prohibitions. We prohibit people from invading our personal space. This is not a property rights issue. This is a negative prohibition. It can only be applied to a mass of people.

Prohibitions are a necessary evil. I don't like them. But they prevent me from having to defend myself from all manner of carelessness on others' parts.

The most efficient way for an individual to survive in a group situation is to have a balance between personal 'thou mays' and collective 'thou shalt nots'.

If I have or am granted a personal 'right' to defend myself against a clear threat, that is useful. If I have or have imposed a societal obligation to act in a manner that is clearly non threatening, that is doubly useful, since the symetrical obligation on the people around me makes me more aware of an aggressor.

 

[Bod]

Additionally, a democratic system even gives you a practical right to try to remove prohibitions! That's why I love it.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Incorrect.

No, absolutely correct, because...

This conclusion is based upon the assumption that only actions have an effect on sustenance of life. Inaction also has an effect on the sustenance of life.

...the decision not to act is itself a goal-directed action. How does that old Rush song go? "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Since non-volitional forces will act without our effort - e.g. if we allow ourselves to beome filthy and lousy, the bacteria and lice will without our action infect those in proximity to us

Forces lacking volition do not truly "act" -- they occur.

The question of just how much morality applies to animals and to lower life forms is another matter and would make for an interesting thread.

- often the most benefitial way to promote and sustain life is to make prohibitions.

The most beneficial way to promote and sustain life is for individuals to respect the soverienty of their fellow human beings, and to be left alone to do so. Human life is promoted and sustained best in a free society, in which the government exists but operates according to strictly defined rules and according to narrowly defined roles.

Laws that protect your natural rights are, of course, perfectly in keeping with the function of such a government. Laws that immorally restrict your natural rights are both unjustifiable and work in opposition to the promotion and sustenance of human life. A wonderful example is arms prohibition, which infringes on your right to self-defense in the name of making you "safer." The reality of such laws is they make no one safer except for those who are breaking the law (and acting immorally) in order to initiate force (and thus prey on) the unarmed citizenry.

We prohibit people from invading our personal space. This is not a property rights issue. This is a negative prohibition. It can only be applied to a mass of people

Yes, it is a property rights issue -- it is your property right to yourself. You are born with the inalienable property right to you. Your personal space is a function of this.

Prohibitions are a necessary evil.

Government is a necessary evil. Prohibitions that infringe on one's natural rights are never necessary, for protecting your natural rights helps a society's members to prosper.

But they prevent me from having to defend myself from all manner of carelessness on others' parts.

This is a delusion. Such prohibitions do not make you any safer and do not form a guarantee against any of this behavior. Passing a law does not deter those determined to break it. You are in danger every day of your life because those around you may act carelessly at any moment. No amount of societal prohibitions prevents this from occurring.

The most efficient way for an individual to survive in a group situation is to have a balance between personal 'thou mays' and collective 'thou shalt nots'.

Incorrect. The most effective means of surviving in a group situation is to respect the sovereignty of those who comprise that group, and to insitute a governemnt whose narrowly defined role is to protect the natural rights of those sovereign individuals.

If I have or am granted a personal 'right' to defend myself against a clear threat, that is useful.

Right are not granted. They are yours. They are not bestowed. Your government may choose to recognize your rights or it might not; its functionaries might protect your rights or they might infringe on them. They do not and cannot grant them, however, because those rights were never the possession of your government to give or to deny.

If I have or have imposed a societal obligation to act in a manner that is clearly non threatening, that is doubly useful, since the symetrical obligation on the people around me makes me more aware of an aggressor.

Obligations cannot be imposed justly. They can only be accepted.

Additionally, a democratic system even gives you a practical right to try to remove prohibitions! That's why I love it.

Democracy is simply majority (mob) rule. If enough people within a democracy choose to violate your individual rights, you are at the mercy of the mob. Only a government that recognizes and protects your natural rights (regardless of the opinion of the majority) is worthy of "love."

 

[tmanifold]

What is the point of rights in self defence, when two men can approach each other, both guess, calculate or suffer divine objective insight that the other is a 'credible threat' and shoot each other dead preemptively.

That is Locke to a T. In Levathian, Locke put forth the idea that in a state of nature (ie with no rules) the only logical thing to do when meeting a new person was to kill him. Since we could not possibly know his mind, it was only reasonable to assume he might be thinking of killing me. If he is thinking of killing me, I must kill him first or die. Hence, in a state of nature it is reasonable to kill everyone you meet.

Somewhere in this mess, someone accused Phil of reading too much Locke. Phil argues the opposite of Locke. Locke was a monarchist who believed that the state has a right to survival and could infringe on the rights of individuals to ensure its survival. Locke would consider a group as an enitity capable of having rights where Phil believes only individuals have rights.


We however do not live in a state of nature. We have governments that ensure (to some degree or another) that we respect the rights of other individuals. I can't go up to someone and kill him because I thought he might be thinking of infringing on my right of safety because by doing so I would be infringing on his right to safety. This is why we must go through and exhuastive de-escalation attempt before we initiate pre-emptive force. We must be sure that he is going to try to hurt us.

Now I am not going to go through this and pick out point to point counter arguements, I would like to finish writing sometime today. I will say this. Phil's point on the homeless is valid in one respect. He is not talking about the family living in the van down by the river, nor is he talking about the poor old man asleep under newspaper. He is talking about the new generation of homeless people. We commonly call them street kids up her because they are generally under thirty. They are aggressive, beligerent and believe it is their right to expect money from you. If you don't give them what they want, they will yell at you, threaten you and in some cases attack you or turn their dogs on you. (I always wondered how a person could get a dog when they can't afford to eat themselves. That alone would make me loathe them.) However, Phil is wrong to make a blanket statement about all the homeless. Because some of them are just honest people down on their luck. Some have mental illnesses that are not treated. Some have long histories of abuse leading to them living on the street because it is safer than living at home. These people deserve help and are not creatures to be loathed. The rest however could disappear in to a giant hole one day and I would be very happy about it.

 

[Baoquan]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do indeed seem to be a supporting member with access to all the features of MartialTalk

As i said, kudos. You're a man of your principles.

Search engine games don't prove anything. If you truly want something approaching statistical results from news reporting (and forgetting for a moment how much of these types of things go unreported) you'll have to start doing Nexus searches. I hear they're expensive.

You wanted substantive. I substantiated. You're claims to the danger of the homeless are just spray. Zero substantiation. You have no interest in debate, simply declaring your own paranoia as rational and decrying any argument to the contrary as inviald.

I'm done with this, and you.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Tony, I did make the wry comment that I would take Locke over Hobbes any day. The humor of it was lost on the audience, I think.

However, Phil is wrong to make a blanket statement about all the homeless. Because some of them are just honest people down on their luck.

It's a question of proportion, Tony. I've never said there are not exceptions -- but the overwhelming majority of the homeless suffer from mental illness, substance abuse, and other serious personal problems that make them unpredictable and dangerous.

You wanted substantive. I substantiated.

I would say you tried to substantiate, for which I give you credit.

You're claims to the danger of the homeless are just spray. Zero substantiation.

No, my claims are based on direct experience. That is much more substantial than speculation based on Google.

You have no interest in debate...

I've addressed every point made and refuted in good faith every earnest point made. This contrasts directly to the mewling responses of those who seemed to want very much to disagree, but could find nothing with which to do it except to make personal accusations. While this may be very satisfying to the people doing the accusing, it is the very definition of a lack of interest in debate.

..simply declaring your own paranoia as rational...

I've not "simply declared" anything -- I've stated my opinion and I've supported it.

...and decrying any argument to the contrary as inviald.

That, again, is a deliberate mischaracterization of the exchange.

 

[tmanifold]

Oh damn it. I got Locke and Hobbes mixed up. Everywhere I said Locke in my post above read Hobbes.