The concerning aspect about the responses to my recent edgy polls is that apparently a lot of you think that the State should be responsible for enforcing morality.
Discussion
Dah fuq!?
I feel like I've missed this polls. Seriously? That's genuinely depressing.
I’ve recently been surprised how many people get irrational when being exposed to a manipulative narrative. It’s like most people just believe the first thing they hear on a topic.
How do you post a poll on here Jameson?
Not sure which clients support it - I use Amethyst.
Yea, I agree. The responses to that poll were scary.
Do you think it should be illegal to generate child porn?
Morality by definition exists at the intersection of the individual and the group. One of society's fundamental purposes is enforcement of morality. Now whether "society" means the State or something more local/decentralized is a different question. But social compacts should be enforced beyond simply trusting the individual to do the right thing.
All laws, whether good or bad, flow from some moral framework.
The civil magistrate's proper role is to be the sword of justice against wrongdoing.
It is not the ultimate enforcer of *all* morality and moral violations, but it is inescapable that its enforcement would be directly tied to morality.
If someone has a role. They are acting. Action against other humans without permission is stealing. Government means (Steering the Mind). Government of men over other men is stealing.
I'm not sure I follow the logic. How is action against other humans without permission stealing?
Action against another human without permission is stealing because the person has not given permission for another human to act against him or her. Every human life is a life of action. That action regarding other humans is either cooperation or conflict. In conflict there is a negotiation based on the reptilian brain, the limbic brain and the synthesis of the cerebral cortex which makes conflict fecund into civilized cooperation. Sometimes the cooperation is respect which is looking again at another.
Humans are a form of life in the universe that have conditions of natural law but also have the freedom of choice to act by being responsible for those actions. Any action against another human without permission is an act of violence. If the act is to protect one self then that is not an act against another but it is an act of care for one's self. The act of caring for one's self is force because it is every person's responsibility to protect his temple which is his or her body.
The act of written law is violence against another human because it is a means of controlling another human by a human. This control relationship is the nanny state which is a projection of humans who have never been raised by their parents. Parenting is the activity of preparing humans for their course in life by previously experienced humans. The transmission of human life from human life is the ultimate gateway of all life. It is the most difficult life to obtain and thus it is the most sacred to protect.
Adult humans have choice. They are part of the free market of life. This free market involves trade, cooperation, care and learning. Humans are in this world to be the observers of life. Humans are to be the builders of civilization. Civilization is not the great cities, governments, governors, judges or elite humans; civilization is the cooperation of humans irrespective of written laws, decrees or fiat statements.
Morality should be responsible for ignoring the state.
Life situations based on the opposite opinion have so far been unenviable to live in.
Your poll is good example of why many people (not me) feel ancaps secretly just want to traffic children.
Slavery violates the NAP so IDK how an ancap would argue human trafficking is acceptable.
Selling, renting, or enslaving ones child can, in a certain system, not only not violate the NAP it can all be done "legaly".
Slavery violating the NAP inherits a huge host of assumptions about morality and self- or mutual interest, that are derived from religious and non-anarchic civilizations.
Nothing about the covid saga inspires me to believe for an instant this species is mature enough to behave without a strong hand. Good luck if you do, i don't see the evidence.
I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist, what can I say. Romans 13:4. There is no criminality without morality, moral truth sits at the root of justice.
Why did the state emerge ?
Because some prefer to make a living by continuous, institutionalised robbery and people farming.
No, that is the "layer two" of the technological invention of government. "Our" bad guys being better to have around and less likely to rape and steal from "Us", was the first.
The modern state is a highly sophisticated and abstract mechanism, that somehow extends protections beyond the blood and tribal affiliations most organic systems rely on.
As profound an invention as the cattle harness.
Open to evidence of otherwise.
Morality is a superstition. Enforcement is superfluous.
I don't think most people actually think that, but you triggered their their "fear" response by putting together "scary words" in the survey.
It was a nice litmus test for people who speak before they think.
"My flavor of moralism for all" is missing the point so hard.
More people should consider reading “The Dawn of Everything”.
I believe the bulk of us are hard wired at this point to accept that government is needed for humanity to function.
The fact that this is not the way humans functioned for thousands of years is lost on most people. We think we are civilized now because we have institutionalized violence. The irony is incredible.
Isn't enforcing morality the only goal of The State ?
Violence is immoral (out of self defense of course), it's the only thing that we have to make illegal, and the only thing that a State should be concerned about.
As Frederic Bastiat states in his essay "The Law":
- "the law is only the collective organization of self defense", he says
So basically the only question we should ask ourselves is if the non aggression principle is violated, and that is obviously subject to interpretation depending on the context, and the judge himself, the juries etc...
There is no perfect answer to that, but the State is responsible of enforcing morality, but not defining in the first place. Morality is defined naturally then leading to the natural law/rights principles.
No, but they should enforce property rights.