religion and morality

[henry quirk]

Tryin' again, quick & dirty...

As long as you insist that no one can ever be right about it unless they think exactly like you do about it, you can't lose. That's precisely what the fulminating fanatic objectivists do. My way or the highway. Period. Their rule. Their thumb.

That's the whole thing: I don't insist anyone agree with me or that folks must walk my stretch of highway. Quite the opposite, in fact. You can do as you like with yourself, think whatever sour, fractured thoughts you like. Just leave the other guy alone as you do: that's my ethic. Yours? Well, you don't have one, now do you? You fence sit, daunted by Datsun.

arrogant, self-righteous, dogmatic and authoritarian as you are.

Who's the authoritarian? The gun owner who respects your life, liberty, and property and leaves you be, or, the gun hater who'd take your property from you becuz of what you possibly might do with it?

human interactions can result in conflicts where emotions take over and having a bazooka can result in catastrophic consequences

That can be said of a baseball bat, a box cutter, a pressure cooker, a car, a plane, a fist, a gallon of gasoline, a brick, and on and on. Shall we control these as well?

once you go down the road where nothing is off limits

Oh, but there is a limit: on certain actions. If you respect the life, liberty, and property of the other guy, it doesn't matter what you own cuz you won't be the offender; and if you don't respect the life, liberty, and property of the other guy it doesn't matter what you own cuz you'll offend with whatever is on hand.

the more military grade weapons are in the hands of libertarians of your ilk the greater the likelihood of "collateral damage".

Who's more likely to go off half-cocked? The guy who respects life, liberty, and property, or, the fractured nihilist who deoesn't believe in right and wrong?

the Second Amendment

I'm not a constitutionalist. My right to my life, liberty, and property is natural and intrinsic.

laws against smoking

Bad law. If I owned a brick & mortar (Quirk's Books) I'd post plainly in the window The owner/operator of this establishment consumes tobacco in LARGE quantities. If cigarette and cigar smoke offends or endangers you, go away.

There is absolutely nothing that the government can tell you to do or not to do as long as you yourself are convinced it's your right to do it.

The only legit role of such a proxy is to investigate claimed violations against life, liberty, and property, and to provide a fair avenue to seek redress when such violations occur. When it comes to a public health emergency, such a proxy can act as a public clearinghouse for accurate, verified, information, and can offer recommendations based on that info. That's it, that's all. You, a free man, get to decide what you'll do with that info and those recommendations.

you don't dare to focus in on how your self-righteous moral and political prejudices/dogmas may well have been derived from the manner in which I construe the acquisition of value judgments as the embodiment of dasein.

Of course I don't. Your Datsun is for crap, it's a garbage notion and just an excuse to fence sit.

there is absolutely nothing about yourself that, as with those like Ayn Rand, you aren't entirely, unequivocally certain about.

Yep, I'm pretty certain...not a fan of Rand, though.

Now, as fun as it is to dick around with guns and abortion and whatnot, let's not, you and me, lose sight of the original debate: you, insistin' there is and can be no common ground between folks (cuz everyone is drivin' around in, or is bein' driven around by, his Datsun) vs me, who sez there is common ground between folks and a sensible, minimal, practical ethic applicable to all can be derived from that common ground.

I think I've illustrated -- by way of my gun & abortion posts -- this common ground (each man knows he is own) and ethic (a man has an inalienable right to hs life, liberty, and property). And you? You've illustrated you're broken, static, stuck in one place, self-stymied. You've offered nuthin' but polaroids of your Datsun along with the claim that brand is all there is.

My ethic furthers and preserves the individual; you, you offer nuthin' but madness with a fence post up the bum.

The common ground all men stand on and the ethic derived from it vs your beater sittin' on cinderblocks in your front yard.

The freedom of each to do as he chooses vs the straightjacket of oh, our goods conflict! I guess we can't do nuthin' at all, then.

Responsible autonomy vs irresponsible license.

There you go: my quick & dirty redo...far shorter and less detailed than the original...meh, it's early and I'm not fully caffeinated.

[bahman]

On the other hand, what does that have to do with the real world...the one that we live in and interact with others in? In fact, for the vast majority of men and women, they do believe that there is a fundamental relationship between truth and morality. Their own truth and their own morality, for example.

People believe in all sorts of different things. The burden of proof is on them to show that the is a relationship between truth and morality when it comes to philosophy.

I agree. But since both sides are able to convince themselves the other side has failed to provide that proof and, concomitantly, they are both able to convince themselves that they have provided it, nothing "for all practical purposes" changes.

If that hasn't been the "real world" now for thousands of years, what comes closer to it?

And then those here who take the discussion up into the clouds of abstraction and insist it is the dueling definitions and deductions that are what [ultimately] really matter.

And, of course, those who simply default to a God, the God, their God.

What relativists need to show is that they are the only viable option. There is no God. And there is no link between God and objective morality. Therefore, relativists win the debate.

And it is what people believe about both that precipitates the behaviors they choose. And it is the behaviors that they choose that actually generates the consequences that can have a profound impact on our lives.

Belief is one factor. People change their beliefs all the time though. How? By facing the truth. Where we are heading? To find the truth and the truth sets us free.

For some, sure. But given my own experiences over the years with the objectivists among us...

I know. It is hard to convince people.

And, for the most fierce moral objectivists among us, go ahead, try to reason with them...try to convince them into believing in moral relativism predicated on the assumption that there is no God.

Well, if they think that there is a link between objective morality and God then they should stop thinking so once one shows that there is no God. What is left is once objectivism is shown to be wrong?

Since what they believe [in my view] is predicated less on what it is that they do believe and more on the fact that, mentally, emotionally and psychologically what it is that they do believe comforts and consoles them, it is very, very rare for the objectivists to change their mind. Again, given my own experiences with them over the years.

I know how difficult it is.

[iambiguous]

Biggy,

I wrote a rather lengthy post addressin'...

...and lost the whole damn thing when I tried to preview it. For some reason, hittin' the preview button caused the forum to prompt me to sign in again, I hit the back button instead, thinkin' I could capture my post as a copy and *poof* the post was gone. I'm mildly pissed at myself. I'll reconstruct that post in the morning.

What I learned to do is to create my post in WordPad first. Then copy and paste it here.

[henry quirk]

Biggy,

I wrote a rather lengthy post addressin'...

...and lost the whole damn thing when I tried to preview it. For some reason, hittin' the preview button caused the forum to prompt me to sign in again, I hit the back button instead, thinkin' I could capture my post as a copy and *poof* the post was gone. I'm mildly pissed at myself. I'll reconstruct that post in the morning.

What I learned to do is to create my post in WordPad first. Then copy and paste it here.

That's a good suggestion, but that ain't for me. In my work, first draft is pencil on paper, then typed up and edited/revised as second (and final) draft on the SM 9. I never go near a computer with work.

Here, I'm just fartin' around...I don't edit or revise; I don't wanna turn it into work. Anyway, what I lost, that first, longish, post, I captured the gist of in the shorter, less detailed, do-over.

But, again, it's a good suggestion.

[iambiguous]

As long as you insist that no one can ever be right about it unless they think exactly like you do about it, you can't lose. That's precisely what the fulminating fanatic objectivists do. My way or the highway. Period. Their rule. Their thumb.

That's the whole thing: I don't insist anyone agree with me or that folks must walk my stretch of highway. Quite the opposite, in fact. You can do as you like with yourself, think whatever sour, fractured thoughts you like. Just leave the other guy alone as you do: that's my ethic. Yours? Well, you don't have one, now do you? You fence sit, daunted by Datsun.

So, in regard to owning bazookas, others can think what they like and do what they like as long as they don't pass laws that in any way whatsoever stop you from doing everything and anything that you want with your bazookas. Or grenades. Or artillery pieces. Thus if they think the government should prohibit private citizens from buying and selling these things this is, what, inherently irrational because you think that it is inherently rational for private citizens to purchase any weapons that he or she can afford?

And you demonstrate this, how, by reminding us that this is what you believe because you "own" yourself?

And my point in regard to dasein is that value judgments such as your own are derived more from the life that you lived predisposing you existentially to embrace the particular political prejudice that you do rather than from an argument that any libertarian philosopher might make establishing the inherent right of all citizens to own bazookas.

arrogant, self-righteous, dogmatic and authoritarian as you are.

Who's the authoritarian? The gun owner who respects your life, liberty, and property and leaves you be, or, the gun hater who'd take your property from you becuz of what you possibly might do with it?

If, in any particular community, some think as you do about owning bazookas while others think the opposite, those who insist only how they think is truly rational are the authoritarians from my frame of mind. They are generally those who embrace the "right makes might" school of thought. They ought to have the might to prescribe and proscribe laws about owning bazookas because they are inherently in the right.

Just ask them.

In regard to handguns and rifles, however, there is a greater likelihood that more will insist the government ought to regulate ownership here but not out and out ban them. But how far should these regulations go? And, of course, from both ends of the political spectrum there are authoritarians left and right who will tell you.

human interactions can result in conflicts where emotions take over and having a bazooka can result in catastrophic consequences

That can be said of a baseball bat, a box cutter, a pressure cooker, a car, a plane, a fist, a gallon of gasoline, a brick, and on and on. Shall we control these as well?

Right, military grade weapons are no different from handguns and rifles in regard to breadth of death and destruction they can cause. And I suspect there are plenty of laws on the books prohibiting the use of jet liners to crash into buildings.

once you go down the road where nothing is off limits

Oh, but there is a limit: on certain actions. If you respect the life, liberty, and property of the other guy, it doesn't matter what you own cuz you won't be the offender; and if you don't respect the life, liberty, and property of the other guy it doesn't matter what you own cuz you'll offend with whatever is on hand.

Oh, when you purchase the bazooka or rocket launcher or tank or artillery piece, you assure the seller you'll "respect the life, liberty, and property of the other guy". And then down the road, if someone does something that infuriates you or you get a brain tumor or are afflicted with some mental disease, and you go off the deep end with these weapons of mass destruction...? And if you can purchase them why not thousands and thousands of others?

What could possible go wrong in a country where bazookas are as common as rifles?

You just, what, paraphrase Shane?

A "bazooka is as good or as bad as the man using it."

the more military grade weapons are in the hands of libertarians of your ilk the greater the likelihood of "collateral damage".

Who's more likely to go off half-cocked? The guy who respects life, liberty, and property, or, the fractured nihilist who deoesn't believe in right and wrong?

More to the point [mine], in a country teeming with privately owned bazookas, if only half as many folks who go off half-cocked with their bazookas as they do with their gun and rifles...

Let's try to imagine that.

And I have never argued that I don't believe in right and wrong, only that there is an important difference between believing they can be differentiated essentially -- "one of us" [the right guys] vs. "one of them" [the wrong guys] -- and existentially...I'm right from my side, your right from yours.

Historically, it's the moral objectivists who embrace "right makes might" dogmas, that often precipitate authoritarian regimes. They think private citizens should be able to own bazookas and don't take kindly to those who disagree. Whereas those like me are more inclined toward "democracy and the rule of law". Some are in favor of it, some are not. Let's hold elections. Or try to resolve it through moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Just out of curiosity, if you were the leader of a nation, and had the political power to enact legislation relating to weapons in the hands of private citizens, would there be any restrictions at all?

the Second Amendment

I'm not a constitutionalist. My right to my life, liberty, and property is natural and intrinsic.

Okay, but here in America, for the rest of us, this part...

I don't either hate or fear firearms per se. In fact I own a Smith and Wesson revolver myself. Instead, I focus more on the part in the Second Amendment here in America that calls for a...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In other words, citizens may be permitted to keep and bear arms, but the government has a right to regulate just how far that goes. Indeed, some insist that the key word here is Militia..."a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency".

And thus that this excludes private citizens.

...is still very much hotly debated.

Really, try to imagine living in a community where everyone justified every behavior that they chose merely by insisting "my right to my life, liberty, and property is natural and intrinsic."

As though others aren't able to argue that their own life and their liberty revolves instead around living in a community where owning bazookas was prohibited.

They are necessarily wrong about that, however, because it is not wholly in sync with what you insist you are inherently right about in regard to owning bazookas.

laws against smoking

Bad law. If I owned a brick & mortar (Quirk's Books) I'd post plainly in the window The owner/operator of this establishment consumes tobacco in LARGE quantities. If cigarette and cigar smoke offends or endangers you, go away.

And if in the workplace, restaurant, theater, bus, school etc., you are not able to get away from the smoke? Your "life and liberty" then?

Now, as fun as it is to dick around with guns and abortion and whatnot, let's not, you and me, lose sight of the original debate: you, insistin' there is and can be no common ground between folks (cuz everyone is drivin' around in, or is bein' driven around by, his Datsun) vs me, who sez there is common ground between folks and a sensible, minimal, practical ethic applicable to all can be derived from that common ground.

On the contrary, my argument is not to dismiss the "common ground" that often does exist between citizens in any particular community. My point is only to note the common sense part. That this common ground pertaining to such issues as gun ownership and abortion is often rooted in particular historical and cultural and experiential contexts...in profoundly problematic social, political and economic contexts...that evolve over time in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change.

And then, in my own personal opinion, no less rooted existentially in dasein, those arrogant, self-righteous, authoritarian, dogmatic objectivists like yourself insisting basically that how you think about bazookas and abortions and everything else had better be how others think in turn or...or what?

And now the supreme irony:

My ethic furthers and preserves the individual...

You worship the individual. But if an individual dares to think that you are quite mistaken in regard to bazookas, abortions and everything else, it matters not at all what arguments he or she makes. They are not your arguments and so they are scoffed at.

Or, perhaps, you can in fact note discussions with others here in which they attempted to refute your own moral and political value judgments and you admitted that their arguments were no less rational than yours...given their own set of assumptions.

Again, I'm new here. Perhaps I have misjudged you. Perhaps you are not the fulminating fanatic objectivist that, based on the posts that I have read, "I" think you are.

Let's focus in on a new issue in which many disagree and explore our repective moral philosophies in depth.

[henry quirk]

others can think what they like and do what they like as long as they don't pass laws that in any way whatsoever stop you from doing everything and anything that you want with your bazookas

If I start blastin' away with my bazooka, or shotgun; start swingin' with my tire knocker; start slashin' away with my box cutter, and I'm not self-defendin', then I'm plain wrong. You oughta lock me up, or have me swing from the end of a rope.

In other words: if I violate your life, liberty, or property, without just cause, then you have just cause to hold me accountable, to defend against me.

But, if you believe you have any say-so over my property simply becuz my ownin' a shotgun, a bazooka, a tire knocker offends your sensibilities, think again, bubba.

you believe because you "own" yourself?

I belong to me; you belong to you. If you wanna own a bazooka: please do

value judgments such as your own are derived more from the life that you lived predisposing you existentially to embrace the particular political prejudice that you do rather than from an argument that any libertarian philosopher might make establishing the inherent right of all citizens to own bazookas.

No, bubba. I know what you know: a person -- any person -- belongs to himself. His life is his own. His liberty is his own. His property is his own. Paraphrasin' Bahman: He has an inviolate claim to himself and and absolutely no claim on the other guy. And if another makes a claim on him, or he on them, self-defense is not only permissible but mebbe obligatory.

Simply: if I don't piss in your cornflakes, then you ought have no beef with me, and vice versa.

If, in any particular community, some think as you do about owning bazookas while others think the opposite...

...it shouldn't matter if everyone is leavn' everyone be. If a bazooka-owner oversteps: punish him. If a bazooka-hater oversteps: punish her. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

how far should these regulations go?

If you've been readin' my posts, you know how far: if I violate your life, liberty, property -- with fist or bazooka; thru broken contract or lie; thru robbery or rape; thru enslavement -- I'm in the wrong, and you ought defend yourself, directly or thru proxy.

Ain't rocket science.

military grade weapons are no different from handguns and rifles in regard to breadth of death and destruction they can cause

A bazooka is a superior killin' machine. So is my shotgun. So is anything in capable hands. In incapable hands all these nasty killin' devices are useless. Even an atomic bomb is impotent if the fella who has it can't or won't trigger it.

I suspect there are plenty of laws on the books prohibiting the use of jet liners to crash into buildings.

Sure. But you only need one.

you purchase the bazooka or rocket launcher or tank or artillery piece, you assure the seller you'll "respect the life, liberty, and property of the other guy".

Of course not. I also don't assure the car-seller I'm not gonna run folks down; or assure the grocer I'm not gonna feed Drano to the neighbors; or assure the sporting goods clerk I'm not gonna bust heads with the Louisville Slugger. None has an obligation to oversee me, or I, them.

if someone does something that infuriates you or you get a brain tumor or are afflicted with some mental disease, and you go off the deep end with these weapons of mass destruction...?

Then stop me. Lord knows, if you went off with the revolver you claim you own, I'd try to stop you. You see the sequence, yeah? You start violatin' life, liberty, property with your revolver, then I try to stop you. Not the other way around (I stop you becuz you might do wrong).

Think of it as innocent till proven guilty, not the guilty till proven innocent you seem to be advocatin' for.

if you can purchase them why not thousands and thousands of others?

Yes, exactly, why not?

What could possible go wrong in a country where bazookas are as common as rifles?

Nuthin' more than what goes on now, with hundreds of local, municipal, regional, and state control regs in place.

Old expression: Fences makes for good neighbors; firearms make for polite ones.

I have never argued that I don't believe in right and wrong

Yeah, you have. Shall I go thru your posts thruout the forum and post quotes in this thread? You're a moral nihilist: by definition you have no standard of right or wrong.

if you were the leader of a nation, and had the political power to enact legislation relating to weapons in the hands of private citizens, would there be any restrictions at all?

Take a gander at this...

https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/s ... ng-project

I read the libertarian version (paid no mind to the other two): no thanks. Whackadoodle extremist that I am, I think we oughta scrap the current experiment and go big (more accurately, go 'small')...

-----

Proposed Charter for the American Free Zone

I-A man belongs to himself.

II-A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

III-A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

To defend, and offer redress of violations of, life, liberty, and property, the following safeguards are recommended...

I-a local constabulary

II-a local court of last resort

III-a border patrol

IIII-militia

Establishing any or all of these safeguards, or variations of these safeguards, is at the discretion of individual communities, however: as citizens are the final safeguard it is strongly recommended no other safeguard be established without the oversight of militia.

-----

Short, sweet, unambiguous.

...and answer your own question.

hotly debated

I don't care.

try to imagine living in a community where everyone justified every behavior that they chose merely by insisting "my right to my life, liberty, and property is natural and intrinsic."

You keep leavin' out -- intentionally -- the part where everyone recognizes and respects the other guy has the same right to himself, to life, liberty, and property. Imagine that community. Imagine the community where everyone understood they had an inviolate right to themselves and no claim at all on the other. Imagine if anyone got it into their head to steal, to rape, to slave, to kill, they might, in the moment of doin' it, find themselves rubbed out by a self-defender.

A perfect community? Nah. Better than what we have (or what you'd saddle us with)? Yep.

As though others aren't able to argue that their own life and their liberty revolves instead around living in a community where owning bazookas was prohibited.

You, and they, can argue all you like. No one is obligated to listen. No, the only obligation anyone has is to recognize and respect that your life, liberty, and property is yours, and that no one has a claim on you.

They are necessarily wrong about that, however, because it is not wholly in sync with what you insist you are inherently right about in regard to owning bazookas.

Yeah, you keep sayin' crap like that, totally ignorin' what I post. They're not wrong for dislikin' bazookas. They're wrong if they think they get a say in what I own. They're wrong if, becuz they don't like bazookas, they believe they're entitied to deprrive me of my property. As I say: no one -- not you, not them -- is obligated to agree with me. You are obligated to leave me be as I am obligated to leave you be.

if in the workplace, restaurant, theater, bus, school etc., you are not able to get away from the smoke? Your "life and liberty" then?

It's no different than my goin' to a workplace, restaurant, theater, bus, school etc and bein' prohibited from smokin': I don't raise a ruckus, I make do. I abide or I leave. Like with the silly maskin' edicts: I don't mask up, some places require it, I don't frequent those places. I transact with other folks. I make do.

in my own personal opinion, no less rooted existentially in dasein, those arrogant, self-righteous, authoritarian, dogmatic objectivists like yourself insisting basically that how you think about bazookas and abortions and everything else had better be how others think in turn or...or what?

Let's sift out a sensible question from the manure you've foisted up...

if others don't agree with you, Henry, that a person -- any person -- belongs to himself, that his life, liberty, and property are his, that no one has has any claim on him; that he has the right to defend himself against violations of life, liberty, and property, what then?

What then? Nuthin'. Zilch, Zippo. Nada. Their disagreein' with me neither empowers me nor obligates me to do diddly. I'm still obligated to recognize and respect their natural rights, no matter how moronic those folks may be.

They are not your arguments and so they are scoffed at.

Of course! I, for example, think you're a fool (or a used car salesman) and your Datsun is garbage. Note, though, I ain't silencin' you, cancellin' you, callin' for your head on a pike. No, I'm contestin' with you, arguin' with you, debatin' you, and --yeah -- ridiculin' you. At the end of the day (and this thread), though, you'll still be alive and free to do with yourself as you like.

perhaps, you can in fact note discussions with others here in which they attempted to refute your own moral and political value judgments and you admitted that their arguments were no less rational than yours...given their own set of assumptions.

Translation: acknowledge my Datsun is rational!

No, I won't. It's dumb. It's not rational.

Let's focus in on a new issue

Bring it on, bubba.

[iambiguous]

Why are people calling Bitcoin a religion?
The Conversation website
by Joseph P. Laycock
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Texas State University

Read enough about Bitcoin, and you’ll inevitably come across people who refer to the cryptocurrency as a religion.

Religion:

1] "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
2] "a particular system of faith and worship."
3] "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Given religion in its broadest sense there are any number of human behaviors that can be described as religious. Certainly some construe capitalism as a religion. Those like Ayn Rand worshipped and adored the almighty dollar by eschewing all "supernatural" components and insisting that philosophically a rational mind could defend capitalism as the most logical and epistemologically sound economy. And then all that follows from this in regard to social and political interactions.

Bloomberg’s Lorcan Roche Kelly called Bitcoin “the first true religion of the 21st century.” Bitcoin promoter Hass McCook has taken to calling himself “The Friar” and wrote a series of Medium pieces comparing Bitcoin to a religion. There is a Church of Bitcoin, founded in 2017, that explicitly calls legendary Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto its “prophet.”

Okay, Bitcoin is, what, a new currency? You use it as a means to purchase those things that then revolve around whatever you think yourself into believing the ends in your life should be. You might use it to sustain your religious beliefs or your political prejudices or your preferred "causes". Just as the accouterments of any particular religion are used to deepen your faith there.

But how then, as with traditional religion, is it more than a means to an end? How does it make sense to worship and adore Bitcoin as one would worship and adore a God or an ideology or a school of philosophy?

In Austin, Texas, there are billboards with slogans like “Crypto Is Real” that weirdly mirror the ubiquitous billboards about Jesus found on Texas highways. Like many religions, Bitcoin even has dietary restrictions associated with it.

On the other hand, where do the Bitcoin zealots come down on immortality and salvation? Bitcoin only on the other side?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

[henry quirk]

Is this the new issue? Bitcoin as religion?

Me: I think it's just a scam.

[DPMartin]

They do promote it as incorruptible none changing. A standard to be trusted and invested in. Bitcoin could be perceived as pure, like pure gold and the bitcoin could be perceived as incorruptible. Whereas the value of something like gold or cash can change and or be corrupted. Some may hold bitcoin as pure and treat it like its sacred, clean, and pure. Hence treated as a god or treated like a highly valued religious object is treated. Which can be observed as religious.

i agree it seems to be a scam, but if it caught on and became the international standard for currency. trade would be like some of the Sci-Fi's one sees and gov would have full control of every transaction except for trading object for object.

one must remember, I do believe it in the early 1900's it was illegal in the US to sell insurance. now, you can't fart without it being insured.

[iambiguous]

So, in regard to owning bazookas, others can think what they like and do what they like as long as they don't pass laws that in any way whatsoever stop you from doing everything and anything that you want with your bazookas. Or grenades. Or artillery pieces. Thus if they think the government should prohibit private citizens from buying and selling these things this is, what, inherently irrational because you think that it is inherently rational for private citizens to purchase any weapons that he or she can afford.

If I start blastin' away with my bazooka, or shotgun; start swingin' with my tire knocker; start slashin' away with my box cutter, and I'm not self-defendin', then I'm plain wrong. You oughta lock me up, or have me swing from the end of a rope.

In other words: if I violate your life, liberty, or property, without just cause, then you have just cause to hold me accountable, to defend against me.

But, if you believe you have any say-so over my property simply becuz my ownin' a shotgun, a bazooka, a tire knocker offends your sensibilities, think again, bubba.

So, it always comes down to what you perceive to be defending yourself. To how you understand the context. To how you perceive the relationship between property rights and citizenship.

In other words, Libertarian philosophy is not just one of hundreds of other political prejudices that any particular individual, given the life he or she happened to live, came to embrace existentially, subjectively...no, it is the essential, most rational, depiction of the "human condition" itself. Just as all the other objectivist ideologues here [left and right] will insist the same about their own dogmas.

So, do you insist that defending your "way of life" with bazookas is perfectly in sync with the only way that all rational men and woman are obligated to think?

If so, then how close is this to, say, Kant's categorical and imperative obligation?

you believe because you "own" yourself?

I belong to me; you belong to you. If you wanna own a bazooka: please do

Again, that isn't my point. My point is not that Jane wants to own a bazooka and John does not. My point is that both Jane and John came to think as they did about bazookas based on the existential trajectory of the life that they lived. A particular sequence of experiences similar to my own in the OP here -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 -- that predisposed them towards or away from bazookas.

And, concomitantly, that in a No God world, philosophers [among others] seem unable to pin down whether it either is or is not rational [objectively] to own a bazooka.

From my frame of mind, you speak of "you being you" as though deep down inside there is this Real Me, this Core Self, this Soul that transcends all of the existential layers and puts you in touch with the one and the only Right Thing To Do.

It's not what you believe, but that you believe what you believe is the embodiment of this Real Me inherently/necessarily intertwined in the Right Thing To Do.

Hell, there are millions and millions of folks just like you, right? Only, they will assure you, it's not the Libertarian philosophy that reflects the optimal or the only rational manner in which to think about human interactions. It's their own self-righteous dogma instead.

Then straight back up into the didactic "philosophical" clouds:

No, bubba. I know what you know: a person -- any person -- belongs to himself. His life is his own. His liberty is his own. His property is his own. Paraphrasin' Bahman: He has an inviolate claim to himself and and absolutely no claim on the other guy. And if another makes a claim on him, or he on them, self-defense is not only permissible but mebbe obligatory.

Simply: if I don't piss in your cornflakes, then you ought have no beef with me, and vice versa.

Again, in my view, merely dismissing the points I note above about this "psychological" rendition of human identity in the is/ought world.

If, in any particular community, some think as you do about owning bazookas while others think the opposite...

...it shouldn't matter if everyone is leavn' everyone be. If a bazooka-owner oversteps: punish him. If a bazooka-hater oversteps: punish her. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Of course that's what Second Amendment fanatics here is America say about guns and rifles. Then out in the real world are all of the actual complex and convoluted circumstantial contexts where things can get considerably more...ambiguous?

And the thing about "rocket science" is that, however complex things get, it is a science. Whereas in regard to the rationality of allowing citizens to own bazookas...?

Simple, right? Everybody just think like you do.

Only with bazookas in the hands of tens of thousands, I'd predict a much, much deadlier future.

if someone does something that infuriates you or you get a brain tumor or are afflicted with some mental disease, and you go off the deep end with these weapons of mass destruction...?

Then stop me.

Completely avoiding my point. A world where millions upon millions might find themselves infuriated with others, or become afflicted with some disease that dramatically effects their thinking...only it's not a gun or a rifle at their disposal it's a bazooka or a grenade or a mortar round.

Image road rage or an episode of Fear Thy Neighbor in a world where bazookas were as common as handguns.

I have never argued that I don't believe in right and wrong

Yeah, you have. Shall I go thru your posts thruout the forum and post quotes in this thread? You're a moral nihilist: by definition you have no standard of right or wrong.

Note to others:

Over and again I have attempted to explain the distinction I make between existential morality rooted subjectively in dasein and essential morality rooted objectively in God or No God dogmas.

Decide for yourself if he gets it.

try to imagine living in a community where everyone justified every behavior that they chose merely by insisting "my right to my life, liberty, and property is natural and intrinsic."

You keep leavin' out -- intentionally -- the part where everyone recognizes and respects the other guy has the same right to himself, to life, liberty, and property. Imagine that community.

Right, like our intentions are not as well rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein. As for the real-world rendition of everyone respecting the other guy, follow the news for any length of time. Note all the endless contexts in which, from abortion to guns to covid vaccinations to the role of government to defending Ukraine, assessments of "life, liberty, and property" come into [at times] fierce conflict.

It's the objectivists among us who ever and always insists that in regard to "life, liberty, and property" others damn well better define the meaning of them as they do.

As though others aren't able to argue that their own life and their liberty revolves instead around living in a community where owning bazookas was prohibited.

You, and they, can argue all you like. No one is obligated to listen. No, the only obligation anyone has is to recognize and respect that your life, liberty, and property is yours, and that no one has a claim on you.

Again, there are those who argue that their own life and liberty revolves around the assumption -- the political prejudice -- that private citizens should not be permitted to buy and sell bazookas. They've listened to your arguments here in America and so far through elections it is still illegal to buy and sell them. That's how morality works in a democracy. One or another rendition of moderation, negotiation and compromise.

I merely go further and suggest that a personal belief itself about guns is derived not from philosophical arguments but from dasein.

Garbage to you perhaps but, from my frame of mind, it's garbage to all the objectivists here. Why? Because of what is at stake for them if they come to conclude that their own precious Self like their own precious moral and political dogmas are derived more from the arguments I make in the OP here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

As for this...

Let's focus in on a new issue

Bring it on, bubba.

As I noted above, I'll let you choose an issue that we have not discussed...one important to you.

[henry quirk]

i agree it seems to be a scam, but if it caught on and became the international standard for currency. trade would be like some of the Sci-Fi's one sees and gov would have full control of every transaction except for trading object for object.

With everyone and his sister usin' credit & debit cards for every purchase, we're 3/4 the way there already. Eliminatin' cash & coins -- makin' all transactions digital -- would cover the last 1/4. Bitcoin, and other such things, wouldn't supplant the current system. Instead, it'll just be folded in with existin' digi-transactions.

All that'll be left for cavemen is barter.

[henry quirk]

As I noted above, I'll let you choose an issue that we have not discussed...one important to you.

This here...

Let's focus in on a new issue in which many disagree and explore our repective moral philosophies in depth.

...is what you wrote. I ain't seein' no invite from you to pick a topic.

Me: I don't care what we talk about. You know it's gonna really be about Datsun for you, and natural rights for me.

-----

So, do you insist that defending your "way of life" with bazookas is perfectly in sync with the only way that all rational men and woman are obligated to think?

*Nope, never said it or hinted at that.

Might wanna work on your comprehension, bubba.




*then, again, I did say...

self-defense is not only permissible but mebbe obligatory

....now, what could I have meant by that?

Can you pull your puzzle pieces together and offer an answer, bubba?

[henry quirk]

Here ya go, bubba, let's talk about...

war (as) the natural way of things between free men and slavers

...the opening is yours.

[RCSaunders]

They do promote it as incorruptible none changing. A standard to be trusted and invested in. Bitcoin could be perceived as pure, like pure gold and the bitcoin could be perceived as incorruptible. Whereas the value of something like gold or cash can change and or be corrupted. Some may hold bitcoin as pure and treat it like its sacred, clean, and pure. Hence treated as a god or treated like a highly valued religious object is treated. Which can be observed as religious.

i agree it seems to be a scam, but if it caught on and became the international standard for currency. trade would be like some of the Sci-Fi's one sees and gov would have full control of every transaction except for trading object for object.

one must remember, I do believe it in the early 1900's it was illegal in the US to sell insurance. now, you can't fart without it being insured.

Bitcoin, and all the other, "electronic," versions, are not money at all. Real money is an instrument or means of storing and trading real goods and services and it's objective value is determined by the actual material products it represents, and its market value is determined by how well it is seen to perform its purpose as a means of storage and trade. Fiat money (created by banks and governments) has no objective value (does not represent any actual goods or services), and only has market value based on how much faith the market has in the promises of governments that print it and how well it is seen to perform its purpose as a means of storage and trade. Electronic money does not exist at all except as so many numbers stored on computers, has no objective value (because it is not backed by anything), it's market value detemined mostly on the basis of GFT, aka, "the greater fool theory," that is, the belief that whatever one invests in bitcoin will increase in value because some greater fool will be willing to pay more for it. It is the same principle the value of antiques, most art, and collectibles are determined by.

It's not a scam. It is, in many ways like stocks and bonds for those who invest in such things ignorantly. It is gambling. Only the house always wins.

[DPMartin]

They do promote it as incorruptible none changing. A standard to be trusted and invested in. Bitcoin could be perceived as pure, like pure gold and the bitcoin could be perceived as incorruptible. Whereas the value of something like gold or cash can change and or be corrupted. Some may hold bitcoin as pure and treat it like its sacred, clean, and pure. Hence treated as a god or treated like a highly valued religious object is treated. Which can be observed as religious.

i agree it seems to be a scam, but if it caught on and became the international standard for currency. trade would be like some of the Sci-Fi's one sees and gov would have full control of every transaction except for trading object for object.

one must remember, I do believe it in the early 1900's it was illegal in the US to sell insurance. now, you can't fart without it being insured.

Bitcoin, and all the other, "electronic," versions, are not money at all. Real money is an instrument or means of storing and trading real goods and services and it's objective value is determined by the actual material products it represents, and its market value is determined by how well it is seen to perform its purpose as a means of storage and trade. Fiat money (created by banks and governments) has no objective value (does not represent any actual goods or services), and only has market value based on how much faith the market has in the promises of governments that print it and how well it is seen to perform its purpose as a means of storage and trade. Electronic money does not exist at all except as so many numbers stored on computers, has no objective value (because it is not backed by anything), it's market value detemined mostly on the basis of GFT, aka, "the greater fool theory," that is, the belief that whatever one invests in bitcoin will increase in value because some greater fool will be willing to pay more for it. It is the same principle the value of antiques, most art, and collectibles are determined by.

It's not a scam. It is, in many ways like stocks and bonds for those who invest in such things ignorantly. It is gambling. Only the house always wins.

sure, its true that nothing is worth more than what someone is willing to pay for it, but the agreed units of measure is the standard. Which could be the US dollar, gold, and in the future bitcoin. no different then a greed use of feet and miles, or agreed use of meters and klicks. they're not physical objects but yet they are applied to the object of interest. the meter doesn't change value, hence a bitcoin could be used in the same way.