RE: On addiction and D/s

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: On addiction and D/s

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: On addiction and D/s

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: On addiction and D/s - 6/25/2009 2:42:01 PM

variation30

Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

No you were trying to make a silly guilt by association argument, and after getting called on it, you are trying to dress it up with sophistry.

as you've consistently misconstrued most of what has been said in this thread, I think you should take my word on what I was doing.

quote:

Of course not all societies are ethical. So what? In the context of even trying to establish that ethics are a good thing and that they imply duties, So what?

I will tell you what...I will posit that the only 'ethical society' is one where no agency monopolizes the use of violence nor does it monopolize decision making. it is a society that acknowledges that the will of the individual is never justifiably subverted to the will of the 'community' or 'society' (as things such as 'community' and 'society' simply do not exist outside of the cooperative efforts of individuals). what is more 'societies' which hold your brand of 'social responsibility' ahead of a respect for the individual are invariably totalitarian (most of which practice some form of slavery).

quote:

This is where I am simply starting to get weary. I know you feel that this is all so deep and so profound. But, it really isn't. This is basic introductory, how to carry yourself as a person 101.

on the contrary, I think this is all very simple. individuals are the only owners of their bodies and property. that ownership should be respected (if you want a more descriptive reason of why I think this is: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p23 ).

quote:

For example...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not mean "do what ever you want."

I realize that, but what it does mean (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property), is that you can "do whatever you want with your life and property." unfortunately america gave up that tenet long, long ago.

quote:

American law has always been balanced by notions of ethics and social responsibility. Can you believe that? Can you believe that the founding fathers never meant it at all as "do whatever you want?"

first off, I would never be so...intellectually sloppy as to group all of our founding fathers' wills into one collective. I would never suggest that hamilton would ever think that life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (or happiness) is the citizen's ultimate goal. what is more, I would never suggest that just because a few men founded a country that all of their beliefs are 100% just and wise. I do not think this is the case (not even in the case of Jefferson, though we was the closest). but I will ask you this, if you read the original constitution (with or without the first 10 amendments) where do you get their notions of 'social responsibility'? can you elaborate what these notions are? the only social responsibilities I see in such documents are the limits of power upon the government.

quote:

As an example, what about freedom of speech? I can say whatever I want right?

WRONG.

you're right, you cannot say whatever you want *whereever you want*. however, on your own property or with your own property, you can. also, do you believe that just because the supreme court rules you can or cannot do something, it is just? I would advise you stay away from legal positivism, as it will only make you look more...well...how you look now.

quote:

Forbidden speech in American law:

1. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. (because you have a responsibility to not harm others by the ensuing panic)
2. Libel, Slander, Defamation (because you have the social responsibility to not falsely destroy another's reputation)
3. Sedition, calls to harm the elected officials (because you have a duty to uphold the Republic)
4. Disclosure of state secrets (because you have the duty to not give the bad guys an edge in killing our people)
5. Hate speech and incitement to violence. (Because you have the social duty to NOT whip angry mobs into a lynch gang)

I would suggest that 2-5 are blatant disregards and infringements upon free speech. it is not that 2-5 are unjust acts, it is that a government has unjustly cordened these actions as forbidden. 1 comes from a simple minded justice's opinion. it shows a superficial knowledge of rights (rights by their very nature cannot collide or conflict). Rothbard addresses this as such:

"
Consider, for example, the classic example where liberals generally concede that a person's "right of freedom of speech" must be curbed in the name of the "public interest": Justice Holmes' famous dictum that no one has the right to cry "fire" falsely in a crowded theater. Holmes and his followers have used this illustration again and again to prove the supposed necessity for all rights to be relative and tentative rather than precise and absolute. But the problem here is not that rights cannot be pushed too far, but that the whole case is discussed in terms of a vague and wooly "freedom of speech" rather than in terms of the rights of private property. Suppose we analyze the problem under the aspect of property rights. The fellow who brings on a riot by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is, necessarily, either the owner of the theater (or the owner's agent) or a paying patron. If he is the owner, then he has committed fraud on his customers. He has taken their money in exchange for a promise to put on a movie or play, and now, instead, he disrupts the show by falsely shouting "fire" and breaking up the performance. He has thus welshed on his contractual obligation, and has thereby stolen the property — the money — of his patrons and has violated their property rights. Suppose, on the other hand, that the shouter is a patron and not the owner. In that case, he is violating the property right of the owner [p. 44] as well as of the other guests to their paid-for performance. As a guest, he has gained access to the property on certain terms, including an obligation not to violate the owner's property or to disrupt the performance the owner is putting on. His malicious act, therefore, violates the property rights of the theater owner and of all the other patrons. There is no need, therefore, for individual rights to be restricted in the case of the false shouter of "fire." The rights of the individual are still absolute; but they are property rights. The fellow who maliciously cried "fire" in a crowded theater is indeed a criminal, but not because his so-called "right of free speech" must be pragmatically restricted on behalf of the "public good"; he is a criminal because he has clearly and obviously violated the property rights of another person."
glad I could clear that up for you.

quote:

What about limitations on Freedom of religion? Right to peaceful assembly? Would you believe that we have those too? Would you believe that those limitations are all based on notions of social responsibility?

if you define social responsibility as the fact that it is unjust to tell others what they can and cannot do with their bodies and property, then yes, I would say these are based on 'notions of social responsiblity.' they are not, however, based upon the social responsibility you are espousing (which is the exact opposite of these freedoms.

quote:

Now you breezily come to me and argue about about social systems and American law as if you know jack. It's frustrating. If you knew American law at all, you would never have claimed that it is "in direct opposition to my notions of social responsibility." However, again, you only have the most superficial knowledge of the subjects you are pontificating on. It gets old.

again, why is american law the end all and be all for what is and what is not justifiable between human action? I would argue that thigns such as eminent domain, tariffs, taxation, conscription, etc. are blatant examples of how american law is unjust. your appeal to authority is lacking.

Also, I see you convienently ignoring some of my posts. would you be a dear and elaborate on this # 72. I would especially love to hear your critique of Szasz's claims against the existence of addiction, my claims that social contract is merely a rationalization of oppression, that the 'law of the jungle' promotes willing cooperation fueled by self interest resulting in a divsion of labor, etc.

< Message edited by variation30 -- 6/25/2009 3:02:10 PM >

_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to QuixoticErrant)