Morality

[The New Sea Territory]

Voluntarism is against the initiation of force, not force itself.

And it was initiated en masse, as I just demonstrated. The state took over the direction of economic activity for the duration of the war, and directed all available resources, including the conscription of people into the armed forces, to prosecute the war effort.

This could be justified as a form of collective self-defense. Since Nazism was obviously the aggressor here.

Either way, Nazism is currently dead, and I think we, as a society, can find a moral system (preferably a mix of Voluntaryism and Humanism) to maximize freedom in society and minimize the use of force.

[Mavorpen]

We didn't stop Nazism with voluntarism or other forms of libertarian pixie dust. We stopped it with violence and coercion, both at home and abroad. We forced people to fight, controlled wages and prices, and abolished non-military economic activity, and pushed all available economic resources that could be mustered to the war effort.

We did it because someone had to stop them. Force and violence are not pretty, and should not be used lightly, but never mistake that they are always necessary, whether against great evils or minor evils.

War is a definite evil. That does not prove your point.

Points for the Godwin, though.

If there ever was an ideal example of "missing the point," this would be it.

I mean, holy shit.

[Trotskylvania]

We didn't stop Nazism with voluntarism or other forms of libertarian pixie dust. We stopped it with violence and coercion, both at home and abroad. We forced people to fight, controlled wages and prices, and abolished non-military economic activity, and pushed all available economic resources that could be mustered to the war effort.

We did it because someone had to stop them. Force and violence are not pretty, and should not be used lightly, but never mistake that they are always necessary, whether against great evils or minor evils.

War is a definite evil. That does not prove your point.

Points for the Godwin, though.

Rolling over and letting the Nazis win is a considerably greater evil.

If you're going to make absolute claims about morality, better be prepared to defend them in all cases.

[Mavorpen]

This could be justified as a form of collective self-defense. Since Nazism was obviously the aggressor here.

It's almost like voluntaryism isn't actually a realistic way of doing things and that social contracts work.

[Conserative Morality]

I can't really explain my morality. I suppose I generally look to the French Revolution for my ideals. It's so polluted with existentialist philosophy, American culture, and the mass politics of the 20th century though, it's hard to tell some days.

[Conserative Morality]

This could be justified as a form of collective self-defense. Since Nazism was obviously the aggressor here.

Either way, Nazism is currently dead, and I think we, as a society, can find a moral system (preferably a mix of Voluntaryism and Humanism) to maximize freedom in society and minimize the use of force.

This assumes freedom is inherently good and force is inherently bad.

I dispute both assertions.

[Trotskylvania]

And it was initiated en masse, as I just demonstrated. The state took over the direction of economic activity for the duration of the war, and directed all available resources, including the conscription of people into the armed forces, to prosecute the war effort.

This could be justified as a form of collective self-defense. Since Nazism was obviously the aggressor here.

Either way, Nazism is currently dead, and I think we, as a society, can find a moral system (preferably a mix of Voluntaryism and Humanism) to maximize freedom in society and minimize the use of force.

There are no voluntary societies, and there can never be one. All societies indoctrinate their members into the acceptance of their values. The minimization of the use of force generally precludes prohibiting the initiation of force, because without it you cannot have the rule of law and civil society.

[Arkolon]

War is a definite evil. That does not prove your point.

Points for the Godwin, though.

Rolling over and letting the Nazis win is a considerably greater evil.

If you're going to make absolute claims about morality, better be prepared to defend them in all cases.

War is a definite evil if we accept self-ownership, which we should therefore take to a different thread.

[Trotskylvania]

Rolling over and letting the Nazis win is a considerably greater evil.

If you're going to make absolute claims about morality, better be prepared to defend them in all cases.

War is a definite evil if we accept self-ownership, which we should therefore take to a different thread.

I will say only this. If you don't accept the initiation of force in the defense of your ideal polity, then your polity is a suicide pact.

[Conscentia]

Quite a while back I had made a thread entitled "Moral Nihilism", which states morality is subjective.[...]

Sort of, but no.
Moral nihilism states that there is no moral truth.
The implication is that all moralities are equally valid, in that they all lack validity.

[Arkolon]

War is a definite evil if we accept self-ownership, which we should therefore take to a different thread.

I will say only this. If you don't accept the initiation of force in the defense of your ideal polity, then your polity is a suicide pact.

I'm no neocon, if that's what you mean.

[Camelza]

i. We want to stop suffering.
ii. Existential suffering is the sole universal suffering.
iii. Intersubjectivity can lessen existential suffering through empathy.
iv. Intersubjectivity requires the absence of conflict.
v. Agape eliminates conflict.
vi. Therefore, agape is good. Its absence is evil.
viii. Actions according with agape are good and actions discording with agape are evil.

Ah, love!

[Conscentia]

I am an amoral ethical nihilist, and the only justification I give for my actions is the only valid justification: causality.
I find dualistic morality objectionable.

[The New Sea Territory]

This could be justified as a form of collective self-defense. Since Nazism was obviously the aggressor here.

It's almost like voluntaryism isn't actually a realistic way of doing things and that social contracts work.

There is no realistic way of doing things besides killing one another. Any moral system is equally as arbitrary as any other. Some just can allow human society to evolve past the initiation of violence....one of which is voluntaryism.

There's nothing wrong with social contracts so long as they are actually voluntary.

[The New Sea Territory]

This could be justified as a form of collective self-defense. Since Nazism was obviously the aggressor here.

Either way, Nazism is currently dead, and I think we, as a society, can find a moral system (preferably a mix of Voluntaryism and Humanism) to maximize freedom in society and minimize the use of force.

This assumes freedom is inherently good and force is inherently bad.

I dispute both assertions.

No, it doesn't. Separate moral "good/bad" from socially "beneficial/counterproductive for the human species". Force is counter-productive, and a maximization of freedom would allow for human society to function as peacefully as possible. It's not a question of moral or immoral, rather that the species as a whole will benefit amorally from a voluntary society.

[Mavorpen]

There is no realistic way of doing things besides killing one another. Any moral system is equally as arbitrary as any other. Some just can allow human society to evolve past the initiation of violence....one of which is voluntaryism.

Yeah, no. An ideology built around "voluntaryism" does absolutely nothing to stop the initiation of violence. It only perpetuates it and ensures that nothing can stop it.

There's nothing wrong with social contracts so long as they are actually voluntary.

Then you don't understand social contracts.

[The New Sea Territory]

This could be justified as a form of collective self-defense. Since Nazism was obviously the aggressor here.

Either way, Nazism is currently dead, and I think we, as a society, can find a moral system (preferably a mix of Voluntaryism and Humanism) to maximize freedom in society and minimize the use of force.

There are no voluntary societies, and there can never be one. All societies indoctrinate their members into the acceptance of their values. The minimization of the use of force generally precludes prohibiting the initiation of force, because without it you cannot have the rule of law and civil society.

Wrong. You govern society based on self-defense or organized defense. Whenever force is initiated, combat it. There can be a voluntary society.

[The New Sea Territory]

There is no realistic way of doing things besides killing one another. Any moral system is equally as arbitrary as any other. Some just can allow human society to evolve past the initiation of violence....one of which is voluntaryism.

Yeah, no. An ideology built around "voluntaryism" does absolutely nothing to stop the initiation of violence. It only perpetuates it and ensures that nothing can stop it.

There's nothing wrong with social contracts so long as they are actually voluntary.

Then you don't understand social contracts.

You clearly know nothing about voluntaryism and love ignorance.

No, I mean that if social contracts are agreed to, they are fine. Just stop forcing social contracts onto people who don't want them. Go with Arkolon's voluntary state.

[Conserative Morality]

No, it doesn't. Separate moral "good/bad" from socially "beneficial/counterproductive for the human species".

I did that long ago.

Force is counter-productive, and a maximization of freedom would allow for human society to function as peacefully as possible. It's not a question of moral or immoral, rather that the species as a whole will benefit amorally from a voluntary society.

Why would I value an amoral outcome? Morals are just the application of values; your position requires that your nondescript 'benefit' for society: it requires that peace and efficiency are to be valued by the person in question. You assume that peaceful functioning is to be valued, that freedom and peace are connected, that force is counter-productive, and that counter-productive actions are undesirable.

[Jumalariik]

[spoiler=This:][/spoiler]

[Mavorpen]

There are no voluntary societies, and there can never be one. All societies indoctrinate their members into the acceptance of their values. The minimization of the use of force generally precludes prohibiting the initiation of force, because without it you cannot have the rule of law and civil society.

Wrong. You govern society based on self-defense or organized defense. Whenever force is initiated, combat it. There can be a voluntary society.

And again, you're completely missing his point. People, who may not have "voluntarily" agreed to support the country in their war against Nazis. They had their business heavily disrupted by a collective action invoked by the government. This is the OPPOSITE of a "voluntary society." This is a society that is characterized by a social contract, where we don't give a fuck (and rightfully so) if you don't want the massive infrastructure and production shift to fight a war. You live in this state and are protected by it. You contribute, even if you don't "voluntarily" do so.

[The Scientific States]

[spoiler=This:](Image)[/spoiler]

I completely respect the decision of someone to use the bible as a moral guide, but those who are religious shouldn't just rely on the bible to make moral decisions. The Bible has some decent quotes and proverbs on morality, and some pretty bad ones. I think it's fine if one uses the bible to help shape their morality, but to use it as a objective source of morality is a bit narrow minded.

[Mavorpen]

You clearly know nothing about voluntaryism and love ignorance.

No, it's the opposite. I understand it entirely, and that's precisely why I recognize it's just plain shitty.

No, I mean that if social contracts are agreed to, they are fine. Just stop forcing social contracts onto people who don't want them. Go with Arkolon's voluntary state.

His "voluntary state" is the EXACT same as the current state, only he replaced the current government with private mercenaries. It does utterly nothing to combat the "initiation of force."

[Trotskylvania]

This assumes freedom is inherently good and force is inherently bad.

I dispute both assertions.

No, it doesn't. Separate moral "good/bad" from socially "beneficial/counterproductive for the human species". Force is counter-productive, and a maximization of freedom would allow for human society to function as peacefully as possible. It's not a question of moral or immoral, rather that the species as a whole will benefit amorally from a voluntary society.

I disagree with your assumption that force is counterproductive and not beneficial to the human species. Force may be like fire, in that it is a fierce servant and dangerous master, but it doesn't diminish their utility. Both have been the foundation of civilization, and the question we must ask is how force is used and to what ends, not how much of it is being used.

You've slipped back in normative terms anyway. Why should I care if anything is beneficial unless there's a normative claim being made.

[The New Sea Territory]

No, it doesn't. Separate moral "good/bad" from socially "beneficial/counterproductive for the human species".

I did that long ago.

Force is counter-productive, and a maximization of freedom would allow for human society to function as peacefully as possible. It's not a question of moral or immoral, rather that the species as a whole will benefit amorally from a voluntary society.

Why would I value an amoral outcome? Morals are just the application of values; your position requires that your nondescript 'benefit' for society: it requires that peace and efficiency are to be valued by the person in question. You assume that peaceful functioning is to be valued, that freedom and peace are connected, that force is counter-productive, and that counter-productive actions are undesirable.

Good

No, it's not valuing an amoral outcome. It is stating that, from a pure view of how society functions, the voluntary society would function in a way that initiated force, which tears society apart, would be the only prohibition. It has nothing to do with value, just from a pragmatic view, a voluntary society would function in a way that is the most beneficial to humanity.

If you are against the benefit of humanity, then good for you, because voluntaryism isn't forcing you to work with others.