An awesome video that I'd love to see someone argue against.

[LibertyLemming]

Literally the only thing you could say is I am fine with being immoral.


Don't give me any shit about having a video in here, it makes an argument and could result in a discussion, this is a discussion board, blow me if you don't like it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEM4NKXK-iA&feature=player_embedded]No ObamaCare - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oldguy]

Coercion for the common good is the basis of any government. Without compulsory obedience to an agreed upon set of rules, there is simply anarchy and government doesn't work at all.

For instance, if cops couldn't write speeding tickets, what good is a speed limit? That's coercion.

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

Perhaps you'd like to answer that.

 

[OODA_Loop]

DiSouza makes sense.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

He spoke to the moral benefit to the wagon pullers several times and the mutual satisfaction of the coercion free transaction.

 

[tooAlive]

Coercion for the common good is the basis of any government. Without compulsory obedience to an agreed upon set of rules, there is simply anarchy and government doesn't work at all.

For instance, if cops couldn't write speeding tickets, what good is a speed limit? That's coercion.

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

Perhaps you'd like to answer that.

Having a speed limit, a strong military, reliable police system, clean paved roads, ect.. benefits everyone. Not just a select few.

In the sandwich example, one person is benefited while the other one is not. And the coercer is taking the credit while he himself is not contributing anything. There's no morality in that.

 

[Oldguy]

In the sandwich example, one person is benefited while the other one is not. And the coercer is taking the credit while he himself is not contributing anything. There's no morality in that.

But, that's not how the welfare system works. Nobody comes to our houses and makes us turn over food items to give to a poor person. Instead, we are compelled to give up a portion of our money (taxes) which goes into a fund for feeding a lot of poor people.

Through our elected representatives, that's a system we've agreed to, so it is not the same kind of point-of-a-gun coercion. It's not robbery, it's a societal recognition that we do have an obligation to the poor and we've collectively decided that's how we'll meet that obligation..

No, you may not like it personally and feel that it is a form of robbery, but a majority of your neighbors disagree or we would not still have that system. However, to prevent you opting out and subverting our agreed upon solution to poor hungry people, the law has coercive powers to enforce the Will of The People.

 

[Oldguy]

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

He spoke to the moral benefit to the wagon pullers several times and the mutual satisfaction of the coercion free transaction.

Yes, but he did not directly answer the question. Neither did you.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Coercion for the common good is the basis of any government. Without compulsory obedience to an agreed upon set of rules, there is simply anarchy and government doesn't work at all.

For instance, if cops couldn't write speeding tickets, what good is a speed limit? That's coercion.

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

Perhaps you'd like to answer that.

Yeah this has nothing to do with the video but of course you can't have government without force. What is your point?

 

[bripat9643]

Coercion for the common good is the basis of any government. Without compulsory obedience to an agreed upon set of rules, there is simply anarchy and government doesn't work at all.

For instance, if cops couldn't write speeding tickets, what good is a speed limit? That's coercion.

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

Perhaps you'd like to answer that.

You obviously didn't get the point. There's nothing "moral" about complying with orders under threat of compulsion. Even if someone wouldn't "do the right thing," where does anyone else get off thinking they have the authority to determine what's right and compelling you to comply?

 

[bripat9643]

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

He spoke to the moral benefit to the wagon pullers several times and the mutual satisfaction of the coercion free transaction.

Yes, but he did not directly answer the question. Neither did you.

He did answer the question. You just don't like that answer. I'll sum it up for you: charity is one thing, robbery is another. The transaction the questioner was asking about is robbery, so there's no moral issue involved.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

He spoke to the moral benefit to the wagon pullers several times and the mutual satisfaction of the coercion free transaction.

Yes, but he did not directly answer the question. Neither did you.

Sure we did. The moral benefit to the giver.

Better to give than receive.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Through our elected representatives, that's a system we've agreed to.

Of course it is.

But we did not agree to the system that supports the cultural shift and mindset of more in the wagon than pulling the wagon.

You missed that part too.

 

[bripat9643]

In the sandwich example, one person is benefited while the other one is not. And the coercer is taking the credit while he himself is not contributing anything. There's no morality in that.

But, that's not how the welfare system works.

That's exactly how it works.

Nobody comes to our houses and makes us turn over food items to give to a poor person. Instead, we are compelled to give up a portion of our money (taxes) which goes into a fund for feeding a lot of poor people.

Your belief that there's a difference there is hilarious.

Through our elected representatives, that's a system we've agreed to, so it is not the same kind of point-of-a-gun coercion.

Wrong. I never agreed to it.

It's not robbery, it's a societal recognition that we do have an obligation to the poor and we've collectively decided that's how we'll meet that obligation..

I recognize no such thing. I have no such obligation.

No, you may not like it personally and feel that it is a form of robbery, but a majority of your neighbors disagree or we would not still have that system.

The majority doesn't determine facts or what's right.

However, to prevent you opting out and subverting our agreed upon solution to poor hungry people, the law has coercive powers to enforce the Will of The People.

In other words, clowns like Obama rob us of our hard earned money.

 

[Oldguy]

Coercion for the common good is the basis of any government. Without compulsory obedience to an agreed upon set of rules, there is simply anarchy and government doesn't work at all.

For instance, if cops couldn't write speeding tickets, what good is a speed limit? That's coercion.

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

Perhaps you'd like to answer that.

Yeah this has nothing to do with the video but of course you can't have government without force. What is your point?

It has everything to do with the video. If not, what's YOUR point?

 

[Oldguy]

Coercion for the common good is the basis of any government. Without compulsory obedience to an agreed upon set of rules, there is simply anarchy and government doesn't work at all.

For instance, if cops couldn't write speeding tickets, what good is a speed limit? That's coercion.

The guy on the left is doing some rhetorical gymnastics to keep from answering the question about why one would expect human beings, who are immoral by nature, to do the right or moral thing on their own, without coercion.

Perhaps you'd like to answer that.

You obviously didn't get the point. There's nothing "moral" about complying with orders under threat of compulsion. Even if someone wouldn't "do the right thing," where does anyone else get off thinking they have the authority to determine what's right and compelling you to comply?

How else can government work? If people would naturally do the right thing, we'd have no need of government, would we?

Yet, we have forms of government which necessarily includes legal coercion. Do you know why human beings created government in the first place?

 

[Oldguy]

He spoke to the moral benefit to the wagon pullers several times and the mutual satisfaction of the coercion free transaction.

Yes, but he did not directly answer the question. Neither did you.

He did answer the question. You just don't like that answer. I'll sum it up for you: charity is one thing, robbery is another. The transaction the questioner was asking about is robbery, so there's no moral issue involved.

The question was (to paraphrase): Since the speaker himself said that people are inherently immoral, thereby incapable of doing the "right" thing on their own, by what right would he suppose that people would do the right thing without compulsion?

 

[Oldguy]

Through our elected representatives, that's a system we've agreed to.

Of course it is.

But we did not agree to the system that supports the cultural shift and mindset of more in the wagon than pulling the wagon.

You missed that part too.

Apparently we still do, to this point, because the system has not yet been changed.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The question was (to paraphrase): Since the speaker himself said that people are inherently immoral, thereby incapable of doing the "right" thing on their own, by what right would he suppose that people would do the right thing without compulsion?

Come on now. People do the "right thing" on their own all of the time. Free from government coercion.

But man is inherently immoral. To serve himself absent any moral code which is learned.

Toddlers lack morality.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Through our elected representatives, that's a system we've agreed to.

Of course it is.

But we did not agree to the system that supports the cultural shift and mindset of more in the wagon than pulling the wagon.

You missed that part too.

Apparently we still do, to this point, because the system has not yet been changed.

The wagon is full and the axles are about to break. That will bring on the "yet".

 

[Oldguy]

In the sandwich example, one person is benefited while the other one is not. And the coercer is taking the credit while he himself is not contributing anything. There's no morality in that.

But, that's not how the welfare system works.

That's exactly how it works.



Your belief that there's a difference there is hilarious.



Wrong. I never agreed to it.



I recognize no such thing. I have no such obligation.

No, you may not like it personally and feel that it is a form of robbery, but a majority of your neighbors disagree or we would not still have that system.

The majority doesn't determine facts or what's right.

However, to prevent you opting out and subverting our agreed upon solution to poor hungry people, the law has coercive powers to enforce the Will of The People.

In other words, clowns like Obama rob us of our hard earned money.

So long as you continue to live in this country, and agree to abide by our laws, you give your consent to it all. If you decline to give your consent, you have two options:

1. Move to somewhere else.

2. Become a criminal who claims the individual right to exist outside the law.

No, working to change the law doesn't work for you simply because by working to change the law, you're giving your implied consent to the rule of law. If you deny the authority of the law, you have no reason to seek to change it. If you accept the authority of the law, and work to change it from within, you imply your willingness to abide by the law even if you lose your campaign to change it.