Statists and the Golden Rule

[Federalist]

Everyone knows the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It is a basic rule of ethical behavior, and is the foundation on which our natural rights to life, liberty, and property are erected. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus says, "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them." Likewise, the first century Jewish leader Rabbi Hillel says it this way, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow; that is the whole Torah; the rest is explanation; go and learn."

Now, I recently noticed something about statists, and once having noticed it, I see it every single time I encounter one. It is this: the Golden Rule means nothing to a statist. They want to stop you from freely acquiring firearms, they want to take your money, they want to tell you what you can eat, what you can drink, what you can smoke, how many gallons of water your toilet may use, what kind of light bulb you may buy, with whom you conduct business, and how you conduct business.

In essence, they want to lay down the law, and you are supposed to toe the line. They treat people not as they wish to be treated, but they treat them as a master treats a slave.

So here's the challenge. Take any statist position, and see whether it violates the Golden Rule. I haven't found one yet that doesn't.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That is certainly one interpretation of the golden rule.

"do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

If someone wants to ban firearms, they very much are likely to live under that same rule. so they are doing what they wish to have done. I don't see how this violates the golden rule at all.

 

[spud_meister]

That is certainly one interpretation of the golden rule.

"do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

If someone wants to ban firearms, they very much are likely to live under that same rule. so they are doing what they wish to have done. I don't see how this violates the golden rule at all.

Don't go and get all logical in a hack thread. You ruin the fun.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is certainly one interpretation of the golden rule.

"do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

If someone wants to ban firearms, they very much are likely to live under that same rule. so they are doing what they wish to have done. I don't see how this violates the golden rule at all.

Really? It seems that these folks want plenty of guns, but only in the hands of the gov't. They feel that the huge nanny state will protect them from harm, and that by just dialing 911 a gov't hero with a gun will arrive in time to save them. They feel that criminals and gang thugs will obey that (no gun) law, even while they do not obey any other laws. They feel that freedom is really what poses the danger, and only by taking that freedom away can we be rendered safe.

 

[Federalist]

That is certainly one interpretation of the golden rule.

"do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

If someone wants to ban firearms, they very much are likely to live under that same rule. so they are doing what they wish to have done. I don't see how this violates the golden rule at all.

In that example, they wish to use the force of government to ban what they don't like. I'm sure the would not like government force used against them to ban something someone else might not like.

 

[Deuce]

In that example, they wish to use the force of government to ban what they don't like. I'm sure the would not like government force used against them to ban something someone else might not like.

You're stretching the golden rule pretty far here.

You're also using the word statist, but I do not think you know what it means.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

That is certainly one interpretation of the golden rule.

"do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

If someone wants to ban firearms, they very much are likely to live under that same rule. so they are doing what they wish to have done. I don't see how this violates the golden rule at all.

So Bloomberg wants to disarm his security detail?

 

[Altenhof4Prez]

That is certainly one interpretation of the golden rule.

"do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

If someone wants to ban firearms, they very much are likely to live under that same rule. so they are doing what they wish to have done. I don't see how this violates the golden rule at all.

In this situation someone would have to keep their firearms to enforce that rule......thus violating the golden one...:2wave:

 

[Neosteve]

That is certainly one interpretation of the golden rule.

"do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

If someone wants to ban firearms, they very much are likely to live under that same rule. so they are doing what they wish to have done. I don't see how this violates the golden rule at all.

"love your neighbor as you love yourself" I don't see how "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a different interpretation. Your example doesn't make sense when applied to the "golden rule" If the golden rule is applied as your example illustrates then you would be okay with your neighbor forbidding you from having children because they don't like children. The key is treating each other in a manner in which we would like to be treated ourselves. All this is in the context of Jesus' answer to the Pharisees about the greatest and most important law. If you have a Bible take a look at Matt. 22: 37-40.

 

[Federalist]

You're stretching the golden rule pretty far here.

I'm not sure I agree. If one doesn't want people banning things he likes, then he should not advocate banning things that others like.

That doesn't seem like a stretch at all. For instance, I think it violates the golden rule to say, "I would be happy to live in a world where dancing is forbidden, therefore I am going to support a ban on dancing." You are banning something that other's enjoy, and surely you would not like to have what you enjoy be banned.

You're also using the word statist, but I do not think you know what it means.

Do you think that this wiki entry is wrong? Statism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Really? It seems that these folks want plenty of guns, but only in the hands of the gov't. They feel that the huge nanny state will protect them from harm, and that by just dialing 911 a gov't hero with a gun will arrive in time to save them. They feel that criminals and gang thugs will obey that (no gun) law, even while they do not obey any other laws. They feel that freedom is really what poses the danger, and only by taking that freedom away can we be rendered safe.

OK... What does that have to do with the golden rule?

 

[Slartibartfast]

In that example, they wish to use the force of government to ban what they don't like. I'm sure the would not like government force used against them to ban something someone else might not like.

And that's what's interesting about using the golden rule. Give me any stance and I bet I can show you an aspect that fits in the rule and an aspect that doesn't. Perception plays heavily into this rule as it is inherently subjective.

 

[Federalist]

And that's what's interesting about using the golden rule. Give me any stance and I bet I can show you an aspect that fits in the rule and an aspect that doesn't.

Hm, maybe you're right. I'm not sure.

Trying to think of another stance.

Okay, would you say that something like the imposition of a minimum wage violates the golden rule? My thinking would be that is IS a violation. Were I to support a minimum wage, I would be interfering in another person's business decisions, when I would not want other people to interfere in my business decisions.

 

[ttwtt78640]

OK... What does that have to do with the golden rule?

That the gov't is somehow excluded as among the "others". That interpretation places the wishes of one, say not to drink, as a mandate that none may do so in their presense, and elevating that wish into law, to be enforced upon all by the gov't. My right to have a gun, or to drink alcohol does you no harm at all. You have a right to expect that I will not harm you, just as I have a right to expect that you will not harm me; yet neither of us has the right to dictate the limits upon the freedom of another beyond that point. Your wish to not engage in a given action, or to possess a given product, does not confer upon you the right to deny me that option, so long as it does not harm you.

 

[lizzie]

"do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

If someone wants to ban firearms, they very much are likely to live under that same rule. so they are doing what they wish to have done. I don't see how this violates the golden rule at all.

That doesn't make sense. If someone wants firearms banned, they want someone else to do unto you, so that they don't have to. If an individual wants to live without firearms, then he can avoid buying them. Demanding that a power figure takes something away from another individual, because you don't want it to be a right, is not living by the golden rule. It's making demands on how everyone should live, according to your own standards.

 

[iguanaman]

That the gov't is somehow excluded as among the "others". That interpretation places the wishes of one, say not to drink, as a mandate that none may do so in their presense, and elevating that wish into law, to be enforced upon all by the gov't. My right to have a gun, or to drink alcohol does you no harm at all. You have a right to expect that I will not harm you, just as I have a right to expect that you will not harm me; yet neither of us has the right to dictate the limits upon the freedom of another beyond that point. Your wish to not engage in a given action, or to possess a given product, does not confer upon you the right to deny me that option, so long as it does not harm you.

That is the crux of the gun argument, whether lack of regulation is harming people. And the facts say YES.
And the NRA's answer is tough noogies, it's in the Constitution. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That doesn't make sense. If someone wants firearms banned, they want someone else to do unto you, so that they don't have to. If an individual wants to live without firearms, then he can avoid buying them. Demanding that a power figure takes something away from another individual, because you don't want it to be a right, is not living by the golden rule. It's making demands on how everyone should live, according to your own standards.

I already explained that it works both ways.

Again if someone is not a fan of guns they have no problem with a gun ban being done onto them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is the crux of the gun argument, whether lack of regulation is harming people. And the facts say YES.
And the NRA's answer is tough noogies, it's in the Constitution. You can't have it both ways.

Crime committed with guns (or without guns) is already illegal. You, as a male, are initially trusted to behave and allowed to carry a concealed "rape tool" at all times however, should you actually rape anyone, then you are in deep trouble; rape tool rights or not!

 

[lizzie]

I already explained that it works both ways.

Again if someone is not a fan of guns they have no problem with a gun ban being done onto them.

But that's not a golden rule statement. If you don't want something in your life, and you expect an authority figure to also take that right away from someone else, the golden rule is not being exercised. The golden rule deals in what your direct actions with others consist of.

according to your standard, the golden rule would be me wanting to force you to have a gun, just because I want one.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Hm, maybe you're right. I'm not sure.

Trying to think of another stance.

Okay, would you say that something like the imposition of a minimum wage violates the golden rule? My thinking would be that is IS a violation. Were I to support a minimum wage, I would be interfering in another person's business decisions, when I would not want other people to interfere in my business decisions.

It depends on how general or specific you want to be. Any action has second and third order effects. In those various effects one can probably find something that violates it if they look hard enough.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

But that's not a golden rule statement. If you don't want something in your life, and you expect an authority figure to also take that right away from someone else, the golden rule is not being exercised. The golden rule deals in what your direct actions with others consist of.

So if an authority figure wants to enact a gun ban that applies to everyone, would it be breaking the 'golden rule' if they did not get rid of their armed security detail or at least disarm them?

 

[Slartibartfast]

But that's not a golden rule statement. If you don't want something in your life, and you expect an authority figure to also take that right away from someone else, the golden rule is not being exercised. The golden rule deals in what your direct actions with others consist of.

according to your standard, the golden rule would be me wanting to force you to have a gun, just because I want one.

treat someone else as you want to be treated

treat someone else = wanting to ban guns
as you want to be treated = not owning guns yourself

it couldn't be more simple to understand.

 

[Federalist]

It depends on how general or specific you want to be. Any action has second and third order effects. In those various effects one can probably find something that violates it if they look hard enough.

Possibly.

Earlier you said, "Give me any stance and I bet I can show you an aspect that fits in the rule and an aspect that doesn't." So how would the imposition of a minimum wage be in conformance with the golden rule. Are you saying you think that people want you to interfere in their business decisions?

 

[Federalist]

treat someone else as you want to be treated

treat someone else = wanting to ban guns
as you want to be treated = not owning guns yourself

it couldn't be more simple to understand.

I think that it is simplistic and childish to treat others exactly as you would like to be treated, disregarding the fact that each person has different tastes.

Actually, I would posit that what the golden rule really says is "Do unto others as you would have them to unto you [if you were them]. The point is, you need to put yourself in the other person's shoes and treat them as you would like to be treated if you were them.

For example, to walk up to a woman with beautiful long hair and forcibly give her a buzz cut would be a violation of the golden rule, even if you object, "But I would be happy to have a buzz cut myself, so what's the problem."

 

[lizzie]

treat someone else as you want to be treated

treat someone else = wanting to ban guns
as you want to be treated = not owning guns yourself

it couldn't be more simple to understand.

But you're not proposing to treat others as you want to be treated. If you want someone else to take away a right of mine, because you don't want to share in that right, then the golden rule is not being instituted.

If I want the governmen to outlaw the practice of Christianity, because I am not Christian, nor do I want to be Christian, am I practicing the golden rule?