Statists and the Golden Rule

[Deuce]

As ThatOneWeirdGuy pointed out earlier, it is possible to interpret the golden rule in a simplistic way. However, when I said that statists don't seem to have much regard for the golden rule, I was not referring to that child-like interpretation. I was thinking of the interpretation that says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you IF YOU WERE THEM."

So the masochist would NOT torture others because he understood that THEY did not enjoy torture.



Possibly. But I can't think of anyone acting immorally who does not break the golden rule. Can you?



I fail to see how using the force of law to forbid the possession of certain items of which one doesn't approve can be in conformance with the golden rule. Would you like the government to ban items that YOU want just because other people don't approve of them?

Because you're narrowing your focus to "possession of certain items" and not the end result of using those items. Nobody would have a problem with guns if they just sat on your shelf. Please stop pretending possession is the issue.

 

[Federalist]

Because you're narrowing your focus to "possession of certain items" and not the end result of using those items. Nobody would have a problem with guns if they just sat on your shelf. Please stop pretending possession is the issue.

A law forbidding attacking others with a firearm (or any other means) would certainly conform to the golden rule. It is perfectly ethical to tell others they may not attack anyone, since we have to assume they don't wish to be attacked either.

I am referring to laws that criminalize the mere possession of a thing, such as a firearm. I don't think that it is conforms with the golden rule to forbid the possession of items that you don't like, since you know that you wouldn't want the things you like to be banned.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because you're narrowing your focus to "possession of certain items" and not the end result of using those items. Nobody would have a problem with guns if they just sat on your shelf. Please stop pretending possession is the issue.

It is the gun control crowd that makes gun possession (and capability) the issue, we already have laws concerning criminal use of guns. Perhaps, if you are so sure that you know exactly who is so dangerous that they should never[i/] be able to touch a gun, then locking them up (forever?) is the answer, not simply setting them loose and trying to prevent them from ever getting a gun (again?) by making it much more difficult and expensive for everyone else to do so. We now have an outright, complete, nation wide ban on recreational drugs, yet they have become a multi-billion dollar, tax free criminal enterprise - but gun control laws will surely work well.

 

[Deuce]

It is the gun control crowd that makes gun possession (and capability) the issue, we already have laws concerning criminal use of guns. Perhaps, if you are so sure that you know exactly who is so dangerous that they should never[i/] be able to touch a gun, then locking them up (forever?) is the answer, not simply setting them loose and trying to prevent them from ever getting a gun (again?) by making it much more difficult and expensive for everyone else to do so. We now have an outright, complete, nation wide ban on recreational drugs, yet they have become a multi-billion dollar, tax free criminal enterprise - but gun control laws will surely work well.

Since anti-murder laws don't stop murder, let's legalize murder.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Since anti-murder laws don't stop murder, let's legalize murder.

That is not my argument and you know it. Your smoking a joint does not harm me, just as your owning a gun does not harm me. If you do harm me then, and only then, you are worthy of persuing and prosecuting. You cannot sufficiently restrict the freedom of all to "prevent" crime, that is a simple fact. It is now illegal (a felony) to lie on form 4473 (the Brady Act centerpiece), yet out of 68,000 folks that did so, we prosectuted (and convicted) about 20 of them.

 

[Federalist]

That is not my argument and you know it. Your smoking a joint does not harm me, just as your owning a gun does not harm me. If you do harm me then, and only then, you are worthy of persuing and prosecuting. You cannot sufficiently restrict the freedom of all to "prevent" crime, that is a simple fact. It is now illegal (a felony) to lie on form 4473 (the Brady Act centerpiece), yet out of 68,000 folks that did so, we prosectuted (and convicted) about 20 of them.

The statist seems happy to violate the golden rule in order to accomplish ends he thinks are worthy. From banning guns to banning pot to banning supersized sodas. They treat others essentially as children or slaves rather than fellow individuals worthy of respect.

There is no problem for which a statists cannot envision a solution. Unfortunately, every statist solution involves the initiation of force against innocent people and violates the golden rule.

 

[Fog hit]

The statist seems happy to violate the golden rule in order to accomplish ends he thinks are worthy. From banning guns to banning pot to banning supersized sodas. They treat others essentially as children or slaves rather than fellow individuals worthy of respect.

There is no problem for which a statists cannot envision a solution. Unfortunately, every statist solution involves the initiation of force against innocent people and violates the golden rule.

Join Date
Aug 2012
Location
Pennsylvania
Last Seen
Today @ 10:31 AM
Lean
Independent
Posts
2,218
Likes Received
1068 times
Likes Given
1566

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

Every example you gave had to do with material.

Face it Fed... Libertarians are just material boys and girls.

 

[Federalist]

Join Date
Aug 2012
Location
Pennsylvania
Last Seen
Today @ 10:31 AM
Lean
Independent
Posts
2,218
Likes Received
1068 times
Likes Given
1566

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

Every example you gave had to do with material.

Face it Fed... Libertarians are just material boys and girls.

I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that you disagree with the golden rule?

 

[Goshin]

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.

It's pretty simple really. The only way to ban guns (if it could be done at all, dubious but another time), would be for it to be enforced by people with guns.

The gun banners typically do not want to be the ones holding the guns doing the enforcing, and risking their hide to enforce their will on others who don't want it. They want someone else to do their dirty work for them.

They want the police and military to be armed to protect them... but most of the more virulent anti-gunners are not police or military and most never have been. They want someone else to do it for them. This is hypocrisy of the cheesiest kind... not to mention unrealistic and vanishingly unlikely to have the desired effects.

Lots of the gun-banner leadership have armed guards. They aren't giving them up, are they? More hypocrisy... forcing others to live without the protection they enjoy.

 

[Deuce]

That is not my argument and you know it. Your smoking a joint does not harm me, just as your owning a gun does not harm me. If you do harm me then, and only then, you are worthy of persuing and prosecuting. You cannot sufficiently restrict the freedom of all to "prevent" crime, that is a simple fact. It is now illegal (a felony) to lie on form 4473 (the Brady Act centerpiece), yet out of 68,000 folks that did so, we prosectuted (and convicted) about 20 of them.

You're thinking in absolutes. Nobody believes you can prevent all crime, but you can prevent some of it. Timothy McVeigh hadn't harmed anyone until he detonated his bomb.

 

[Fog hit]

I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that you disagree with the golden rule?

Im saying that the golden rule has nothing to do with libertariamism.

The golden rule is the application/effect of the virtues. Are you honest, loyal, patient, compassionate, etc.

You remind me Commidous... who thought ambition was a virtue. Or being able to buy an assault rifle freely, is a virtue.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You're thinking in absolutes. Nobody believes you can prevent all crime, but you can prevent some of it. Timothy McVeigh hadn't harmed anyone until he detonated his bomb.

The ingredients of his bomb are still not illegal, but mixing them was and still is. Bombs and machine guns are illegal (or at least highly restricted) fertilizer and motor fuel are both still legal.

A drunk driver does harm, yet we ban neither drinking nor driving, we do not even ban booze or cars, we target the actual offense, the combination of being drunk while driving a car. The combination of using a gun while committing a crime, is the act that we wish to prevent, thus that is what is currently illegal, awarding those so convicted a longer sentence for that crime. Walking around while armed is not (generally) a crime, as it harms noone, in fact, it is still a Constitutional right.

 

[Fletch]

Every example you gave had to do with material.

Face it Fed... Libertarians are just material boys and girls.

If I control every aspect of your material existence I control you. So, no, it is not a material issue, it is a liberty issue.

 

[Fog hit]

If I control every aspect of your material existence I control you. So, no, it is not a material issue, it is a liberty issue.

I see... its a liberty issue... Therefore, liberty is a virtue. I give you liberty, you give me liberty... Golden rule.

Yet every liberty expressed, has to do with materials... Liberty to buy and sell.

Sorry but you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't work that way. Liberty is not a virtue. Liberty is not something that can be given... It is an inalienable right.

 

[Fletch]

I see... its a liberty issue... Therefore, liberty is a virtue. I give you liberty, you give me liberty... Golden rule.

Yet every liberty expressed, has to do with materials... Liberty to buy and sell.

Sorry but you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't work that way. Liberty is not a virtue. Liberty is not something that can be given... It is an inalienable right.

That makes no sense. If you acknowledge that liberty is a right, how can it not be a virtue? And how can denying it to someone not be a vice? You cannot argue that I have liberty to achieve my own happiness, yet deprive me by force of those material items necessary for my life that I have freely and justly acquired. If I posses the right to dispose of your possessions, they are MY possessions. You are my slave.

 

[Fog hit]

That makes no sense. If you acknowledge that liberty is a right, how can it not be a virtue? And how can denying it to someone not be a vice? You cannot argue that I have liberty to achieve my own happiness, yet deprive me by force of those material items necessary for my life that I have freely and justly acquired. If I posses the right to dispose of your possessions, they are MY possessions. You are my slave.

Here ya go again... Pandoras box. Yet, it opens up the question of, what is liberty.? Is it the right to buy and sell anything? Is it freedom to go where you want to go, when you want to go/stay?

Libertarians want to make something freedom a virtue?

Let me approach this in the opposite way. If freedom is a virtue, any infringement on this virtue is seen as the evil machinations of the state, to turn you into slaves. I was stationed in a country for 2 years, where a totally free market place was the defacto market. You could buy anything your heart desired... Opium, heroin, Mary Jane and literally Mary Jane, and believe it or not... babies . With your Pandora theory, if the state regulated, and enforced one of these products, slavery would ensue... Well, it did ensue, just not the way you imagined.

With the libertarian paranoia of the state, what is conveniently overlooked, is that the state can also enforce individual liberty. In fact... Most of the cases that come to the SCOTUS, has to do with individual liberty versus the regulatory power of the state... A power which also guaranties individual liberty.

No matter how you twist it...Liberty is not a virtue... It is a right, akin to food and water. And it is up to the state to not only protect it, the state has the power to regulate it so that babies are not sold on the street.

What is the power of the state? In a democracy it means, literally, the power of the people... People power.

Who regulates?... The people.

 

[Fog hit]

Gotta run for now. I will catch up later.

 

[Federalist]

Im saying that the golden rule has nothing to do with libertariamism.

The golden rule is the application/effect of the virtues. Are you honest, loyal, patient, compassionate, etc.

You remind me Commidous... who thought ambition was a virtue. Or being able to buy an assault rifle freely, is a virtue.

I agree that acting honesty, loyalty, and compassion are ethical behaviors, since they definitely conform with the golden rule. Of course we treat people with compassion, because we would wish to be treated with compassion if we were in their shoes. Likewise with honesty and loyalty. These are virtuous acts because we are doing what we would want others to do were we in their shoes.

But do you also not agree that bossing someone around violates the golden rule? I would not tell a person that they could not grow a particular plant in their garden, because I would not like people telling me what to do.

So, again, I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that you disagree with the golden rule?

 

[Goshin]

The ingredients of his bomb are still not illegal, but mixing them was and still is. Bombs and machine guns are illegal (or at least highly restricted) fertilizer and motor fuel are both still legal.

A drunk driver does harm, yet we ban neither drinking nor driving, we do not even ban booze or cars, we target the actual offense, the combination of being drunk while driving a car. The combination of using a gun while committing a crime, is the act that we wish to prevent, thus that is what is currently illegal, awarding those so convicted a longer sentence for that crime. Walking around while armed is not (generally) a crime, as it harms noone, in fact, it is still a Constitutional right.

That was extremely well-reasoned and presented, kudos.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That was extremely well-reasoned and presented, kudos.

Thank you. It amazes me when the answer to all "problems" is more gov't and less freedom. Everything is now under attack as the "root cause" of some great societal evil, from "too big" soda servings to making "too much" profit. It is never the fault of the individuals making bad decisions, it is that those decisions were permitted in the first place.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Really? Making all out war on one's fellow man conforms with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you where them"? Do you really think other people want you to make war on them?

There are some sick people out there, but generally, no.

I didn't pick up on that, actually. I'm having trouble thinking of a scenario you might have in mind. Any examples?

I think your scenarios are fine, I am just trying to help you understand as you mentioned you were interested in that.

 

[Federalist]

I think your scenarios are fine, I am just trying to help you understand as you mentioned you were interested in that.

Excellent. So what am I missing? You said:

I think one piece of my view you are having trouble with is that I see the person's perspective and reason they do what they do as crucial in determining whether the rule applies or not. Its not just the action, but the why. This is why I keep giving you more than one answer as you keep leaving this critical piece out.

So what would be an example of a situation in which the person's perspective and reasons are crucial in determining whether or not they are violating the golden rule?

What is the critical piece that I keep missing?

 

[Fog hit]

I agree that acting honesty, loyalty, and compassion are ethical behaviors, since they definitely conform with the golden rule. Of course we treat people with compassion, because we would wish to be treated with compassion if we were in their shoes. Likewise with honesty and loyalty. These are virtuous acts because we are doing what we would want others to do were we in their shoes.

But do you also not agree that bossing someone around violates the golden rule? I would not tell a person that they could not grow a particular plant in their garden, because I would not like people telling me what to do.

So, again, I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that you disagree with the golden rule?

.........
.............

Here is your initial post...
...................
Join Date
Aug 2012
Location
Pennsylvania
Last Seen
Today @ 04:52 PM

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
.................................................

You are mixing regulations, decided by democracy, with the golden rule. What you initially presented, was an indictment of regulations as an act of tyranny. Again, this is trying to fit a square peg, or regulations, into a round hole, tyranny. The golden rule has nothing to do with either one.

I'm no different than most Americans, I don't like being told that I can't do this, that, or the other. Yet democratically decided regulations have nothing to do with the golden rule.

I will monitor your blog, as I think it's a really good thought provoking essay.

Kudos to you.

 

[iguanaman]

Thank you. It amazes me when the answer to all "problems" is more gov't and less freedom. Everything is now under attack as the "root cause" of some great societal evil, from "too big" soda servings to making "too much" profit. It is never the fault of the individuals making bad decisions, it is that those decisions were permitted in the first place.

Giant sodas were marketing ideas playing on the way people think. By selling bigger sizes people tend to consume more. There are societal consequences to consuming more that affect employee absenteeism, healthcare and other costs. Are you saying that a healthy productive work force has no bearing on a countries well being? That we should allow a company extra profits from something that weakens our population and costs us all money without recouping those costs from corporations? That is called corporate socialism. Why is it that corporate socialism is fine with libertarians? I thought socialism was bad and corporate socialism has got to be the WORST kind.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Giant sodas were marketing ideas playing on the way people think. By selling bigger sizes people tend to consume more. There are societal consequences to consuming more that affect employee absenteeism, healthcare and other costs. Are you saying that a healthy productive work force has no bearing on a countries well being? That we should allow a company extra profits from something that weakens our population and costs us all money without recouping those costs from corporations? That is called corporate socialism. Why is it that corporate socialism is fine with libertarians? I thought socialism was bad and corporate socialism has got to be the WORST kind.

Gosh, a fat moron would never, ever dare think of simply buying two 16oz. sodas. If the 32oz. cup is removed then they will only drink 16oz. of soda because they really did not ever want 32oz. of soda, they were simply tricked into buy the big one because it was there. Maybe we can rid the nation of alcoholism buy selling only tiny containers of that too!