Obsoleting a World of FORCE

[Tex]

please watch this video and comment on its subject.

[1871]

Law is also a common consent though. And the 'right' to form a defence against murderes, thieves and rapists is taken by common consent. Take the example of a murderer or a paedophile - its a common consensus that they should not be allowed to do what they want where they want to harm people. Law legislates against the act.

They could say 'I dont want to be peaceful I want to kill' lol - it doesnt mean that your attempts to infringe on their personal liberties to kill people is wrong does it?

It isnt immoral for the law to stop them by use of force. The idea that the consequences are 'irrelevant' is spurious. Irrelevant to who/ To the children murdered, to their families or society ? So if some rapist is attacking someone you'd say the law has no right to intervene?

If a maniac is about to commit a murder they shouldnt be stopped? Youll let a paedo murder kids because stopping him would infringe on his personal liberties and that societies view and not his so let him go ahead?

So the killer has his own definition of a law that gives him the right to kill - which is countered by another law saying that he doesnt. Which law prevails and which is the just law held by common consent?

Your assumption is that everyone behaves reasonably that although they dont have a right to commit a crime that they wont anyway and its at that point you have to decide whether it is correct for people to intervene to stop the rapist, the thief or the murderer.

If a group of people decide to behave criminally and commit genocide then the consequences are irrelevant?

Sorry but the idea of non intervention is insane.

[Tex]

No matter what the consequences would be there is not justification for forcing people to conform to a law, so rape is force and has no justification. We are on the same page are we not? it dosent allow rape and pedophilia.

[1871]

What diesnt allow rape or paedophilia?

The law doesnt allow rape or paedophilia.

With the idea of what is justrified or not justified you have law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice#Jus...atural_law

The only thing that defines whether something has justification or not is the idea of a law - moral or otherwise.

I dont believe in oppressive laws but not everyone knows whether something is justified or not unless they understand that the people around them dont find acts of violence (for instance) acceptable - thats why justice and law evolved - only over time there came to be too many laws (and unecessary ones) which became oppressive.

Best described here;

http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...y-Bookchin

Murray Bookchin was an anarchist who developed thes ideas of anarchy into communalism.

[Tex]

(02-03-2012 12:11 AM)1871 Wrote:  What diesnt allow rape or paedophilia?

The law doesnt allow rape or paedophilia.

With the idea of what is justrified or not justified you have law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice#Jus...atural_law

The only thing that defines whether something has justification or not is the idea of a law - moral or otherwise.

I dont believe in oppressive laws but not everyone knows whether something is justified or not unless they understand that the people around them dont find acts of violence (for instance) acceptable - thats why justice and law evolved - only over time there came to be too many laws (and unecessary ones) which became oppressive.

Best described here;

http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...y-Bookchin

Murray Bookchin was an anarchist who developed thes ideas of anarchy into communalism.

sex is voluntary, rape is force, the use of force has no justification. shopping is voluntary, Taxation is force, the use of force has no justification. etc..

(give me some time to get to know Murray Bookchin)

[1871]

Yes - all that is true but the law exists to prevent the use of unlawful force to prevent violence used unlawfully on people. therefore if you have to use force to prevent unlawful violence against someone who is being attacked do you use that force or not? I think you should - regardless of whether it 'infringes' against the perpetrator of the violence.

How else do you determine that unless by what society recognises as good for the general well being of society? ie; by a law which says, for example that rape is an unlawful act - and therefore it is against the law and can be prevented.

Lets just say you determine 'force' in terms of physics ie; the use of physical force/energy - that doesnt make it bad if its used either for the greater good or to protect the defenceless froma greater violence eg; a good force prevents an evil force. Force can be used for good or evil - if it prevents someone from committing a violent act, if it protects the weak or the vulnerable then it is permissable.

[Tex]

Nope, youve entered a world of Pre Crime when you use the idea of PREVENTION... No matter what the consequences would be there is not justification for forcing people to conform.

see what i did there i repositioned, i took two words out to progressed the semantics, keeping the readers interested might i add. ;) oh you.

[1871]

No - this is nothing to do with pre crime since, as Ive said the legislation exists aginst the act (eg;murder or rape) not against the individual thinking of the act. People dont get arrested for thinking about rape but by actually committing the act.

There is justification for forcing people to conform if that 'non-conformity' is defined by committing an act of violence on someone - and if by forcing an act of conformity means forcing towards a consensus on what is not harmful to the individual or society, then so be it.

If someone decides their non conformity is in raping a victim then sure you can define the prevention of that rape as preventing their non conformity - but there is nothing at all wrong in that.

[Tex]

(02-03-2012 01:18 AM)1871 Wrote:  No - this is nothing to do with pre crime since, as Ive said the legislation exists aginst the act (ege;murder or rape) not against the individual thinking of the act. People dont get arrested for thinking about rape but by actually committing the act.

There is justification for forcing people to conform if that 'non-conformity' is defined by committing an act of violence on someone. If someone decides their non conformity is in raping a victim then sure you can define the prevention of that rape as preventing their non conformity - but there is nothing at all wrong in that.

"they" are forcing that onto a victim... and no victim should conform by force. hence they have not used voluntarism as a universal principal/law in there interaction.

[1871]

Yes - but a victim has a right to protect themselves by the use of force
and those who aid the victim have the same right to protect that victim by the use of force on a violent perpetrator.

It is the aggressor who has broken the principle held by common consent in law in the first place.

[Tex]

(02-03-2012 01:25 AM)1871 Wrote:  Yes - but a victim has a right to protect themselves by the use of force
and those who aid the victim have the same right to protect that victim by the use of force on a violent perpetrator.

It is the aggressor who has broken the principle held by common consent in law in the first place.

so we both agree on this¿

[1871]

As much as I hate to agree with Ayn Rand she is correct in this instance in saying that the use of force in self defence is justified. That force is a 'preventative' measure ie; restraint.

But there is no need for the use of physical force in a conversation or debate for which there is no need for use of physical force.

I dont define language as a 'physical force' in this sense either - so regard things like the 'blasphemy laws as coercive and unjustified.

Physical force becomes justified when its used to prevent the physical force of those who broken the law by using physical force lol

Having said that - i also think it is justified to use force to prevent an act of violence that there is proof or likelihood that is going to occur.