Are Restrictions Necessary?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I'm having trouble understanding the distinction you're trying to make. Spell it out for me.

The basic intention of the distinction was in response to your specific example of canadians taking land from native north americans. My point was that unless you are willing to grant that a nation directly displacing another nation and setting up on their land as a seperate and distinct state can have legitimacy if they have the consent of the peoples living in that seperate and distinct state (Without also requiring the consent of the displaced people) then you are basically stating that -no- state can -every- be legitimate since virtually every state in existance has formed via displacing or absorbing other people. At which point, the whole discussion becomes a moot waste, because your stance is "no state authority can ever be legitimate."

I don't understand. You said that a person's choice of actions make them responsible for outcome. Surely pacifistic resistance is less effective than the violent sort? In this case it stands to reason that pacifists bring destruction upon themselves.

If your only two choices are "fight or die" and you are a dedicated pacifist, you would choose to die wouldn't you? I'd say that since you have the choice to abandon your pacifistic ways, and elected to stick with them, that yes, you are responsible for your death.

They are deficient in all possible effective ways under most scenarios. Stop moving the goalposts.

If we're talking about states and their legitimacy, unless you have an entire state composed only of people who are deficient in all possible effective ways, "the state" contains plenty of people who -are- effective.

The issue of what a person's beliefs obligate them to do is different from the issue of whether a government is legitimate. You're trying to argue that a government is legitimate to the extent people fail to act, effectively, on their beliefs in order to prevent it from assuming power.

Since the antecedent here is not just action, but effective action, the statement boils down to one that might makes right.

Once again, you've taken my specific response to the singular case of Canada displacing native populations and establishing their own new and independant state on land that happened to belong to other people previously, and extended it where I never said it belonged, namely, to a universal case that applied in all instances.

Right. And how many of them could beat me in a one on one unarmed fight?

In general? A number that isn't insignificant. Under certain circumstances, such as one wherein you were directly threatening the safety of their children, probably more. The main answer is: A non-zero amount, so they ought not be generalised into the margin.

What does this have to do with the actions of a group which claims legitimacy over a territory? Sure, caretakers will continue to act in the perceived best interest of such people. Due to the infinite possibility for change in social arrangements though, it is quite possible they will choose poorly. Your argument was that choice legitimizes government. Does this include indirect choice? That is all you are offering for these people, and to be honest it seems even more conceited and patronizing than your previous statements.

Well, from a very cynical standpoint (that I don't share) such people (The disabled, the comatose etc) are only alive on the sufferance and largesse of the state, because while they are draining resources, they aren't contributing back into the system. Children as the exception, are expected to -eventually- contribute to the system to justify their drain on resources. But with respect to how those such as children interact with the "choice = legitimacy" standpoint of legitimate government, children are considered to be functionally the same as their parents from that standpoint, or rather, parents are treated as a unit including their children until such time as their children have developed sufficiently to be entrusted with making their choices.

You believe that inaction is a form of action, which makes one the owner at least in part of what follows. From this alone, one or more of the following things must be true of you:

I'm not positive that one or more -MUST- be true of me, but since the statement proves itself to be true, I'll grant for the sake of argument that it might also be correct.

*You don't find anything in the world objectionable
*You don't have any problem with taking partial responsibility for the state of the world
*You are a hypocrite
*You are a coward
*You think your current actions are optimal

None of those reflect particularly well on you, except for the last one, which conveniently enough requires a rather severe amount of elaboration.

I disagree that only the last one reflects well on me. I have no problem taking partial responsibility for the state of the world. "Partial" can be any amount that is non-zero. I'm willing to cop to at least a 1 six billionth share of the responsibility for the state of the world, as should everybody. I think that understanding that as someone in the world, I can and do have effects on the state of the world is quite a positive viewpoint to have. It certainly seems more useful than thinking that absolutely nothing I ever do or don't do will ever have any effect on anything.

So then, can you explain to me why you think moderating a forum on FFR is superior for the world to, say, signing up with the peace corp? Or the Canadian armed forces for that matter? Or even to just dedicating your time to a career with which to earn money to donate to needy children in third world countries?

One: I never said it was, that's ridiculous, don't demand that I "prove" a viewpoint about myself that I never once espoused. Two: The Canadian Armed forces wouldn't want me, I have neither the skills nor the temperament for military service, and while a -qualified- member of the canadian armed forces does dramatically more to improve the quality of the world than an FFR forum moderator, a dramatically unqualified and ill-suited solider tends to just get people killed. Just because there are theoretically optimal ways to effect change in the world doesn't mean every person is suited to perform those tasks. As for the last, what makes you think that once I'm done my degree, and have a career job that I -won't- be donating money to help the needy of the world? All I have right now is a big fat debt. Just because I'm -currently- in no position to offer that type of help doesn't mean I wouldn't, or won't.

I'm not sure what difference it makes. I intend to treat your arguments with the same level of seriousness regardless of whether they are genuine or not.

The difference it makes is your tendency to use the arguments to make disrespectful and rude personal attacks, and implications about what type of person I am. Judging me as a person on the grounds of what I argue without having established that what I'm arguing is actually what I believe is just rude.

A debate shouldn't be important to you if it isn't substantive. Hopefully by the time you know a position well enough to argue with it, you can tell whether or not it is substantive.

Well, in this case, as often seems to happen to us, I provide an argument that I'm applying to a specific case, and then you assume that I'm saying it is universally the case in all circumstances, and I'm left trying to defend my point in an arena it was never meant to fight in.

You should do that to the extent you have legitimate criticism to levy. There are contradictions between any number of positions, but if the position is defunct, there's no purpose to bring it into play. At least there's no purpose to bring irrelevent portions of it into play.

In its original context, I don't believe the objection that I raised was entirely illegitimate. Dragging it out into the realm of universal truth, there are plenty of problems, but it was never pretending to be universal truth.

But again, keeping a thread open and moving, as long as new things are being discussed in it, and new concepts are being brought up and debated, the thread retains value as both a debate on the subject at hand, and as a lesson about debating in general.

Believe me, I'm well aware when I make some of my posts that I'm taking a very difficult stance to defend, occasionally one that I personally think is total hogwash, though I know many people who support it.

Again, setting up a bad argument (that is commonly held in the world) for you to knock down is a valuable tool for other readers of the thread. In teh same way that in batting practice you get nice easy pitches to learn the right way to swing, I'm willing to look a little stupid to -you- in order to present commonly held beliefs in order for them to get knocked out of the park.

Like I keep trying to say: If I were here to win debates, or prove my personal opinions correct, my body of posting would look quite different. My purpose here is to encourage everyone to think more critically about things in the world.

Point taken. I will PM you in the future if something like this pops up again. I would appreciate it if you chose contradictory positions which were valid, however. Not to say all of the ones given weren't, but you would have to bite something resembling a howitzer shell in order to actually hold them.

As I mentioned above, the problem is many people -do- hold them. Hopefully after reading this thread, maybe they'll think twice about it.