Philosophical question : Whats the moral difference between sexuality laws and drug laws?

No, it does not.

"Government" is the system by which people set policy. Nothing requires that taxation be part of the policies that they set. Nothing requires that they provide public services either.

"Government" is just a group of people getting together and saying "This is how we'll set the rules of our community." Even our Constitution doesn't require taxation - it simply gives the government the power to implement them if it wishes. But if Congress never passed any tax laws, we'd still have the same Constitution and same legal rights and same government we have now. It just would have a lot less money.

That's fine. No one's conflating the word government with the word taxes, but government requires taxation for it to exist as government... otherwise its not government.
 
OF course you use it as an argument. The Detroit mom is entitled to the same measures and if she doesn't get them then ostensibly she can leverage the government system to get it. In Greoric's model, there is no minimum standard at all. So, the Detroit mom has no recourse at all for the difference in effort. And that makes a big difference - when the police ignore the Detroit mom there's a standard against which they will be judged. Careers might be affected. Lawsuits might arise. Society will evaluate those choices.
No, look this is exactly why those 'statism vs anarchism' discussions aren't honest.
Those who advocate a statist society can ALWAYS claim that they have already solved any arbitrary problem because we have a law saying so.

What do you mean with "is entitled to"? Did somebody write it on a piece of paper? Of course it's in the law but so what?
Don't be dishonest, you know that nothing of this will happen. Poor people in ghettos and black communities don't receive the same service, nor do they get millions as compensation or anything else. And if the police fail to offer protection to the individual but claim they tried, you don't have a right to anything, even according to the rules of the state itself, see Warren vs District of Columbia.
And even if everything goes well - the state always can claim the role fo the final arbiter - even in those cases in which parts of the state apparatus are involved, this fundamental problem isn't solved.
 
Poor people don't receive pro-bono work now? Counselors don't offer their services for a later portion of the winnings?



Ostracism is a powerful motivator here even when that compulsion to pay compensation isn't the rule of law.

Pro bono exists to grant people access to the law. Absence government and the Constitution, there is no argument for providing free access to it for the downtrodden. This requires a legal side story: Part of becoming a lawyer includes recognizing that the benefits of the law and government apply equally to everyone regardless of income. Additionally, as members of the court, we take an oath to uphold that access to the law for everyone. Which means that part of our professional responsibilities is to ensure that access exists - we all do it in different ways. Pro bono is the most direct. It exists to ensure access to government isn't limited to those wealthy enough to afford lawyers.

Which is why your statements about arbiters taking on low income clients rings false to those of us who actually do this work (and I do sit as an arbitrator at times).

And commission based work (where lawyers offer their services for a later portion of the winnings) is not accessible to people with low value cases or cases where the lawyer cannot compel the loser to pay up. First, just because the person is getting paid via commission doesn't mean it doesn't cost them something up front to do the job. So no one will take a $100 case on commission if the cost is $101. That's just basic business. Second, no one will take a $1 million dollar case if they can't find a way to actually collect the $1 million dollars. People win cases all of the time right now and never collect a penny because there's no way to force payment.

Shit, part of my job involves making my clients "judgment proof". Meaning that even if they lose a lawsuit, they'll never pay out a penny because the law can be manipulated to protect them.

And "ostracism" is an empty threat. The rich will be upset that the poor ostracize them? The rich will ostracize each other for continuing to outsmart the poor? Arbiters will ostracize wealthy clients to curry favor with poor ones? None of those scenarios are realistic.
 
That's fine. No one's conflating the word government with the word taxes, but government requires taxation for it to exist as government... otherwise its not government.

Explain the Constitution then which does not require taxation.
 
Pro bono exists to grant people access to the law. Absence government and the Constitution, there is no argument for providing free access to it for the downtrodden.

So I'm not seeing why the eleemosynary activity gets cut off all of a sudden? Why wouldn't the same incentive exist to provide people with law and just compensation?

Which is why your statements about arbiters taking on low income clients rings false to those of us who actually do this work (and I do sit as an arbitrator at times).

So I don't understand. There's a niche to provide the less well off access to goods and services in nearly every industry. Why wouldn't that be the case for arbitration?

Would you offer your services pro bono to people that need it?

And "ostracism" is an empty threat. The rich will be upset that the poor ostracize them? The rich will ostracize each other for continuing to outsmart the poor? Arbiters will ostracize wealthy clients to curry favor with poor ones? None of those scenarios are realistic.

Ostracism by creditors is actually quite powerful if you have credit like someone that just wen through bankruptcy wouldn't you say?
 
Last edited:
Explain the Constitution then which does not require taxation.

The Constitutional document doesn't require taxation to exist. Solved. (Even though it does via resources keeping it away from premature oxidation and light decay.)

The exercise of any of the enumerated powers does. Would you disagree? Why, and how does the government operate without compelling payment to enforce those powers?
 
No, look this is exactly why those 'statism vs anarchism' discussions aren't honest.
Those who advocate a statist society can ALWAYS claim that they have already solved any arbitrary problem because we have a law saying so.

Very interesting point.
 
There is none. Both are necessary to protect the moral integrity of our nation and keep it under god.
 
The Constitutional document doesn't require taxation to exist. Solved. (Even though it does via resources keeping it away from premature oxidation and light decay.)

The exercise of any of the enumerated powers does. Would you disagree? Why, and how does the government operate without compelling payment to enforce those powers?

*sigh. I answer this in many different ways previously, you just ignored them by mischaracterizing them.

The Constituion of the United States that lays out the exact workings of the United States government does not require the implementation of taxes.

The government can operate without compelling payment by using free market principles to generate funds and then choosing to operate within the bounds of those funds. It can require that those who join the military provide their own equipment, a true citizens army. It can sell services. It can sell resources. It can borrow from lending institutions.
 
No, look this is exactly why those 'statism vs anarchism' discussions aren't honest.
Those who advocate a statist society can ALWAYS claim that they have already solved any arbitrary problem because we have a law saying so.

What do you mean with "is entitled to"? Did somebody write it on a piece of paper? Of course it's in the law but so what?
Don't be dishonest, you know that nothing of this will happen. Poor people in ghettos and black communities don't receive the same service, nor do they get millions as compensation or anything else. And if the police fail to offer protection to the individual but claim they tried, you don't have a right to anything, even according to the rules of the state itself, see Warren vs District of Columbia.
And even if everything goes well - the state always can claim the role fo the final arbiter - even in those cases in which parts of the state apparatus are involved, this fundamental problem isn't solved.

Entitled to meaning that the the citizen is entitled to a certain level of service under the law.

Now, you can argue that implementation is flawed and inconsistent. That's a far argument. But it's the flawed and inconsistent application of the standard to which someone is entitled. In the anarchism model, there is no standard, period. There is no debate as to whether or not someone is being treated to a lower standard as you point to with the Detroit mom and Zuckerberg.

That you even note the difference as something to make note of indicates that the differing standards are noteworthy. In a system where we are not entitled to a standard, different treatment isn't noteworthy of an unsolved problem, it's normal. There is no reason to correct it as you imply that we haven't corrected the problem in modern society. But a statist society thinks it should be corrected and the anarchistic society doesn't.
 
*sigh. I answer this in many different ways previously, you just ignored them by mischaracterizing them.

The Constituion of the United States that lays out the exact workings of the United States government does not require the implementation of taxes.

The government can operate without compelling payment by using free market principles to generate funds and then choosing to operate within the bounds of those funds.

No it can't because then its no longer a government....If people are paying for the "US Government" of their own volition to enforce its enumerated powers then that's now a business. You're trying to argue a non-distinction where a distinction demonstrably exists...

@HomerThompson
 
So I'm not seeing why the eleemosynary activity gets cut off all of a sudden? Why wouldn't the same incentive exist to provide people with law and just compensation?

Because it's not charity for goodwill. It's a duty of the job.

The American Bar Association Model Rule 6.1 states that “a lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year.”

And the reason for that isn't about poor people. It's about the belief that government is only fair if everyone has access to it. Obviously, the absence of governments renders the need to ensure equal access moot.


So I don't understand. There's a niche to provide the less well off access to goods and services in nearly every industry. Why wouldn't that be the case for arbitration?

Because arbitration isn't about providing a good or service that you provide to someone else at cost to you (a toy maker giving away one of the toys it manufacturers). It orders someone to provide a good or service or money to someone at the cost of someone else.

When an arbitrator rules in a matter, they are stating that one party must do something for the other party. Imagine if @HomerThompson ruled that I had to give you $10,000. How will he force me to do it if you disagree with his decision? With threat of force? And how much will he spend to force me to pay you $10000? And why wouldn't I simply point this to him and pay him to rule in my favor.

Now, imagine that it's property encroachment we're discussing. Why would he rule in your favor for free when he can rule in my favor for a discrete cash payment? And when I'm likely going to do it again and pay him again?

At what point does the poor you ever beat the rich me in arbritration?



Would you offer your services pro bono to people that need it?

If I wasn't a lawyer? Probably not - except as a loss leader for paid services. I do it as a lawyer because I think it's an ethical responsibility to ensure access to government by the poor. But access to government is very different from providing access to some private business.

Ostracism by creditors is actually quite powerful if you have credit like someone that just wen through bankruptcy wouldn't you say?

Note that your scenario is premised on government based items. A common occurrence where people assume that the checks and balances provided by government and forced on bad actors would arise without government. Yet if that were the case, they would have arisen without the government in the first place (parental advisory warnings being a no government example; credit ratings aren't).

Bankruptcy being a great example. Bankruptcy is a government tool for protecting creditors from default. Your credit rating, while provided by public companies, arises from leveraging the government's tools from public records to reporting requirements.

Absent the government's role, there wouldn't be a credit rating to rely on.
 
No it can't because then its no longer a government....If people are paying for the "US Government" of their own volition to enforce its enumerated powers then that's now a business. You're trying to argue a non-distinction where a distinction demonstrably exists...

@HomerThompson

I'm sorry but you're making the case that you don't even understand the terms that you're discussing. I've provided the definition of government multiple times. You seem to have been unaware of these things and thus are denying them.

Government doesn't require taxation. You have an anti-tax position which you have inappropriately extrapolated to being anti-government. But as usual, we've reached a point in the debate where you start denying the things that you hadn't thought of.

Even here, I laid out numerous forms of financing from borrowing from lending institutions to selling goods, services and resources to finance its operation. Yet, you blanket deny all of them even though they are all very different methods of raising cash.
 
Because it's not charity for goodwill. It's a duty of the job.

The American Bar Association Model Rule 6.1 states that “a lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year.”

And the reason for that isn't about poor people. It's about the belief that government is only fair if everyone has access to it. Obviously, the absence of governments renders the need to ensure equal access moot.

I'm not seeing why that foundational ethical principle to maintain a high standard of access is absent without government though. Would physicians not have the Hippocratic oath or the like without gov't? I don't see how that's immediately obvious that they wouldn't.

It's almost as if you're drawing the link between the existence of government and the existence of ethical standards.... which is odd to me.



Because arbitration isn't about providing a good or service that you provide to someone else at cost to you (a toy maker giving away one of the toys it manufacturers). It orders someone to provide a good or service or money to someone at the cost of someone else.

When an arbitrator rules in a matter, they are stating that one party must do something for the other party. Imagine if @HomerThompson ruled that I had to give you $10,000. How will he force me to do it if you disagree with his decision? With threat of force? And how much will he spend to force me to pay you $10000? And why wouldn't I simply point this to him and pay him to rule in my favor.

Now, imagine that it's property encroachment we're discussing. Why would he rule in your favor for free when he can rule in my favor for a discrete cash payment? And when I'm likely going to do it again and pay him again? At what point does the poor you ever beat the rich me in arbritration?

So you realize more firms seek out arbitration on the private market more than labor through a process by government arbitration now, right? BTW, there's also mediation, but the threat of force might be seizing some of your property (repo?)... which isn't really your property anymore by virtue of the decision anymore, so they're just taking the what's actually the counter-party's.

As far as why the arbiter wouldn't always rule in favor of the highest bidder; that incentive is pretty simple to diagnose if the arbiter intends on continuing providing his service as an objective arbiter at any length into the future.

If I wasn't a lawyer? Probably not - except as a loss leader for paid services. I do it as a lawyer because I think it's an ethical responsibility to ensure access to government by the poor. But access to government is very different from providing access to some private business.

So why wouldn't you feel like its your ethical responsibility to ensure access to objective arbitration in the government's stead?


Note that your scenario is premised on government based items. A common occurrence where people assume that the checks and balances provided by government and forced on bad actors would arise without government. Yet if that were the case, they would have arisen without the government in the first place (parental advisory warnings being a no government example; credit ratings aren't).

Bankruptcy being a great example. Bankruptcy is a government tool for protecting creditors from default. Your credit rating, while provided by public companies, arises from leveraging the government's tools from public records to reporting requirements.

Absent the government's role, there wouldn't be a credit rating to rely on.

Not at all, when government is crowding out the market in question with its imposed monopoly.
 
Last edited:
I'm not seeing why that foundational ethical principle to maintain a high standard of access is absent without government though. Would physicians not have the Hippocratic oath or the like without gov't? I don't see how that's immediately obvious that they wouldn't.

It's almost as if you're drawing the link between the existence of government and the existence of ethical standards.... which is odd to me.

The ethical principle is to provide access to the government for all people. Not to provide legal services for free. Without government, there is nothing to provide access to. It's why pro bono tends be concentrated in areas of the law where people are forced to rely on the government to achieve an end. You rely on the government to protect you from dangerous corporations but litigating that is often beyond the ability and knowledge of the average person. So without lawyers providing that pro bono access, the average person would not have a legitimate opportunity to make use of the courts to achieve justice. It is not solely about the financial component, it's about the government itself.

A non-native person isn't always capable of understanding immigration law to the point of ensuring that they get their applications in properly and staying within the bounds of the law. Without a lawyer providing that service, sometimes for free, that person is barred from the government tools they're entitled to.

Access to government is not about money. People with money can often pay a lawyer to provide that access and the poor often cannot. Hence pro bono is not about give away legal services because people are poor but to ensure access to the government itself. And without a formal government with a formal body of law - there is nothing to provide access to. Regardless of income status.

This is an important point, if I can't explain this difference in a way that you understand then we have a serious communication problem.

A person with an ethical responsibility to feed the poor does not automatically feel an ethical responsibility to also build them houses. If hunger disappeared from the world, that person wouldn't shift to house building to fill in the time.
 
The ethical principle is to provide access to the government for all people. Not to provide legal services for free. Without government, there is nothing to provide access to. It's why pro bono tends be concentrated in areas of the law where people are forced to rely on the government to achieve an end. You rely on the government to protect you from dangerous corporations but litigating that is often beyond the ability and knowledge of the average person. So without lawyers providing that pro bono access, the average person would not have a legitimate opportunity to make use of the courts to achieve justice. It is not solely about the financial component, it's about the government itself.

A non-native person isn't always capable of understanding immigration law to the point of ensuring that they get their applications in properly and staying within the bounds of the law. Without a lawyer providing that service, sometimes for free, that person is barred from the government tools they're entitled to.

Access to government is not about money. People with money can often pay a lawyer to provide that access and the poor often cannot. Hence pro bono is not about give away legal services because people are poor but to ensure access to the government itself. And without a formal government with a formal body of law - there is nothing to provide access to. Regardless of income status.

This is an important point, if I can't explain this difference in a way that you understand then we have a serious communication problem.

A person with an ethical responsibility to feed the poor does not automatically feel an ethical responsibility to also build them houses. If hunger disappeared from the world, that person wouldn't shift to house building to fill in the time.

The counselor's ethical principal is to provide access to government for what service? Legal representation, right? Why doesn't that ethical principle carry over under a different rule of law?

To be honest and without being condescending, I've noticed a recurrent block in our conversations where you either refuse or are unable to carry discussions away from how things currently are conceptually. Maybe its a Kohlberg limitation? I'm not sure, but it always seems like a major obstacle where you'll funnel the discussion into semantics and avoid the fundamental concepts.

Maybe we do have a serious communication problem. As soon as payment for services becomes voluntary that's no longer a government.
That's a business or a charity, and a very simple and observable distinction.

You attempted from a very odd approach to make a non-distinction out of the distinction that demonstrably exists, and exists to the extent that it polarizes the country (e.g. what extent is the coercion by government legitimate).
 
The counselor's ethical principal is to provide access to government for what service? Legal representation, right? Why doesn't that ethical principle carry over under a different rule of law?

To be honest and without being condescending, I've noticed a recurrent block in our conversations where you either refuse or are unable to carry discussions away from how things currently are conceptually. Maybe its a Kohlberg limitation? I'm not sure, but it always seems like a major obstacle where you'll funnel the discussion into semantics and avoid the fundamental concepts.

Maybe we do have a serious communication problem. As soon as payment for services becomes voluntary that's no longer a government.
That's a business or a charity, and a very simple and observable distinction.

You attempted from a very odd approach to make a non-distinction out of the distinction that demonstrably exists, and exists to the extent that it polarizes the country (e.g. what extent is the coercion by government legitimate).

Have you looked up "government" yet?

As for ethical principle is to provide access to government it's not always legal representation. It can be as simple reviewing immigration documents that get sent to the government or filling out paperwork that gets sent to a government agency without any additional/formal representation attached to it.

And it's access to government - not generic legal representation. So, 2 people who want a contract to formalize their business relationship is not normally a pro bono service - there's no access issue. A pre-nup or a rental lease from the landlord's side or a royalties agreement. They all have legal representation but they don't require access to the government. Suing someone or being sued by someone requires you to appear in court and that means you are forced to engage with the government since they run the courts.

Without an actual government, everything is between 2 private individuals. There is no longer a government that people need help to properly access.

So the ethical principle of access to government doesn't translate to transactions between 2 private individuals.
 
Jailing people for drugs is no better than jailing them for having kinky sex. Let's stop being Saudi Arabia lite in this regard.
 
I Crimes without victims are like debts without creditors.

There are victims. The people using the drugs are the victims. The people having buttsex and using Man Wipes are the victims. We must help them.

Jailing people for drugs is no better than jailing them for having kinky sex. Let's stop being Saudi Arabia lite in this regard.

Actually, many addicts clean up in jail. So you are like all wrong and shit.
 
There are victims. The people using the drugs are the victims. The people having buttsex and using Man Wipes are the victims. We must help them.



Actually, many addicts clean up in jail. So you are like all wrong and shit.

One cannot be a victim by their own personal behavior.

The shit is a man wipe?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,833
Messages
55,310,903
Members
174,733
Latest member
NiTrok
Back
Top