Politics is an immoral dead-end

[MaineShark]

I understand exactly what he said.  His argument simply contains logical errors as does your rephrasing of his argument.   

first of all, he didn't say the ability but the right.

"If you believe in God as an entity, then it must have all the ability of any other entity"

This suggests that simply because one object shares an attribute with another object that it must share all attributes.  This is not the case.   Here is a simple logical argument which can demonstrate what I'm saying

All dogs are mammals.  Shyfrog is a mammal.  Shyfrog is a dog.  Is this true?  No.  It is not true for a simple reason.  Not all entities share the same attributes. 

He also presupposes that I must believe in one thing if I also believe in another.  I believe that there exists entities called cockroaches.  Do I believe that those entities called cockroaches also have rights?  No.  It is because I believe that only a specific kind of entity called human being possesses this attribute. 

Like I said, his logic is faulty.

This is just sad...

According to you, the State is made up of people.  Ergo, it has all the rights of any person, if that were true.

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

yes and no.   

I think it is basically like what Bastiat said in The Law. 

"And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.........

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."

Rights are inseparable from the individual.  Individuals still possess their rights when they organize themselves into a group.  They do not acquire new rights nor do they lose any.  They also are prohibited from doing those things while organized in the state which they would have been prohibited while acting alone. 

There is also a different issue in that when someone says that a state has rights, it tends to suggest collective rights which is just more of the collectivist statist thinking that I'm sure I don't need to get into.  It also suggests that by belonging to a certain group, the individuals should have rights and privileges which they shouldn't ordinarily receive. 
     

[MaineShark]

yes and no.

There's no "yes and no" about it.  You've said that the State is a group of people.  Ergo, it has all the same rights as those people.  No more, and no less.

Joe

[Vitruvian]

You've said that the State is a group of people.  Ergo, it has all the same rights as those people.  No more, and no less.

"It" is a group of people.  Each individual in that group has only the rights inhering in every other human being; the group itself has no rights.  Conversely, no individual accrues additional rights by virtue of belonging to a group.  Agents of the State, therefore, occupy the same moral plane as the rest of us, and are to be judged accordingly.

[shyfrog]

You've said that the State is a group of people.  Ergo, it has all the same rights as those people.  No more, and no less.

"It" is a group of people.  Each individual in that group has only the rights inhering in every other human being; the group itself has no rights.  Conversely, no individual accrues additional rights by virtue of belonging to a group.  Agents of the State, therefore, occupy the same moral plane as the rest of us, and are to be judged accordingly.

Cool...so if I vote for an agent of the "state" and he decides to do something I don't approve of, I'm not responsible for the action of that individual.
So voting and political activism aren't immoral after all
I like how we've come full circle.

[Faber]

Of course, by that logic, the politician isn't responsible for what happens, either.  He's just telling other people what to do, like the voters are just telling him what to do.  So the only people who are really responsible are those who actually wield the violence, namely, the LEOs and military members.  So I guess George Bush isn't that bad of a guy after all, eh?

[Nick Danger]

The State has no existence.  Period.

Gee, when he puts it that way...

MaineShark is still stuck on the definition of State he has used from the beginning of this tangent conversation.  He does not seem to realize that words can have definitions different from his own.  I am using a different definition of the State (one which does not involve ourselves in the foot by defining away our adversary):

If the State is an actual entity, it has every right to defend itself against attack.

As I've stated, believing in the actual existence of the State makes one a Statist.  If you believe in the State as an entity, then it must have all the rights of any other entity, including a right to exist.  You cannot claim to believe the State exists as a real entity, and not be claiming that it has every right to exist.

Joe

I've got two philosophy degrees, and I declare this the worst use of "logic" on a BBS ever!

[Nick Danger]

And this is why I disagree with Vitruvian's assertion that I'm responsible for the actions of a politician for whom I voted. (I can agree with the statement that I'm partly responsible for actions that I knew in advance he would engage in, but beyond that, responsibility for his actions rests solely with him.)

I think the analogy of arson, which I will now recycle, fits nicely: when a person lights a fire, he assumes responsibility for all the damage caused by the fire, for he is its ultimate cause.

Who is this abstracted voter who has these assumptions.  Not I.

I presume none of these things.

Perhaps you do not explicitly make these presumptions, but, through your actions, you make them nonetheless.  To paraphrase what I have said previously, your frame of mind cannot influence reality, only your actions can do so.  In choosing to play the game, you accept the rules implicitly.

I presume that it is a rigged game.  That the actual power shifts not at all.  That people are responsible for their own acts.

I keep returning to these questions, which no one, to my knowledge, has yet answered: By voting, do you not cause the outcome of the election by some measure?

By not voting, you cause the outcome of the election "by some measure"! By failing to support, say, Paul, you are electing Hillary.

Exaggerated example: The Nazis are at the door. You can answer it and tell them there are no Jews in the basement. A lie, and wrong. Or you can tell the truth -- betraying innocent people, and wrong. Faced with a tough moral situation involving hard trade-offs, you're going to remain "pure" by hiding under your bed.

[Nick Danger]

"Ruthlessly, He walks the streets!"

He's ready for action, he's ready for adventure...

[Nick Danger]

If the State is an actual entity, it has every right to defend itself against attack.

As I've stated, believing in the actual existence of the State makes one a Statist.  If you believe in the State as an entity, then it must have all the rights of any other entity, including a right to exist.  You cannot claim to believe the State exists as a real entity, and not be claiming that it has every right to exist.

Joe

If the Hitler is an actual entity, he has every right to defend himself against attack.

As I've stated, believing in the actual existence of Hitler makes one a Nazi.  If you believe in Hitler as an entity, then he must have all the rights of any other entity, including a right to exist.  You cannot claim to believe Hitler exists as a real entity, and not be claiming that he has every right to carry out his program of world conquest.

If only you fools were mature enough to reason like me and realize that reality reals itself all apart from your pathetic, mewling wishes then you would realize that Ayn Rand and I are the way.

[Nick Danger]

yes and no.

There's no "yes and no" about it.  You've said that the State is a group of people.  Ergo, it has all the same rights as those people.  No more, and no less.

There is a group of five left-handed people. Ergo, the group is left-handed as well!

If all members of the Republican Party have to pee, then the GOP itself has to pee!

[shyfrog]

If only you fools were mature enough to reason like me and realize that reality reals itself all apart from your pathetic, mewling wishes then you would realize that Ayn Rand and I are the way.

Who is Ayn Rand? 

[Vitruvian]

By not voting, you cause the outcome of the election "by some measure"! By failing to support, say, Paul, you are electing Hillary.

What tripe.  This is the same argument interventionists use to justify "humanitarian" wars.  Only positive actions can "cause" anything.  Refusing to vote is not a positive action: refusing to vote cannot cause anything.

[MaineShark]

You've said that the State is a group of people.  Ergo, it has all the same rights as those people.  No more, and no less.

"It" is a group of people.  Each individual in that group has only the rights inhering in every other human being; the group itself has no rights.  Conversely, no individual accrues additional rights by virtue of belonging to a group.  Agents of the State, therefore, occupy the same moral plane as the rest of us, and are to be judged accordingly.

A group has the same rights as it's constitutent members.

I've got two philosophy degrees, and I declare this the worst use of "logic" on a BBS ever!

Well yeah, if you have "degrees," you must be right.  Of course, if you're going to make a claim like that, I'm calling BS until you back it up with the paper, and demonstrate that it is from a school that teaches thinking, rather than the 99% that teach you not to think...

If the Hitler is an actual entity, he has every right to defend himself against attack.

He does.

As I've stated, believing in the actual existence of Hitler makes one a Nazi.  If you believe in Hitler as an entity, then he must have all the rights of any other entity, including a right to exist.  You cannot claim to believe Hitler exists as a real entity, and not be claiming that he has every right to carry out his program of world conquest.

Apparently, you won't need to be demonstrating which sort of school those "degrees" came from...

"Exist" and "carry out his program of world conquest" are not equivalent statements.

If only you fools were mature enough to reason like me and realize that reality reals itself all apart from your pathetic, mewling wishes then you would realize that Ayn Rand and I are the way.

Rand was more rational than average, but she was not a fully rational person.

Joe

[SethCohn]

Refusing to vote is not a positive action: refusing to vote cannot cause anything.

Refusing to vote makes you morally responsible if your vote would have changed the outcome.

If you have a voice and do not use it, your silence is also an action.

Not to get all zen, or even yoda-ish.