Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[WaltM]

Wrong. Apparently you are also not aware of the existence of bribes. You probably also believe that a police taking a bribe for an infraction that hasn't actually happened is something that doesn't occur.

No, I'm aware of bribes, I'm also aware of people who cheat bribes.

None of this would change the fact that if they could be paid the same chewing donuts, it's easier, might not be as fun, and some may still prefer drama, but only ultimately as a means to their end, money and happiness.

I live in a neighborhood with loud parties every other night, IF they wanted to get bribed or have a nice beat down, they're always welcome, but they rather not.

 

[CCTelander]

"Pro-drunk drivers"? Nope, nothing disingenuous there.

 

[WaltM]

Believing in the right thing against democracy?

correct, did slavery end without either use of force, or a good amount of democracy support?

 

[low preference guy]

None of this would change the fact that if they could be paid the same chewing donuts

If their paid is increased to match what they would get by bribes, they could still increase their income even further by going out, nagging people, and getting bribes. Maybe the police in your neighborhood, which are pure and noble, won't do it, but I know from personal experience that police officers in other places do it.

 

[low preference guy]

correct, did slavery end without either use of force, or a good amount of democracy support?

Helping a slave escape his master using force is not wrong in my book. It's just a form of defense against the innocent. Brazil ended slavery by a decree, without a war, and without democratic support because the monarch's decision alone was enough.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I'm just posting this so that people understand the principle in which Walt ultimately argues from...

all rights are granted by government (or whoever has the most force)

carry on

 

[WaltM]

If their paid is increased to match what they would get by bribes, they could still increase their income even further by going out, nagging people, and getting bribes. Maybe the police in your neighborhood, which are pure and noble, won't do it, but I know from personal experience that police officers in other places do it.

fair enough.

so is the problem with policemen, or the law?

why do you believe that legalizing something will decrease the likelihood of bribing?

 

[CCTelander]

I'm just posting this so that people understand the principle in which Walt ultimately argues from...

Originally Posted by WaltM
all rights are granted by government (or whoever has the most force)

carry on

Clay, I don't mean to be contrarian, but in that point he's actually right in the de facto sense. His problem comes in when he accepts it as just, right, and/or proper.

 

[WaltM]

Helping a slave escape his master using force is not wrong in my book.

I didnt ask you if it was right or wrong, I asked you if it required force. My point stands.

It's just a form of defense against the innocent. Brazil ended slavery by a decree, without a war, and without democratic support because the monarch's decision alone was enough.

how did the monarch enforce it? without force? look! We got somebody saying that a monarch can do something good & right!

 

[WaltM]

Clay, I don't mean to be contrarian, but in that point he's actually right in the de facto sense. His problem comes in when he accepts it as just, right, and/or proper.

Thanks. I don't expect people to agree with me or accept what I accept.

I do however, try my best to see what conclusions people end up with when they're holy about their purity to principle. I'll be the first to say I'm a defender of pragmatism.

 

[low preference guy]

I didnt ask you if it was right or wrong, I asked you if it required force. My point stands.




how did the monarch enforce it? without force? look! We got somebody saying that a monarch can do something good & right!

Of course it can. That particular action can be good.

 

[low preference guy]

I didnt ask you if it was right or wrong, I asked you if it required force. My point stands.

You were arguing against this point:

He uses the same argument that slave holders held in the 18th Century, and before.

But, but, every Civilization has had slavery, therefore slavery is a pre-requisite of Civilization! (That was, after all the reality in that time period, so therefore WaltM would have defended it) I am merely illuminating this to show how absurd his position is.

Since slavery ended, I think his point stands.

 

[Monarchist]

look! We got somebody saying that a monarch can do something good & right!

Monarchs are generally more likely to rule more justly than the ill-informed rabble that govern democracies and republics. Just sayin'.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Clay, I don't mean to be contrarian, but in that point he's actually right in the de facto sense.

Fair enough, perhaps I need to do some re-evaluating on my position on rights.

His problem comes in when he accepts it as just, right, and/or proper.

Which he often does. I guess I'm taking the wrong approach with him.

 

[WaltM]

You were arguing against this point:

Since slavery ended, I think his point stands.

Since slavery ended by force (or democracy in some cases), my point stands (not simply by some person without power, authority, influence "believing it was right").

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Thanks. I don't expect people to agree with me or accept what I accept.

I do however, try my best to see what conclusions people end up with when they're holy about their purity to principle. I'll be the first to say I'm a defender of pragmatism.

This must be your dream then. There are hardly anyone devoted to principles anymore. How's life going?

 

[WaltM]

Monarchs are generally more likely to rule more justly than the ill-informed rabble that govern democracies and republics. Just sayin'.

I don't know enough to say "generally" and historical examples are often apples vs. oranges to compare, but I believe they CAN.

 

[low preference guy]

Since slavery ended by force (or democracy in some cases), my point stands (not simply by some person without power, authority, influence "believing it was right").

AED never claimed that

some person without power, authority, influence "believing it was right"

was enough to end something bad. You once again make a straw man.

Plus, it's close to impossible to not have influence. Just by speaking you influence people by stimulating them to see things from your perspective.

 

[WaltM]

This must be your dream then. There are hardly anyone devoted to principles anymore. How's life going?

pretty good, some people are more honest than others about it.

 

[WaltM]

AED never claimed that

heavenlybunchiesboy did.

AED said, I argue for the status quo based on majority rule, as if this was an exception.

was enough to end something bad. You once again make a straw man.

Plus, it's close to impossible to not have influence. Just by speaking you influence people by stimulating them to see things from your perspective.

what was enough?

persuasion? a word without authority?