THUGS beat up the police

[baldy01]

I was genuinly treating that as a question, not a a rhetorical feedline to stuff my opinion down your throat.

"We're on shaky ground here" You're not wrong, but as you have chosen to argue by taking things to one logical extreme, I'll take it to the other.

It is immoral for me to imprison you, therefore it is immoral for the state to imprison anyone - ooops, that doesn't work either.

It is immoral for me to take money with menaces from someone, therefore it is immoral for the taxman to take money from me, or the traffic cops to fine me in any way.

 

[Softus]

It's not that bizarre for believers in certain parts of the Christian Bible.

Pre-Christian, I think you'll find.

Quite right - I stand corrected.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

From the point of view of a moral society, it seems bizarre that the state should legitimise the use of violence as a strategic response rather than a tactical one.

Its nice to see that you've adjusted your stance on violence to realise that tactical violence sometimes is necessary. Thats encouraging, I didn't think you were capable of that.

I've not changed my stance. I've never claimed that tactical violence is not sometimes necessary. I once answered a question from Markie to say that I would shoot someone if it was the only way to stop them from throwing a hand grenade at a group of women and children. He, of course, stupidly tried to argue that that meant I had to be in favour of the death penalty.

When is it moral for a group of people, albeit through a representative, to do that which it is immoral for a member of that group to do alone.

I'm far from sure that you actually meant to ask that question, or that you have phrased it properly. As written I would answer "never", but I may be interpreting it wrongly.

To my mind self-defence is a perfectly legitimate use of force for an individual and a society, as is defending someone who is unable to defend themselves.

As long as the use of force is proportionate, I agree.

So the question is to what extent does societies strategicaly using violence against such an individual serve that end.

"Jaw jaw is better than war war". Physical force is sometimes necessary, but it is always better to seek a non-violent solution if there is an effective one, or if the balance of effectiveness and a civilised society is right.

If a public flogging prevents said thugs from beating anyone up again then why is it not legitimate for society to use it to defend future victims.

Because it is uncivilised.

Because a public flogging is not the same as the tactical use of force to defend oneself, or others, against violence.

Of course the concept of self defence also requires that you only employ the amount of force necessary, none if at all possible, so it is also beholden on us to not flog people if there is another EQUALLY EFFECTIVE method of preventing future transgressions.

It doesn't have to be equally effective - there has to be a balance struck between ultimate effectiveness and what is acceptable in a humane and civilised society. As I sit here writing this I have not seen if there have been responses to JohnD's post, but that does illustrate what I am saying.

It is always possible to devise methods which are more effective in preventing future transgressions, either by the same offenders or by deterring other offenders in the first place, but there comes a point where those measures are unacceptable, such as boiling the children of tax dodgers.

Effectiveness cannot be the only criterium used to decide if a sanction is appropriate - moral values and decency and civilised behaviour all come into it.

And I belive it is morally wrong for a state to use violence as a punishment. I believe that it demeans society, and lessens its claim to hold, and stand for, civilised values.

 

[baldy01]

When is it moral for a group of people, albeit through a representative, to do that which it is immoral for a member of that group to do alone.

I'm far from sure that you actually meant to ask that question, or that you have phrased it properly. As written I would answer "never", but I may be interpreting it wrongly.

I think the question stands. Society is a group of people. "Govornment" or the "state" is (supposedly) its representative.

So to the answer "never" I would have to repeat the examples above -

It is immoral for me to imprison you, therefore it is immoral for the state to imprison anyone?

It is immoral for me to take money with menaces from someone, therefore it is immoral for the taxman to take money from me, or the traffic cops to fine me in any way?

I don't think you can have a society that is not definable by the constraints it places on its members and the acceptable level of pursuasion it is permited to use to enforce them.

Never doesn't work as an answer.

 

[Zampa]

It's not that bizarre for believers in certain parts of the Christian Bible.

Pre-Christian, I think you'll find.

Quite right - I stand corrected.

Said the man in the orthopedic shoes

 

[Softus]

Never doesn't work as an answer.

Never say "doesn't".

 

[paulbrown]

If you don't consider the second person on your list as stupid why would you choose to ignore them?

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=433474#433474

Why would anyone need to be successful to argue with you?

I was trying to highlight the fact that I did not disengage because the other person was successful in arguing with me.

If you meant there was a fat chance of said person defeating you in a debate(in your opinion) it could be seen as a very arrogant comment.

It could, I guess, by anybody not paying attention.

Continuously insisting on the last word doesn't mean you've won every debate.

Surely by ceasing to respond, I am doing anything but insisting on the last word?

Any chance of giving these people a chance of defending themselves BAS?

They have as many chances of defending themselves as they care to take. They can write what they like when they like where they like and as often as they like - in the literal meaning of the phrase, I could not care less.

Thankyou for the link BAS.

I've been away on holiday and didn't know you'd had a disagreement.

I'm really suprised.

 

[Softus]

I'm really suprised.

In that case you'll be even more surprised about this.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think the question stands. Society is a group of people. "Govornment" or the "state" is (supposedly) its representative.

So to the answer "never" I would have to repeat the examples above -

It is immoral for me to imprison you, therefore it is immoral for the state to imprison anyone?

It is immoral for me to take money with menaces from someone, therefore it is immoral for the taxman to take money from me, or the traffic cops to fine me in any way?

It's important to distinguish between that which is immoral and that which is undesirable except in a regulated and legislated framework.

It is immoral for me to torture you. It is also immoral for the government to do so. But it is "also", not "therefore".

It is wrong for me to extort money from you, but it is not wrong for a democratic government to raise taxes to pay for things which benefit society, nor to impose sanctions on those who seek to evade paying.
Unless you genuinely believe that all taxation is theft, I don't see how you can equate the two.

But I see now why you take issue with my answer, and it's partly because, I would say, of mis-classification. If I extort money from you it is immoral. If a democratic government taxes you, then that is not really extortion (it might be extortionate but that's another matter ) - it's more akin to a contract. If you contract me to provide you with services, is is not extortion, or wrong, or immoral for me to expect you to pay. If you contract with the government by living and working here to benefit from the services they provide, it is not extortion, or wrong, or immoral for them to expect you to pay.

Regarding imprisonment, it is either immoral or just plain unacceptable for people to do that in a private capacity for reasons of self-gratification, or vigilante action, or extortion. It comes under the same category as any punishment that the state uses. Even people in favour of the death penalty would surely not argue in favour of lynch mobs stringing up anybody who they thought deserved it, so although they think it is moral for the government to kill people they would not think it right for individuals to do it.

I was taking a narrower view of what is, or is not, immoral behaviour. Actions can be more, or less, immoral than others, it's not a binary condition, and I was thinking about it in terms of the use of violence by the state in situations other than immediate tectical necessity.

If we are to decide when individual action is immoral, but group or proxy action is not, how do we define "immoral"?. It does not always equate to law-breaking, so we can't use that as a definition of whether an individual's actions are immoral. Is it immoral to park on a double yellow line? Will it be immoral to refuse to register for an ID card? Would it have been immoral in Nazi Germany to refuse to hand over Jews to the Gestapo?

So it's not easy to give your question a universal answer. I could probably cobble together something to do with actions which are proportionate and justified and part of a contract between citizens and government, but I doubt it would be both concise and workable.

I'm not sure that anybody can answer the question - I don't think it is truly answerable except by a series of examples, and of course it'salways going to turn on what the responder considers to be immoral behaviour.

You may have to settle for the following:

There are acts which are immoral for either individuals or "the group" to do.

There are acts which are immoral for individuals to do, but not the group.

There are acts which are not immoral for either.

And it's getting a bit late to think of any right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if were acts which were moral for the individual but immoral for the group.

 

[Thermo]

oh look another simple thread which gets turned into yawning waffle with extended answers. Makes a change

 

[Softus]

If I extort money from you it is immoral. If a democratic government taxes you, then that is not really extortion (it might be extortionate but that's another matter ) - it's more akin to a contract. If you contract me to provide you with services, is is not extortion, or wrong, or immoral for me to expect you to pay. If you contract with the government by living and working here to benefit from the services they provide, it is not extortion, or wrong, or immoral for them to expect you to pay.

This is a rather naive view, and orthogonal to the point being made by baldy01.

The laws of taxation are much closer to an act of extortion than the provision of a service under a contract, the latter being something that, both legally and intuitively, can exist only when both parties are aware of the making of the contract and it's conditions.

People who live within a taxation domain are aware of having to pay tax in the same manner as a business operating within the domain of a criminal protection racket. Other than paying up or suffering the retribution of the higher power, being prison or death, in the respective examples above.

Those people could leave the country to avoid taxation, or indeed to avoid the wrath of 'The Firm', but that's an extreme measure to have to take.

For example, using a point of fact, nice fresh water is delivered to my house, and all the poo and rainwater taken away. For this 'service' I pay a sum of money which I believe to be dispropotionate to the services provided, but the Water Act manifests a Statutory Instrument that entitles my water authority to collect as much money as they decide is required, without my advance approval of those costs. This is, demonstrably, and expressly, neither a contract nor an arrangement that is akin to one.

In fact, to argue that taxation is not extortion on the grounds that it's akin to a contract is to argue over the minutiae of what words were used, and what their precise meaning might be instead of discussing the points you know full well are being raised.

Notwithstanding that, I have to congratulate you on the tempering of your approach to the discussion of state-deployed violence. You have much more chance of educating people through reasoned argument that your usual manner of attempting to bully people into agreeing with you. This is an impressive change.

 

[Softus]

oh look another simple thread which gets turned into yawning waffle

+

= bliss.

 

[Softus]

If you have a point to make, then either append it or create another post like other moderators do.

 

[baldy01]

I think we've been relatively needle free for the last page or so actually. We appear to have discovered a question to which everyone doesn't already think they know the answer, it a refreshing change!

Plus I love waffles mmmmmmmmmm.......

 

[baldy01]

So it's not easy to give your question a universal answer.

Thought provoking question eh?

"The company of those seeking the truth is infinitely preferable to that of those who think they've found it".
~ Terry Pratchet