no smoking as of 4-15... ways to get around?

[Chris]

The constitution tried to encompass this principle, but started out with flaws, has been shot to hell over the last 250 years, and now is arbitrary. So, to base your argument on the Constitution and today's subjective interpretation of it and stop there is to default on your reasoning, a bad trade, imho.

Again, the Constitution does NOT list individual rights; it list govt's duties and restrictions. Rights, if one believes in such a concept, come from g_d or nature, according to our "founders," anyway.

The Constitution is by no means arbitrary, just because it does not fit an individual's personal ideals. I'll be the first to admit it is flawed, but it is the law of the land, and should be respected as such, until it is replaced.

The Constitution does in fact list rights, most notably in the aptly named Bill of Rights. However, the Ninth Amendment does state that just because a right is not specifically listed does not mean it does not exist.

The line must be drawn objectively, rationally, and morally. Here's what one calls the Constitution of the Universe:

Article I...Don't initiate force against another individual(s).

Article II...The only legitimate use of force is against those who violate Article I.

Article III...No exceptions to Articles I & II

If you think about it, this covers all problems between individuals.

Jeff Livingston

What about other ways where people are harmed? Assault is by no means the only way this can happen.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." --Albert Einstein

 

[Chris]

Another one of those foolish socialist across-the-pond arguments.

Flex

What makes an argument supporting some aspect of socialism foolish? One could easily point out the absurdities of certain aspects of capitalism.

For example, by design, profit in capitalism comes from labor exploitation. The capitalist that can obtain the least expensive labor makes the most profit, which is good for the capitalist/shareholders, but bad for the larger group that makes up the labor market.

Neither system is perfect, nor will either system work efficiently by itself.

 

[ScottW]

I don't understand why you think "every law is an infringement of personal liberties." Objective laws are not. Objective laws are those that protect me from hurting you and vice versa. They are not arbitrary, as there is a real instigator and a real victim with real damage. The 3 objective laws would be laws against 1.) theft, 2.) assault, & 3.) murder. Each of those laws PROTECTS the liberties of individuals, not violates them. Why? Because those laws recognize who STARTED trouble and react only to that.

I think he's being fairly white-tower about his argument - i.e. laws against murder infringe on the right of the individual to murder someone else.

In the end, there is NO way to have either a system where NO one's personal liberties are left free and clear. It's simply impossible - there's too many people with too many conflicting desires. No laws = one guy imposes on another guy. Laws = one guy imposes on another guy, and society imposes on the first guy for breaking the law. There ain't no utopia out there, folks.

Getting back on topic - SMOKING! - I really think that smoking bans in bars are LESS infringing, on society as a whole, than the lack of them. Why? Because without the ban, non-smokers were left with the choices of a) going to the bar and choking on other's smoke (bad) or b) avoiding the bar (neutral, but tending toward bad due to (a)). Smokers were in the good position - they could choose to a) go to the bar and smoke (good), go to the bar and choose NOT to smoke (neutral) and c) not go to the bar at all (neutral).

Now with the bans coming around - non-smokers can a) choose to go to the smoke-free bar (good) and b) not go to the bar (now neutral). Smokers still have choices though - a) go to the bar and not smoke (bad), b) go to the bar and step outside for a smoke (good, though not as good as they had it) and c) not go to the bar (neutral).

All in all, the negative impact on the smokers is smaller than the positive impact on the non-smokers.

 

[pooltchr]

I think he's being fairly white-tower about his argument - i.e. laws against murder infringe on the right of the individual to murder someone else.

In the end, there is NO way to have either a system where NO one's personal liberties are left free and clear. It's simply impossible - there's too many people with too many conflicting desires. No laws = one guy imposes on another guy. Laws = one guy imposes on another guy, and society imposes on the first guy for breaking the law. There ain't no utopia out there, folks.

Getting back on topic - SMOKING! - I really think that smoking bans in bars are LESS infringing, on society as a whole, than the lack of them. Why? Because without the ban, non-smokers were left with the choices of a) going to the bar and choking on other's smoke (bad) or b) avoiding the bar (neutral, but tending toward bad due to (a)). Smokers were in the good position - they could choose to a) go to the bar and smoke (good), go to the bar and choose NOT to smoke (neutral) and c) not go to the bar at all (neutral).

Now with the bans coming around - non-smokers can a) choose to go to the smoke-free bar (good) and b) not go to the bar (now neutral). Smokers still have choices though - a) go to the bar and not smoke (bad), b) go to the bar and step outside for a smoke (good, though not as good as they had it) and c) not go to the bar (neutral).

All in all, the negative impact on the smokers is smaller than the positive impact on the non-smokers.

you missed at least one option. Non smokers could go to a smoking bar, and step outside for a few minutes if they really needed a fix of oxygen!
Steve

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Hi catmandu,

I don't understand why you think "every law is an infringement of personal liberties." Objective laws are not. Objective laws are those that protect me from hurting you and vice versa. They are not arbitrary, as there is a real instigator and a real victim with real damage. The 3 objective laws would be laws against 1.) theft, 2.) assault, & 3.) murder. Each of those laws PROTECTS the liberties of individuals, not violates them. Why? Because those laws recognize who STARTED trouble and react only to that.

Laws that violate liberties are those laws against something/one who has NOT started trouble. Those laws, themselves, are trouble-making and are not objective, but subjective, designed for other reasons besides peace and prosperity. That's been my point all along. That is THE point to consider vis-a-vis government's role in a civilized society. The constitution tried to encompass this principle, but started out with flaws, has been shot to hell over the last 250 years, and now is arbitrary. So, to base your argument on the Constitution and today's subjective interpretation of it and stop there is to default on your reasoning, a bad trade, imho.

Again, the Constitution does NOT list individual rights; it list govt's duties and restrictions. Rights, if one believes in such a concept, come from g_d or nature, according to our "founders," anyway.

The line must be drawn objectively, rationally, and morally. Here's what one calls the Constitution of the Universe:

Article I...Don't initiate force against another individual(s).

Article II...The only legitimate use of force is against those who violate Article I.

Article III...No exceptions to Articles I & II

If you think about it, this covers all problems between individuals.

Jeff Livingston

The reason why Catscradle CORRECTLY stated that all laws are an infringement on personal liberties is because by definitition they are. Take murder for example. If we enact a law against murder, then this law explicitly infringes on my liberty to kill someone. Sure its a good idea and a liberty I am more than willing to give up. I don't want to kill anybody and I sure as heck don't want anyone to kill me. The concept of "objective laws" is an odd term. To me, the term "objective" means that it is not open to interpretation, and that it would conform to some sort of logic, and most importantly that the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the law can be known with certainty. Since this is not the case for all human law, I would say that there are no objective laws. Murder seems like a bad idea, but I have no objective evidence to say that it is "wrong". It is only a matter of degree between murder and speeding. Both are arbitrary laws based on the preferences of the majority. Just like smoking laws.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Flex]

What makes an argument supporting some aspect of socialism foolish? One could easily point out the absurdities of certain aspects of capitalism.

For example, by design, profit in capitalism comes from labor exploitation. The capitalist that can obtain the least expensive labor makes the most profit, which is good for the capitalist/shareholders, but bad for the larger group that makes up the labor market.

Neither system is perfect, nor will either system work efficiently by itself.

I'd love the day when I am head of a corporation and make 1 million dollars a year, while at the same time am "exploited" by the corporation and its shareholders because I MAKE THEM one billion dollars a year. For every dollar I would cost the business, they'd profit 999 dollars, truly I'd be "exploited" by them. What an injustice! Not! I say to those who think they are being exploited because they are paid $10 an hour and their employer charges his clients $50 an hour for their service that they would do well to seek to find employment that pays them much much more and that exploits them much much much more.

It's actually pretty simple. Communism and socialism aren't the solutions to poverty, but are often the cause of it. How many people are flocking to the island paradise of Cuba for a better life? They don't usually head there, however quite often they come to the U.S.

Flex

 

[chefjeff]

The reason why Catscradle CORRECTLY stated that all laws are an infringement on personal liberties is because by definitition they are. Take murder for example. If we enact a law against murder, then this law explicitly infringes on my liberty to kill someone. Sure its a good idea and a liberty I am more than willing to give up. (snip)
KMRUNOUT

This is flawed reasoning. No individual, in an objective-law society has the liberty to murder. Why? Easy. Murder TAKES AWAY A LIBERTY of another individual. ALL individuals' liberties are protected, not just yours. So, your "liberty" is no liberty at all, but an infringement on another individual's liberty.

So, a law against murder PROTECTS ALL individuals' liberties.

That is THE point: Do anything you want AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INITIATE FORCE against anyone. That is liberty. Killing at will is not liberty, but tyranny, as innocent individuals are being denied their liberties.

Liberty is for all, or for non. When it is cheerypicked, it is no longer liberty, but politcal whim, exactly what the "anti-smoking laws" are.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

I think he's being fairly white-tower about his argument - i.e. laws against murder infringe on the right of the individual to murder someone else.

In the end, there is NO way to have either a system where NO one's personal liberties are left free and clear. It's simply impossible - there's too many people with too many conflicting desires. No laws = one guy imposes on another guy. Laws = one guy imposes on another guy, and society imposes on the first guy for breaking the law. There ain't no utopia out there, folks.

Getting back on topic - SMOKING! - I really think that smoking bans in bars are LESS infringing, on society as a whole, than the lack of them. Why? Because without the ban, non-smokers were left with the choices of a) going to the bar and choking on other's smoke (bad) or b) avoiding the bar (neutral, but tending toward bad due to (a)). Smokers were in the good position - they could choose to a) go to the bar and smoke (good), go to the bar and choose NOT to smoke (neutral) and c) not go to the bar at all (neutral).

Now with the bans coming around - non-smokers can a) choose to go to the smoke-free bar (good) and b) not go to the bar (now neutral). Smokers still have choices though - a) go to the bar and not smoke (bad), b) go to the bar and step outside for a smoke (good, though not as good as they had it) and c) not go to the bar (neutral).

All in all, the negative impact on the smokers is smaller than the positive impact on the non-smokers.

Of course utopia is not one of the choices. But that does not mean that objective law cannot be laid out rationally, objectively, and morally. It is simple: Do what you want, but don't send me the bill. If you do intiate force against someone, you pay him back. That is what objective law is all about: protecting the innocent from the oppresser.

As for you "choices"... you forgot all about the one guy who matters most in the anti-smoking crusades: the property owner. You know, the guy who pays all the bills and creates all the jobs and provides all the pool table, and beer, and cues and music and everthing else we want in a pool hall. This hero (to us) deserves protection of his liberties, too, does he not?

If he owns---really owns----the property, then doesn't he control it? That is what ownership implies, right? So, if he controls it, why should others, who do NOT own this property, have ANY say in what happens within HIS property? Why should someone who probably has never even been in this owner's property be able, by force of "law," to take away the owner's liberty to control HIS OWN property, via "anti-smoking" laws?

I've said it before, if you don't like the smoking in your pool hall, do what the owner of the hall did: Get off your butt, create a business plan, arrange the financing, take the risks (and boy are there a lot of risks with the violent control freaks running things), find a location, get the equipment, hire the people, do the paperwork, deal with the thugs, and open a non-smoking place of your own. Then you have solved your problem and the problems of all the other non-smokers---all without intiating force against anyone else!!!

Of course, if pulling a gun is so automatic to you, this path may seem strange in that it requires productive work and mutual exchange. But it is the ONLY path of peace and prosperity for all.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

The Constitution is by no means arbitrary, just because it does not fit an individual's personal ideals. I'll be the first to admit it is flawed, but it is the law of the land, and should be respected as such, until it is replaced.

The Constitution does in fact list rights, most notably in the aptly named Bill of Rights. However, the Ninth Amendment does state that just because a right is not specifically listed does not mean it does not exist.



What about other ways where people are harmed? Assault is by no means the only way this can happen.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." --Albert Einstein

I won't argue the constitution with you cuz I don't rely on it anymore for my reasoning about a peaceful society. I respect it and what it was supposed to do, but it failed to maintain liberty so ...?

You must think the writer of that Constitution of the Universe meant that that "intiation of force" is simply assualt. It is not. Initiation of force can be assault, theft, or murder. Note that fraud is a mild form of theft, but theft never-the-less.

Voluntarily walking into a business, choosing to stay and breathe someone else's second-hand smoke is a free choice...UNLESS the property owner's liberties have been taken away and you no longer have that option. You could also lose the option if the owner never existed or if he went out of business, but in a free, peaceful society, YOU could become that owner and offer that smoking choice to others. That is liberty. Using guns (or supporting that) to remove that choice from your list is tyranny, plain and simple.

Here's to the Pool Hall Owners: Cheers!...and THANK YOU for taking the risks to provide us with a special place to find happiness.

Jeff Livingston

 

[KMRUNOUT]

This is flawed reasoning. No individual, in an objective-law society has the liberty to murder. Why? Easy. Murder TAKES AWAY A LIBERTY of another individual. ALL individuals' liberties are protected, not just yours. So, your "liberty" is no liberty at all, but an infringement on another individual's liberty.

So, a law against murder PROTECTS ALL individuals' liberties.

That is THE point: Do anything you want AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INITIATE FORCE against anyone. That is liberty. Killing at will is not liberty, but tyranny, as innocent individuals are being denied their liberties.

Liberty is for all, or for non. When it is cheerypicked, it is no longer liberty, but politcal whim, exactly what the "anti-smoking laws" are.

Jeff Livingston

Jeff,

We might be saying the same thing, but going about it in a different way. Though you are incorrect in your statement that my logic is flawed. So that you understand, a logical argument consists of two types of statements: either a premise or a logical inference. "Premises" are statements that we both agree on as "facts". Logical inferences are statements that NECESSARILY follow given the premises on which we agree. So I am putting forth as a premise that a "law" is a mandate compelling you to either do something or not do something. I can't imagine we disagree on that. Another premise is that "liberty" could be defined as the legal capability or permission to do something. I am "at liberty" to murder someone at any point, regardless of the law. Hence when we use the word liberty here, we are meaning "free under the law". I'm sure we also agree on this. By DEFINITION, then, if a "law" compells you to not do something, then it is eliminating that "liberty". You might not like the logic here, and you may wish to define the terms "law" and "liberty" differently.
I understand what you mean when you say that murder infringes on the liberty of the person you are murdering. However, by my previous definition of "liberty", murder actually does not affect this. If someone murders me, they do not change the freedoms that the law grants me. It simply changes my CAPABILITY to excercise those freedoms. These are two different things.

You say, "So, a law against murder PROTECTS ALL individuals' liberties."
This is just plain wrong unless you want to define "liberty" quite differently than I have here. To me, "liberty" is specifically related to the law. For you, it seems you are using "liberty" to imply some sort of absolute, God given right.

It might also be interesting to hear you explain what you mean by "objective law". For example, if a law is "objective", then I would like to know who wrote the law, and how it was that they came to be omniscient. In other words, unless talking about mathematics, there is little human beings can claim to be "objective". Just because I think murder is bad and should be forbidden by the law, and I think the majority of people would agree with this opinion, does not make this "objective".

Just curious where you are coming from. I realize that if I wanted to waste bandwidth on a philosphical debate, I would probably be more fulfilled on a philosphy forum, rather than a pool forum. But hey, this thread is 97 pages long anyway, so why not, right?

KMRUNOUT

 

[catscradle]

I won't argue the constitution with you cuz I don't rely on it anymore for my reasoning about a peaceful society. I respect it and what it was supposed to do, but it failed to maintain liberty so ...?

You must think the writer of that Constitution of the Universe meant that that "intiation of force" is simply assualt. It is not. Initiation of force can be assault, theft, or murder. Note that fraud is a mild form of theft, but theft never-the-less.

Voluntarily walking into a business, choosing to stay and breathe someone else's second-hand smoke is a free choice...UNLESS the property owner's liberties have been taken away and you no longer have that option. You could also lose the option if the owner never existed or if he went out of business, but in a free, peaceful society, YOU could become that owner and offer that smoking choice to others. That is liberty. Using guns (or supporting that) to remove that choice from your list is tyranny, plain and simple.

Here's to the Pool Hall Owners: Cheers!...and THANK YOU for taking the risks to provide us with a special place to find happiness.

Jeff Livingston

Your arguments seemed to be based upon a concept of absolute ("uninalianable" <sp?> if you like) rights based in a universal belief system. A country cannot be run on this free wheeling concept. It must be based upon a well defined written arbitrarily choosen set of "rights". I happen to believe that "murder" is wrong and a violation of our absolute rights as did the framers of the constitution, but it is not my belief nor that of the framers of the constitution that matters. It is the fact that it was codified within laws that fall within the scope of the constitution.
If you believe that the room owner has a god given right to determine whether or not his room should allow or not allow smoking doesn't matter at all. What matters is that a majority of society wanted an anti-smoking law and that that law falls within the scope of the constitution, or at least that law has not been challenged and found unconstitutional.
If you and like minded people feel strongly enough that it is unconstitutional, mount a legal challenge to it. I would think though that to attack the smoking bans the whole concept of licensing has to be attacked. Afterall if smoking bans are invalid, isn't it a natural extension of that logic to say restricting a property owner from opening a pool room/bar with or without smoking without any government permission is also a violation of his rights.
JMHO, that smoking bans, whether right or wrong in an absolute sense, have standing in the law. I wish I were a better writer because my reasoning is much clearer than my presentation here.

 

[catscradle]

Jeff,
Just curious where you are coming from. I realize that if I wanted to waste bandwidth on a philosphical debate, I would probably be more fulfilled on a philosphy forum, rather than a pool forum. But hey, this thread is 97 pages long anyway, so why not, right?

KMRUNOUT

KM, maybe this conversation would be better continued on the non-pool related forum, but I suspect it might die there.

 

[smittie1984]

I can't believe this is still going

I'll address some things I came across.

About being addicted to Heroine. When I busted my spleen from a bike crash I was in the hospital for 6days. Icu for 4 and regular room for 2. During those times I did not eat once except before I left. I lost I think 30+lbs in less than a week. During the first 4 days they had me on morphine. Morphine I believe is derived from Opiom. It is considered a synthetic Heroine. First off let me tell you that morphine is some good stuff. It's like being at a Pink Floyd concert even though your are not at one. I would love to do morphine again. But I don't. I have access to it easy. I have access to Heroine too if I really wanted it. Yet I don't do it. I know it's not good for me and is potentially deadly. So I choose not to do it. And when synthetic heroine is bascially the only thing going into your body you kind of get a dependence on it.

Smokers choose to smoke. I have smoked cigarettes a few times before. Never had an addiction for it. I don't mind dying but if I die it's going to be from a car crash, bullett (More than likely from the government), knife, bike crash, or even possibly old age (Yeah right). Not from smoking a plant that does nothing for me.

I do not believe that either of those should be illegal.

America is not as great as it was when it started. We have not fallen but ran away from our roots. We are the freest country in the world now. But socialism is rearing it's ugly head and we are headed right for it. Democrats and Replublicans leading the charge.

The main arguments I hear against America why other countries are more free is rediculous. From young people I hear "In Canada you can smoke weed and see boobs on TV." Old people "I get free healthcare". Weed and breasts should be on the bottom of the list of things to legalize and healthcare should be altogether scrapped.

About how government is here to protect us from evil business people. There are private groups which do a far superior job of approving people and other aspects of our life compared to the government. ACLU, Snell, American Medical Association, etc. Those are private groups that have much higherstandards than the government. If you go into a doctors office and don't see AMA on his window then you'll do business elsewhere.

Federal Government is good at one thing and one thing only. War. And that is the only reason our federal government should be here.

 

[Purdman]

Hey Smittie

Morphine I believe is derived from Opiom. It is considered a synthetic Heroine. First off let me tell you that morphine is some good stuff. It's like being at a Pink Floyd concert even though your are not at one. I would love to do morphine again. But I don't. I have access to it easy. I have access to Heroine too if I really wanted it. Yet I don't do it.


My friend, Morphine, Delaudid, Methadone nor Opium come close to the uphoric high brought on by Heroine. That is a fact! I am not suggesting that you go out and give it a try, I did that for ya. 80% pure, and there is nothing like it. I like you choose not to use it. I have been clean since 1978 and never would have tried it but for my cousins' insistance. However, I will tell you this. If I ever get terminally ill and am told that I only have 4 or 5 painful months left, I am going to Amsterdam. They can send my ashes back in a coffee can. I think it is a damn shame the don't make it legal for terminally ill patients.
By the way, Cuetechasaurus and I are still smoke free and loving it. He sent me a PM the other day. We inspired each other and it sure made it easier.
Purdman

 

[chefjeff]

Jeff,

We might be saying the same thing, but going about it in a different way. (snip)

Another premise is that "liberty" could be defined as the legal capability or permission to do something. I am "at liberty" to murder someone at any point, regardless of the law. Hence when we use the word liberty here, we are meaning "free under the law". I'm sure we also agree on this. By DEFINITION, then, if a "law" compells you to not do something, then it is eliminating that "liberty". You might not like the logic here, and you may wish to define the terms "law" and "liberty" differently.
(nsip)

You say, "So, a law against murder PROTECTS ALL individuals' liberties."
This is just plain wrong unless you want to define "liberty" quite differently than I have here. To me, "liberty" is specifically related to the law. For you, it seems you are using "liberty" to imply some sort of absolute, God given right.

It might also be interesting to hear you explain what you mean by "objective law". For example, if a law is "objective", then I would like to know who wrote the law, and how it was that they came to be omniscient. In other words, unless talking about mathematics, there is little human beings can claim to be "objective". Just because I think murder is bad and should be forbidden by the law, and I think the majority of people would agree with this opinion, does not make this "objective".

(snip)
KMRUNOUT

Thanks for the thoughtful response, KM.

"Liberty" is a legal term--or at least a term agreed upon by conscious individuals about how to get along. I'm not really into the "rights" thing much anymore--it's like the god concept to me---I don't think it important enough to, for example, start wars or even argue about at a bar or internet forum. "Freedom" is what I think you mean when you say you can murder someone. Anyone is always free to do whatever s/he can get away with. The last freedom would be thinking (see Victor Frankl for more on this).

I've explained objective law with the C of U that I posted. Here it is summarized: Don't start trouble.

It is objective because it only addresses real harm initated on an innocent(s). Doesn't need popular opinion or whatever. That's it.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Your arguments seemed to be based upon a concept of absolute ("uninalianable" <sp?> if you like) rights based in a universal belief system. A country cannot be run on this free wheeling concept. It must be based upon a well defined written arbitrarily choosen set of "rights". I happen to believe that "murder" is wrong and a violation of our absolute rights as did the framers of the constitution, but it is not my belief nor that of the framers of the constitution that matters. It is the fact that it was codified within laws that fall within the scope of the constitution.
If you believe that the room owner has a god given right to determine whether or not his room should allow or not allow smoking doesn't matter at all. What matters is that a majority of society wanted an anti-smoking law and that that law falls within the scope of the constitution, or at least that law has not been challenged and found unconstitutional.
If you and like minded people feel strongly enough that it is unconstitutional, mount a legal challenge to it. I would think though that to attack the smoking bans the whole concept of licensing has to be attacked. Afterall if smoking bans are invalid, isn't it a natural extension of that logic to say restricting a property owner from opening a pool room/bar with or without smoking without any government permission is also a violation of his rights.
JMHO, that smoking bans, whether right or wrong in an absolute sense, have standing in the law. I wish I were a better writer because my reasoning is much clearer than my presentation here.

First, the Constitution, the best of my knowledge never mentions murder---that was up to the states to make illegal.

And I don't give a rat's ass if every single one of the people in the whole world wants to intiate harm on another innocent, I'm still going to point out the immorality of it. (probably cuz I will be the one getting killed! )

I'm glad you deducted, if my argument is true, that even licensing is an intitation of force. Now what? Think about that. Also, think about zoning laws being based of intiatory force. What other laws violate this concept? Once one identifies this "you don't really control your property" concept and integrates it fully, a lot of the "good" things govts do to us become crystal clear as to their real net damage.

Why would I waste my time raising a legal challange to change/enforce the constitution? Been there, tried that. They don't let you do that anymore. Men with guns place you in little, razor-wired cages far away from the smug politicians, or lie about you to discredit you, or...

I could go to a city council meeting, but ours is loaded with criminals (see the Des Moines Register for more on this recent story), so I'd simply help continue the problem by giving respect to these elites and their unearned power. I now prefer to sidestep the "normal" outlets and communicate these ideas in pool forums and elsewhere. Little sparks of knowledge looking for kindling. Much more effective and harder for them to stop me.

It's sometimes difficult to communicate in writing---if we were at a pool hall we'd all be out in the alley duking it out already.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Jeff,

We might be saying the same thing, but going about it in a different way. Though you are incorrect in your statement that my logic is flawed. So that you understand, a logical argument consists of two types of statements: either a premise or a logical inference. "Premises" are statements that we both agree on as "facts". Logical inferences are statements that NECESSARILY follow given the premises on which we agree. So I am putting forth as a premise that a "law" is a mandate compelling you to either do something or not do something. I can't imagine we disagree on that. Another premise is that "liberty" could be defined as the legal capability or permission to do something. I am "at liberty" to murder someone at any point, regardless of the law. Hence when we use the word liberty here, we are meaning "free under the law". I'm sure we also agree on this. By DEFINITION, then, if a "law" compells you to not do something, then it is eliminating that "liberty". You might not like the logic here, and you may wish to define the terms "law" and "liberty" differently.
I understand what you mean when you say that murder infringes on the liberty of the person you are murdering. However, by my previous definition of "liberty", murder actually does not affect this. If someone murders me, they do not change the freedoms that the law grants me. It simply changes my CAPABILITY to excercise those freedoms. These are two different things.

You say, "So, a law against murder PROTECTS ALL individuals' liberties."
This is just plain wrong unless you want to define "liberty" quite differently than I have here. To me, "liberty" is specifically related to the law. For you, it seems you are using "liberty" to imply some sort of absolute, God given right.

It might also be interesting to hear you explain what you mean by "objective law". For example, if a law is "objective", then I would like to know who wrote the law, and how it was that they came to be omniscient. In other words, unless talking about mathematics, there is little human beings can claim to be "objective". Just because I think murder is bad and should be forbidden by the law, and I think the majority of people would agree with this opinion, does not make this "objective".

Just curious where you are coming from. I realize that if I wanted to waste bandwidth on a philosphical debate, I would probably be more fulfilled on a philosphy forum, rather than a pool forum. But hey, this thread is 97 pages long anyway, so why not, right?

KMRUNOUT

So strange how articles, pertinent to whatever discussion I'm having at the moment, seem to just show up at the right time...Here's an portion of an article that came into my email this morning that actually defines "freedom" and "liberty" as we have been discussing them in relation to the constitution and "rights." Amazing, but true ..

http://www.fmnn.com/Analysis/196/4596/2006-04-21.asp?nid=4596&wid=196

...Freedom means do anything. Anything you want. Anything at all. Freedom means "do whatever you want, even hurt others." Freedom is the basis behind a democracy. In a democracy, the people are free to do anything they want at all through the power of vote. The people can freely vote to usurp rights and property from the minority of voters. The people can freely vote to usurp homes and land through eminent domain (which is supported by votes). The people can freely vote to dismantle the right to smoke marijuana in the minority of voters. The people can freely vote to mandate the minority of voters to pay for their medical bills (mandatory socialistic medicine is being setup for the future). Do you want to live in a place where everyone else's opinion of you is critical for the security of your rights? Do you want to live in a place where you must spend your life's energy pleasing others so that they do not attack you through their majority of votes? Do you want to live in the collectivist/socialist/communist nightmare predicted by Orwell?

Liberty is similar to freedom with respect to the one most important difference: the rights of the individual may never be violated by another individual. Liberty means "do whatever you want, so long as you do not hurt anyone else." Liberty is the basis behind a republic. In a republic private property reigns supreme, and because all rights are derived from property, in a republic the rights of the individual cannot be violated by anyone else including government, the people, foreigners, or any other person. In a republic the government's function is not to toss rights around like a salad. Its function is to protect the stability of rights inherent in private property owners. The difference between a democracy and a republic is the difference between collectivism and individualism and between communism and capitalism....


Btw, this discussion belongs right here on the pool section of this forum. Pool players are generally considered low-lifes and are one of the first to be smashed down for the "good of all." Robert Byrne wrote a whole chapter in his 'Advanced' book on fighting govts when opening a pool hall. The issue may be trivial in the scope of humaness, but primal in the violation of the principles involved. Like I've said before, we pool players can be leaders in this area, if we are informed about the issues/principles and their effects on everyone's happiness.


Purdman quit smoking...a choice for life. No one else was harmed by his choice even though he benefited himself. THAT is the way to live with others.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Purdman]

Purdman quit smoking...a choice for life. No one else was harmed by his choice even though he benefited himself. THAT is the way to live with others.

Jeff, I quit a whole lot more in my life for the very same reason, LIFE. Thank you for your comment.
Purd

 

[chefjeff]

Jeff,

It might also be interesting to hear you explain what you mean by "objective law".
KMRUNOUT

Found another link (by Tibor Machan--a great writer, imho) that might be of interest to those of us working to understand "objective" law:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Machan/The_Target_Objectivity.shtml


I think both Gilbert and Wittgenstein exaggerate the point, in part because they confuses "objective" with "neutral" or "impartial." Objectivity means being honest, sticking to facts and to reasonable inferences and theories, and to distinguishing, rationally rather then with prejudice or bias, what is more from what is less important. It does not mean lacking motives, not caring. Just think, doctors who diagnose illnesses, auto mechanics who check cars for problems, engineers who build all kinds of structures—they all have motives, interests, yet they also need to be objective lest their efforts routinely come a cropper.

Enjoy,

Jeff Livingston