Oh Joy it must be time near election time again

[PumpPlayer]

What'd I tell you about relativism?

So as I understand you, we should all be able to (vote, drive, drink, smoke, etc.) when we are subjectively determined to be adults on some system outside of a mathematical deffinition based upon chronology? And... because everything is relative... we can't make that deffinition? But yet we still have to?


I'm having trouble seeing through the contradictions so I'm going to go onto some more questions.

You seem to have no problem with the "private sector" doing whatever the heck it wants to do.
I am curious, does that apply to individuals or households and families as well?

If so, does that mean that all parents should be able to raise their children however they see fit?
If so, does that mean if a parent wants to make their kid do chores, then that's OK?
If so, what about when they define intensive manual labor as 'chores'?
If the children don't do this difficult work, is it alright for parents to punish their children?
By grounding them? Taking away their allowance? Denying them meals? How about corporal punnishment?
What if someone's relative deffinition of punnishment is an oak rod to the skull?
But I see your point, we have no right to tell other people how to live, right?

How about corporations embezzling from their stockholders? I mean, it's the stockholder's fault they invested in the corporation in the first place, right?

How about public nudity? The government shouldn't be able to tell me what I have to wear.

How about disturbing the peace? Nobody should be able to tell me how loud I can or cannot play my stereo.

What if all the farmers in the nation decided to get together and arbitrarily charge $50/pound for grain? If they all agree to it and they're in the private sector, they should be allowed to do it, right?

And if the answer to any of these questions is, "no", then who gets to pay the taxes that pay for our justice system to see such actions prevented?


Like it or not, there are absolutes in this world and not nearly as many subjects have the luxury of relativism as you might believe. Are there erroneous and unnecessary laws on the books? Yes, but you haven't mentioned any so far.

[OneEyedPimp]

What'd I tell you about relativism?

So as I understand you, we should all be able to (vote, drive, drink, smoke, etc.) when we are subjectively determined to be adults on some system outside of a mathematical deffinition based upon chronology? And... because everything is relative... we can't make that deffinition? But yet we still have to?


I'm having trouble seeing through the contradictions so I'm going to go onto some more questions.

You seem to have no problem with the "private sector" doing whatever the heck it wants to do.
I am curious, does that apply to individuals or households and families as well?

If so, does that mean that all parents should be able to raise their children however they see fit?
If so, does that mean if a parent wants to make their kid do chores, then that's OK?
If so, what about when they define intensive manual labor as 'chores'?
If the children don't do this difficult work, is it alright for parents to punish their children?
By grounding them? Taking away their allowance? Denying them meals? How about corporal punnishment?
What if someone's relative deffinition of punnishment is an oak rod to the skull?
But I see your point, we have no right to tell other people how to live, right?

How about corporations embezzling from their stockholders? I mean, it's the stockholder's fault they invested in the corporation in the first place, right?

How about public nudity? The government shouldn't be able to tell me what I have to wear.

How about disturbing the peace? Nobody should be able to tell me how loud I can or cannot play my stereo.

What if all the farmers in the nation decided to get together and arbitrarily charge $50/pound for grain? If they all agree to it and they're in the private sector, they should be allowed to do it, right?

And if the answer to any of these questions is, "no", then who gets to pay the taxes that pay for our justice system to see such actions prevented?


Like it or not, there are absolutes in this world and not nearly as many subjects have the luxury of relativism as you might believe. Are there erroneous and unnecessary laws on the books? Yes, but you haven't mentioned any so far.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
-Thomas Jefferson

Let people live how they see fit so long as they do not harm others. A parent can punish their child, provided it is proper to the wrongdoing committed.

[PumpPlayer]

"Proper" as defined by whom?
What's your standard of measure?
And why are parents special that they should be allowed to dictate the actions of another?
When do parents loose that authority, if ever?


If you're going to quote the entire post then you should at least respond to it.

[OneEyedPimp]

"Proper" as defined by whom?
What's your standard of measure?
And why are parents special that they should be allowed to dictate the actions of another?
When do parents loose that authority, if ever?


If you're going to quote the entire post then you should at least respond to it.

You may not like relativeness, but it plays here again. To me it doesnt matter. If it is not affecting me, why bother with it?

But to answer your question: it falls on the family to make that decision, each of which will obiously be different. In my houshold it would be something minor like losing a privelage, or something other. In someone elses it may be different.

The parent only retains the right to reign over their children provided they are providing room and board for them, else they lose it. See, I am not completely against the current system.

[quasimorte]

Two things i want to say.

first: while age limit laws may be new as established laws before this system exsisted children were considered chattle (sub-human if you will), owned by their parents and entirely at their whim. Only in the last 50 years have places in china stoped the practice of killing unwanted female babies, I definately don't want to go back to this type of system.

second: The type of government you are advocating has never exsisted for very long due to human nature. the current system developed out of something similar to what you are talking about. the reason it developed is due, in some case, to need and in other to social irrespocibility (sp?). the type of government you look for requires a fully informed populace, everybody must know exactly what their candidate would do and all of the consequenes of any given law. this is impossible. as shown by the current laws. no law has exactly the desired effect even if applied as indended it doesn't stay that way for very long.

right now we have one of the best systems in the world, it is flawed but for the most part it stays out of my business and allows me to live my life. that is all i ask, even though i break laws every day.

[OneEyedPimp]

Two things i want to say.

first: while age limit laws may be new as established laws before this system exsisted children were considered chattle (sub-human if you will), owned by their parents and entirely at their whim. Only in the last 50 years have places in china stoped the practice of killing unwanted female babies, I definately don't want to go back to this type of system.

I am not advocating we go back to that either.

second: The type of government you are advocating has never exsisted for very long due to human nature. the current system developed out of something similar to what you are talking about. the reason it developed is due, in some case, to need and in other to social irrespocibility (sp?). the type of government you look for requires a fully informed populace, everybody must know exactly what their candidate would do and all of the consequenes of any given law. this is impossible. as shown by the current laws. no law has exactly the desired effect even if applied as indended it doesn't stay that way for very long.

While it is true that the system we have has evolved from my ideal, does that mean mine does not work? The system you have now started its quick rise in the early 1920s. Not that long ago, up until then things were relatively peachy. But I know that I will live and die in this system, my children will likewise, but in a system with a greater degree of power.

right now we have one of the best systems in the world, it is flawed but for the most part it stays out of my business and allows me to live my life. that is all i ask, even though i break laws every day.

Opinions. I personally think we have one of the most flawed systems.

[warbeak2099]

I don't think he's getting it. We're not saying that minors are lesser people. We're saying that it has been proven that human development is just not complete with regards to the mind and brain during childhood. Minors cannot make good decisions like people who are fully developed. If you're rejecting that then you're simply being ignorant. This has been scientific knowledge for a long time now. Piaget first began to discover the stages in human development during the first half of the 20th century. For over 50 years we have been able to test and prove that the developing brain goes through stages.

[ultralight]

libertarianism is fundamentally flawed. like all utopian systems it looks great in theory or on paper. however, all of these systems fail when put into practice becasue they can not account for the random, violent nature of human beings.

i consider myself a moderate libertarian. however, i know that radical (or pure) libertarianism could never succeed.
it is based on the good will and willingness of the people within the system. people are greedy, selfish, violent, and hateful. you can not expect them to play nice if they know that nobody is watching. people do not want to work toward the greater good. they want to garner as many resources for themselves as possible. we are not naturally born with modern society in our genes. this is why children need parents and schools, because when we are born, we are basically animals.

I mean what does it matter if someone has, say, a nuke if they dont use it for other's bodily harm?

what is the purpose of a nuclear weapon? what possible legal application is there for a nuclear weapon in the hands of a civilian? you put too much faith in your fellow man. what is easier and/or cheaper? preventing a man from owning a nuclear weapon( you can substitute nuclear weapon for any military grade explosive device), which has absolutely no peaceful purpose, or cleaning up after he drunkenly sets it off?

This is what is wrong with our society, we preemptively judge everyone before they even do anything.
Seriously: people need to stop worrying about what other people might do and more about what they do.

i ask you, what is the difference? are you saying that the law should not exist until someone breaks it? that makes no sense. how will we know when it is broken if it does not exist. laws don't affect you until you break them. specific laws are in place becasue people tend to try to infringe on the personal freedoms of others in the same ways over and over again.

the solution is pretty clear, just don't pay for it.

this will not work. period. no action is without consequence, nothing is free, including mistakes. that's what society is all about.if you live here and reap the rewards, you share the burden.

The parent only retains the right to reign over their children provided they are providing room and board for them, else they lose it.

is the government of this country not providing a safe environment where you are guaranteed the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? they are. as long as they do, you are expected to obey the laws of this country.


laws governing the actions of minors are in place becasue minors, as a group, are incapable of making sound decisions for themselves. they are too impulsive, mentally underdeveloped, and chemically unstable. they are not physically or mentally adult yet, why should they have the freedoms of an adult? minors are not treated as sub-human, simply sub-adult. this is logical because that is exactly what they are.

many teens and adolescents (such as yourself) tend to gravitate toward idealist, purist, radical notions. moderation and balance are the keys to everything. only when you mix the oxygen AND the acetylene can you cut the steel.

[warbeak2099]

Very well said. However, I have a feeling he still won't understand. Hell, I'm 18yo and I accept that my brain isn't fully developed yet. I do some pretty stupid crap and that's natural. I'm sure glad there are laws regulating me though.

[dave p]

the law is in place and a constituancy voted in the elected officials who enacted the law. i happen to agree with the law myself, so good for them for enforcing it.

the oneyedpimp is still wet behind the ears and defending ideologies he only partially understands.

if you feel the system is flawed then vote. oh yeah, you arent old enough. good thing too.
so for now my friend too bad for you. love it or leave it.

[OneEyedPimp]

libertarianism is fundamentally flawed. like all utopian systems it looks great in theory or on paper. however, all of these systems fail when put into practice becasue they can not account for the random, violent nature of human beings.

i consider myself a moderate libertarian. however, i know that radical (or pure) libertarianism could never succeed.
it is based on the good will and willingness of the people within the system. people are greedy, selfish, violent, and hateful. you can not expect them to play nice if they know that nobody is watching. people do not want to work toward the greater good. they want to garner as many resources for themselves as possible. we are not naturally born with modern society in our genes. this is why children need parents and schools, because when we are born, we are basically animals.

Except for the fact that the "libertarian system" was in place in this country for a good hundred and then some years.

what is the purpose of a nuclear weapon? what possible legal application is there for a nuclear weapon in the hands of a civilian? you put too much faith in your fellow man. what is easier and/or cheaper? preventing a man from owning a nuclear weapon( you can substitute nuclear weapon for any military grade explosive device), which has absolutely no peaceful purpose, or cleaning up after he drunkenly sets it off?

You can not look at one side and ignore the other. We are playing a what if game in which we both choose radically opposite things and say what if this or that. The fact of the matter is this: how many people could afford a nuke?

i ask you, what is the difference? are you saying that the law should not exist until someone breaks it? that makes no sense. how will we know when it is broken if it does not exist. laws don't affect you until you break them. specific laws are in place becasue people tend to try to infringe on the personal freedoms of others in the same ways over and over again.

No, what I am saying is that we should not assume that if someone buys a nuke that he will actually use it. The same argument can be applied to everything. If someone buys a .50BMG does that mean that he will use it in a bad way? Sure there is the what if he uses it to shoot some high ranking public official, however there is the equally strong what if that says he may just use it for a wall decoration. I just don't believe we should restrict someone from doing or owning something simply because the what if scenarios portray it in a bad light.

this will not work. period. no action is without consequence, nothing is free, including mistakes. that's what society is all about.if you live here and reap the rewards, you share the burden.

The epitome of a civilized society is usually followed by an downfall that is opposite to that of its rise.

laws governing the actions of minors are in place becasue minors, as a group, are incapable of making sound decisions for themselves. they are too impulsive, mentally underdeveloped, and chemically unstable. they are not physically or mentally adult yet, why should they have the freedoms of an adult? minors are not treated as sub-human, simply sub-adult. this is logical because that is exactly what they are.

The "what if"s are here as well. While I agree that the majority of our youth are incoherent morons and most of them would fit into most people's what if scenarios you have to take into acount the percentage that exibits adult thinking and rational thought.

many teens and adolescents (such as yourself) tend to gravitate toward idealist, purist, radical notions. moderation and balance are the keys to everything. only when you mix the oxygen AND the acetylene can you cut the steel.

I am fine with moderation. All I want is that we go back to a minimalistic government, the one that was laid out in the constitution. A place where congress makes laws only for the protection of freedom, not the supression of it.

And while I am an idealist we are the ones who push for our ideals. We are the ones who do not easily give up on humanity, so that when the moderation of our views come into play great documents such as the Constitution come forth, giving the moderates a start on the building of the fascist state we now live in. God I love humanity.

[OneEyedPimp]

the law is in place and a constituancy voted in the elected officials who enacted the law. i happen to agree with the law myself, so good for them for enforcing it.

A law can not be one in which the 51% vote what to do with the other 49%.

the oneyedpimp is still wet behind the ears and defending ideologies he only partially understands.

I fully understand my ideology, do you? And for now it is not a "the" just a "oneeyedpimp."

if you feel the system is flawed then vote. oh yeah, you arent old enough. good thing too.
so for now my friend too bad for you. love it or leave it.

That is the beauty of age laws, they expire. I will be able to vote in the next presidential election. And I was sincere about moving to Switzerland. I hear it is nice there.

[ultralight]

Except for the fact that the "libertarian system" was in place in this country for a good hundred and then some years.

A libertarian system, not your libertarian system. not ayn rand's libertarian system. it was not the radical on-the-verge-of-anarchy system you speak of. the constitution was not the only law for those hundred plus years.

You can not look at one side and ignore the other. We are playing a what if game in which we both choose radically opposite things and say what if this or that. The fact of the matter is this: how many people could afford a nuke?

as i said, substitute nuclear weapon for any military grade explosive. all of a sudden, alot more people can afford the destructive devices we're talking about. and there is every possibility that they would use them. i'm not dealing with extremes here, just probable outcomes. sell a man a hand grenade for $40, then have him walk in on his wife cheating on him with his brother. do you want to be there to find out if he uses the hand grenade? i don't. also, who pays millions of dollars for anything and doesn't use it? that goes for nukes, golf courses, homes, yachts, anything. the more someone pays, the more likely they'd be to use it.

No, what I am saying is that we should not assume that if someone buys a nuke that he will actually use it. The same argument can be applied to everything. If someone buys a .50BMG does that mean that he will use it in a bad way? Sure there is the what if he uses it to shoot some high ranking public official, however there is the equally strong what if that says he may just use it for a wall decoration. I just don't believe we should restrict someone from doing or owning something simply because the what if scenarios portray it in a bad light.

there is a big difference between a rifle, of any caliber, and an explosive device. it seems you have an aversion to drawing lines, differentiating between obviously different groups.

The epitome of a civilized society is usually followed by an downfall that is opposite to that of its rise.

and...?

The "what if"s are here as well. While I agree that the majority of our youth are incoherent morons and most of them would fit into most people's what if scenarios you have to take into acount the percentage that exibits adult thinking and rational thought.

you can'tlet all of the inmates go simply because one or two could be innocent. yes, the system may trample a few, but it preserves the interests of the many.

I am fine with moderation. All I want is that we go back to a minimalistic government, the one that was laid out in the constitution. A place where congress makes laws only for the protection of freedom, not the supression of it.

i agree with you in that government needs to be smaller as does the dependance of the people on it. however, no system is perfect.

And while I am an idealist we are the ones who push for our ideals. We are the ones who do not easily give up on humanity, so that when the moderation of our views come into play great documents such as the Constitution come forth, giving the moderates a start on the building of the fascist state we now live in. God I love humanity.

idealists are also the ones who incite riots that do more harm than good. idealists are the ones who are responsible for genocide. idealists have their place, as long as that place is not one of power.

[PumpPlayer]

Warbreak, you may be trying to be too scientific about this. Remember that logical arguments only work with people who are themselves logical.


Pimp, let's try this again.

You agreed that parents have authority over their children. You claim that because parents provide for their children, they have the right (perhaps even the responsibility) to dictate their behavior.

Let's take this one step further. How about adopted children?
I'm going to assume you agree that adopted children would bear the same protection, provision and responsibility as "normal" children.

Let's take it one more step. How about aging or ailing family members or friends?
If I take in my 95-year-old grandmother to care for her, do I then have the right to dictate certain things like where she sleeps, what she can or cannot eat (no junk food, Nana!) and other day-to-day decisions? I should think so, don't you?

Lastly, the final step is taking someone under your protection or provision who is a stranger to you. A traveller lost on his way with three flat tires in a snowstorm or whatever the specific case may be. It's my house, so I make the rules, so to speak. Right?

Now extrapolate to society and public services. And don't bother, I'll counter myself with what I can expect your argument to be.


Government doesn't have the responsibility to help anyone!


At least, that is what I expect you would say.
At this point, you have to take a stance based upon your moral fiber. You are a moral relativist. There is no right or wrong except what affects you. If it affects you and you like it, then it's OK. If it affects you and you don't like it, then it's wrong. The problem with this moral system is many-fold. I will go over only three key points. First is the lack of urgency when considering the situation of another. Second is the lack of empathy when one comes to the realization that one's decisions affect others. Third and most importantly is the lack of universal or absolute standards to govern a decision-making process.

"Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" does not work. The entire world is not relative and the human emotional web (to say nothing of our systems of interaction such as economical and social) is too complex for any one being to be truly hermetic.


Let me put this is a sentence you can understand.
Your proposed social system, like your moral code, is fundamentally corrupt, impossible and evil.


You are under the false pretense that so long as you 'live and let live', all others will do the same.
You are under the false pretense that some human beings in our world do not need assistance from others.
You are under the false pretense that the respect and civility provided you by other human beings bears with it no responsibility on your part.
Lastly, you are under the false pretense that everything you "know" is correct.

You are an American teenager and you are the reason the voting age is 18.




I think you'll find Switzerland a lot less glorious in reality than you might think it is.
You want to talk about social responsibility, taxation and state authority...

[OneEyedPimp]

Warbreak, you may be trying to be too scientific about this. Remember that logical arguments only work with people who are themselves logical.

I take contempt to that

Pimp, let's try this again.

You agreed that parents have authority over their children. You claim that because parents provide for their children, they have the right (perhaps even the responsibility) to dictate their behavior.

Let's take this one step further. How about adopted children?
I'm going to assume you agree that adopted children would bear the same protection, provision and responsibility as "normal" children.

Let's take it one more step. How about aging or ailing family members or friends?
If I take in my 95-year-old grandmother to care for her, do I then have the right to dictate certain things like where she sleeps, what she can or cannot eat (no junk food, Nana!) and other day-to-day decisions? I should think so, don't you?

Lastly, the final step is taking someone under your protection or provision who is a stranger to you. A traveller lost on his way with three flat tires in a snowstorm or whatever the specific case may be. It's my house, so I make the rules, so to speak. Right?

Now extrapolate to society and public services. And don't bother, I'll counter myself with what I can expect your argument to be.

Well, I agree with everything you said. As long as the government provides for us(makes us pay taxes to provide for others) they make the rules[.] Whether I am against that is another question.

Government doesn't have the responsibility to help anyone!

I said what any man with two penises would say to a tailor when asked if he dressed left or right: yes.

At least, that is what I expect you would say.
At this point, you have to take a stance based upon your moral fiber. You are a moral relativist. There is no right or wrong except what affects you. If it affects you and you like it, then it's OK. If it affects you and you don't like it, then it's wrong. The problem with this moral system is many-fold. I will go over only three key points. First is the lack of urgency when considering the situation of another. Second is the lack of empathy when one comes to the realization that one's decisions affect others. Third and most importantly is the lack of universal or absolute standards to govern a decision-making process.

What affects me is not necessarily wrong. What affects me in a way that infringes upon my rights is.

One, as I said, others welfare does not fall into my juristicion of "have-tos" as the government would have me think. I am not heartless and would help a fellow human, but I am not going to make that the mandate for the government.
Two, decisions that I make on a day-to-day basis dont affect others in a way that abridges their rigts. I actually don't make any such descisions, that is the politician's job.
Three, the decision making process is the right of the people to do for themselves, if they want to vote that the government is to now do that, so be it. It is a friggin democracy after all.

"Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" does not work. The entire world is not relative and the human emotional web (to say nothing of our systems of interaction such as economical and social) is too complex for any one being to be truly hermetic.

Why would it not work? Have you seen a system in which people are free to do as they please provided that they do not infringe on others rights? And if they do, they get severe punishment?

Let me put this is a sentence you can understand.
Your proposed social system, like your moral code, is fundamentally corrupt, impossible and evil.

Wow, thanks. It all makes sense now. Next time it might help if you break it into syllables so that I can sound it out easier.

You are under the false pretense that so long as you 'live and let live', all others will do the same.
You are under the false pretense that some human beings in our world do not need assistance from others.
You are under the false pretense that the respect and civility provided you by other human beings bears with it no responsibility on your part.
Lastly, you are under the false pretense that everything you "know" is correct.

You are an American teenager and you are the reason the voting age is 18.

You really have no proof that they system that I propose will fail. You base it around the fact of human nature. I believe that my system would work if you violate someone else, the punishment should be swift and very harsh.

I suppose that I also subscribe to Social Darwinism. I really don't care that other people may need more help than some, it is just not my responsibility, or any one elses, to help them.

I have never claimed that what I "know" is fact. These are just opinions of mine in which I believe would be a "perfect" world.

So why is it me who is the reason the voting age is 18? When I turn 18 and I vote on my priciples that I have now, will I be the reason that society is going down the drain? As an American, any age, I am entitled to my opinions as much as you and just having them doesnt mean that they will magically change when I turn 18, making me proof that 18 is the golden year.

I think you'll find Switzerland a lot less glorious in reality than you might think it is.
You want to talk about social responsibility, taxation and state authority...

Yeah, I know. It is a joke that my friends and I share. I do want to visit though.