16 votes

Statist Morality: Not Only Do The Stupid Deserve To Suffer,

but they ought be be locked in cages or mental institutions for their stupid decisions even when no harm is done.

I propose we all write our legislators demanding comprehensive IQ reform to fix gross injustices of nature. I am suggesting extensive IQ redistribution programs. Stupid people dealt a bad hand should get at least one ace up their sleeve so they can be occasional winners. I am also suggesting a progressive IQ tax to further even the playing field.

A prisoner survey was published by the Board of Trustees of Western Pennsylvania in 1927. Conducted by W.T. Root, Jr. titled; A Survey of 1,916 Prisoners in the Western Penitentiary of Pennsylvania concluded "the median intelligence of every racial group of prisoners lies either in the middle borderline or upper moron group of intelligence."

Considering how many more millions of people are incarcerated in the United States today than 1927, it can be concluded with certainty society is experiencing an epidemic of stupidity. The current fiscal health of the nation dictates we can no longer afford to incarcerate or institutionalize stupid people at exponential rates.

If the trend of intelligence deteriorating as quickly as family values continues, the median intelligence of every racial group in society will fall well below the upper moron group of intelligence. It is quickly approaching a matter of national security and vital state interest. Put plainly, we are talking about our very survival as a human species. Our very survival depends on establishing new social programs to start redistributing IQ.

I know many libertarians would be against redistribution or taxation under normal circumstances based on the non-aggression principle, and so would I, but this is clearly a self authenticating exception to the rule. I know I can count on your support!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

umm...they already have one

umm...they already have one ace up their sleeve. It's called the lottery. Duh.

/sarcasm...maybe?

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

Mistaken premise.

The state is not a moral institution, anymore than markets and law. It's a necessary evil. There are in fact collectivist moralists who believe in the State as a moral agent to equalize outcomes, but they are wrong for other reasons, and equally ridiculous to the libertarian moralists. Realistic people don't try to back up a social system of property rights or law or government on the basis of claims to moral absolutes. So this post is simply misconceived and reflects a misunderstanding (or non reading) of my own, interesting post. But that is par for the course for His Fantasy.

Can you give us an example of a moral institution?

Oh, let me guess, the Catholic Church? That's a sidesplitter.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Institutions

are how we deal with reality, which seems to be amoral.

If there is a deeper moral reality behind reality, we can grasp it dimly if at all.

not sure we ever got your take on morality

What is it? Where does it come from?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Don't be coy

My view has been on display for very long time.

Ontological:
a. If a creator, then objective moral values
b. If none, then all morality subjective

Epistemic:
a. If a creator, then inwardly known right and wrong subject to discovery/direct revelations
b. If none, then social and cultural evolution, self interest, group interest, empathy and reciprocity, social conformity/guilt instinct, fear of consequences, etc.

Actually

you made a quite logical point here, and as far as it goes, is not a bad comment. A factor is missing though.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Oh really?

Picking a definition of moral out of Google thin air:

Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

So then why would you describe it as a "necessary evil" which is a moral expression? The mistaken premise is the contradiction in your first two sentences. "The state is not a moral institution ... it's a necessary evil." Now that is pretty darn funny if you ask me.

The principle of right and wrong behavior for statists is evil is necessary. When circumstances are identified to justify aggression in advance it is because a little evil is necessary. When one is caged for making a stupid decision involving no harm it is because a little evil is necessary. Taxes? A little evil is necessary. Pre-emptive war? A little evil is necessary. Drone strike? A little evil is necessary.

The origin of free markets is an answer to how should scarce resources be allocated? There are only two known possibilities 1) wise overlords, 2) price mechanism.

Getting back to:

"There are in fact collectivist moralists who believe in the State as a moral agent to equalize outcomes, but they are wrong for other reasons, and equally ridiculous to the libertarian moralists."

The state is an ethical theory for good application of wise overlords overseeing allocation of scarce resources using necessary evil. Libertarian principals of self ownership and non-aggression are ethical theories for good application of the price mechanism using voluntary means. There is no interesting point you can make when there is a fundamental misconception evil, let alone necessary evil, is not a moral concept.

Bill is right

Nothing more to say

If something is a necessary evil

then it's not a good.

If that is true ...

then how can any theory for limiting wise overlords overseeing allocation of scarce resources using necessary but limited evil be good? Does evil become good if it is limited? Should evil be tolerated?

Not sure what you're talking about.

You seem unable to stick with a particular point and develop it.

Does evil

become good if it is limited? Should evil be tolerated?

Evil, in the sense we are using the term

(I am, anyway) term, are things like pain and violence, hunger, scarcity, privation. Not exactly to be tolerated or not tolerated, just part of the real world. The term 'evil' in this context is not in the sense of a specific moral system or judgement, just the kind of stuff most of us want to avoid for the remainder of our lives.

The best thing to clear up your thinking is make an effort not to equivocate the various different senses of a term by accident. Lots of people fall into this without realizing.

So you need to back up a few steps and untangle these kinds of evils from what you're talking about, in a different sense of the term, i.e., actions you consider immoral on some specific theory of morality. It is your theory of morality I would regard as false and intellectually unsound.

You are using evil in a context to

describe a condition or conflate behavior and condition. An evil odor. Your comment is non-sense, which can be demonstrated by applying the exact same question above to your response:

Does pain become something you do not want to avoid for the remainder of your life if pain is limited?
Does violence become something you do not want to avoid for the remainder of your life if violence is limited?
Does hunger become something you do not want to avoid for the remainder of your life if hunger is limited?
Does scarcity become something you do not want to avoid for the remainder of your life if scarcity is limited?
Does privation become something you do not want to avoid for the remainder of your life if privation is limited?

I could also have written it:
Does pain become the opposite of something you want to avoid for the remainder of your life it pain is limited?

Should pain be tolerated?
Should violence be tolerated?
Should hunger be tolerated?
Should scarcity be tolerated? (interesting implications for intellectual property)
Should privation be tolerated?

What you seem to have a problem doing is answering a direct question. It is a reoccurring pattern. Instead of answering a direct question you come up with some bullshit that does not make sense when the same exact question can be applied to your bullshit.

Does evil become good, it's opposite, or something you would not want to avoid for the remainder of your life if limited? Should evil be tolerated?

You're still equivocating, don't even realize it

You're mixing the two different senses of evil. You're extrapolating something like a natural evil, pain or a wild animal attack, with a normative moral system, which is much more controversial. I'm not mixing terms at all.

If it is as you say,

you have must have a contradicting example. What is your example of an evil, in any sense of the term, if limited becomes good, its opposite, or something you would not want to avoid for the rest of your life?

I think all of your examples

are in fact things that are good to limit, but can't be eliminated. Institutions which serve to limit these natural evils may not be considered good per se, but necessary evils. Like taking harsh medicine to cure a worse evil, we wouldn't necessarily call the medicine - or an amputation - a good. Rather, a necessary evil. It's not really a moral judgment, it's just our human displeasure with those elements of reality that prod us along to action. The dissatisfaction, pains and anxieties that Mises called uneasiness. Since human violence is one of those things, the instituions which manage such are necessary evils if there is no functional alternative that is free of all evil. Now, you believe in candyland, we know that, where magic keeps everything together with no government and all force is banished, but this is stupid as all the discussion has shown.

Getting a straight answer out of you

surely must be worse than a dental extraction. To recap thus far:

Evil can not be eliminated.
Not tolerating evil by intervening to limit it, is good.
Limited evil is still evil.

Since you want to talk about candyland ...

In your candyland, there is a magic called separation of power limiting evil to keep it in check. In your candyland, separated powers are possessed by different subdivisions of one entity in a given geographical territory.

In my candyland, the magic called separation of power includes competition among more than one entity in a given geographical region to keep it in check.

There is little point debating the merits of competition here because they are self evident to any historically astute individual. In the technology sector, separation of power which includes competition is better than one entity providing technology solutions. The internet has further demonstrated the benefits of competition in media. The only objection statists present to competition in currency, justice, or defense services is that it can not work. It is not even dismissed by argument, it is done on appeal to emotion. It is dismissing the concept of competition without merit.

Where it starts to get even more absurd is in light of premises above. Intervening to limit evil is good. Competition imposes a greater limit than legitimized monopoly. One need not rely only upon market examples. There is no global government because competition places limits upon competing nation states. Not only is the concept of competition dismissed without merit, its dismissal defies your own espoused belief that limiting evil is good. Those weren't my examples you said were good things to limit ... they were yours.

.

In my candyland, the magic called separation of power includes competition among more than one entity in a given geographical region to keep it in check.

We already have this in a geographical region, called the continents and earth. The competing agencies are called governments, and they don't permit competition in their geographic monopoly. You have no way of making them do so.

So you acknowledge

competition works? If it does in fact work what possible objection could you have to more competition?

Competition

between autonomous force monopolizing agents can never be stopped, or started. Everyone is always free to use force individually or with a group. Therefore, competition has produced the current distribution of force agents.

You're still equivocating

You began by simply assuming the conclusion you wish to prove, i.e., that government is evil in the a moral sense of the term. The sense of natural evils that are inherent in natural reality or human social interaction are not the same as an action judged to be evil in a moral sense.

You've yet to unequivocate the terms, and have not established that government is a moral evil.

I hardly need to

when you admit government is a necessary evil. This whole notion of yours that evil is not evil is pretty dam absurd. Guess what, here is some of your bullshit back at ya ... You did not say government is a necessary "moral evil" therefore I did not use the phrase "moral evil" at any point. You go on and on about how you did not mean "moral evil" when you say evil but I meant "moral evil" when I said evil. Good and evil is what defines moral. You can't separate evil from moral. If anyone is trying to be deceptive it is he who bitches moral and evil do not fit together like peas in a pod. If you do not like the fact moral and evil are inseparable then use a different dam term. There is no moral sense of the term evil, it is a moral term. The so called senses of the term evil make a distinction between evil of human behavior and evil of a condition. Guess what, if it is an evil behavior or condition it is immoral because both cases are examples of unacceptable standards. When someone says an odor is evil it is implied the odor is immoral because it is unacceptable. Hey, I think this odor is downright evil, what do you think? It is not that bad but surely it is bad. Those may be some colorful uses of language but government is a necessary evil isn't that colorful. When people say government is a necessary evil they mean it is downright evil because:

Government is an an entity with a majority of force, over a given geographic territory, which asserts authority not possessed by ordaining constituents who constitute its source of power. (Note: no use of the terms good or evil required)

When people say government is a necessary evil they mean it is down right evil to steal from or murder people. When people say government is evil they don't dodge simple questions and keep responding with bullshit evil doesn't actually mean evil because they meant evil in a non-moral sense. Most people have common sense enough to know separating evil from moral is impossible because moral is defined by good and evil. I would have said all people but apparently you are the one special flower in the universe constituting an exception to the common sense rule.

Government is

a necessarily evil in the univocal sense of the term offered above. It is not a moral evil. It is an institution that limits and manages natural evils that can't be eliminated. If you have a special little moral theory that says government is moral evil, you will need to develop that independently and unequivocally from the sense of the term evil to which I refer.

RE: Sense of the term to which you refer

I require proof of claim government exists independent of human agents.

I require proof of claim government can limit or manage anything without human agents.

No such claim has been made.

Please quote if it has.

RE: It has been asserted repeatedly

"Government is a necessarily evil in the univocal sense of the term offered above. It is not a moral evil."

How could I overlook some of your best bullshit:

"You're still equivocating. You began by simply assuming the conclusion you wish to prove."

Equivocate: use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.

Consider this little gem:

"The sense of natural evils that are inherent in natural reality or human social interaction are not the same as an action judged to be evil in a moral sense."

A quick philosophy lesson, a short version on the Problem of Evil:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
3. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

That doesn't represent the entire subject but one objection is free will. God can not be logically blamed for evils of human choice. The atheist would say, ok what about natural evils which are independent of human action? Natural evil, not moral, are a reason atheists claim God can not be omnibenevolent.

"Natural evil, or surd evil, is a term generally used in discussions of the problem of evil and theodicy that refers to states of affairs which, considered in themselves, are those that are part of the natural world, and so are independent of the intervention of a human agent. It stands in contrast to moral evil. Both natural and moral evil are a challenge to religious believers. Many atheists claim that natural evil is proof that there is no God, at least not an omnipotent, omnibenevolent one, as such a being would not allow such evil to happen to his/her creation."

"Moral evil results from a perpetrator, or one who acts intentionally and in so doing has flouted some duty or engaged in some vice. Natural evil has only victims, and is generally taken to be the result of natural processes. The "evil" thus identified is evil only from the perspective of those affected and who perceive it as an affliction. Examples include cancer, birth defects, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, acts of god, and other phenomena which inflict suffering with apparently no accompanying mitigating good. Such phenomena inflict "evil" on victims with no perpetrator to blame."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

It is not I who equivocates, it is you. You created your own little special definition of natural evil and have regurgitated bullshit all over this series of comments your sense of the term evil is not a moral sense "by simply assuming the conclusion you wish to prove."

Now, let's get back to the matter at hand:

I require proof of claim government exists independent of human agents.

I require proof of claim government can limit or manage anything without human agents.

If evils of government are dependent on intentional (is there any other kind?) human action it is a moral evil!

"Moral evil is the result of any morally negative event caused by the intentional action or inaction of an agent, such as a person. An example of a moral evil might be murder, or any other evil event for which someone can be held responsible or culpable.

This concept can be contrasted with natural evil in which a bad event occurs without the intervention of an agent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_evil

I am even going to go on a limb and give you the biggest benefit of doubt possible:

"The dividing line between natural and moral evil is not absolutely clear however, as some behaviour can be unintentional yet morally significant and some natural events (for example, global warming) can be caused by intentional actions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_evil

Are you suggesting government was not established by human agents intentionally? Are you suggesting government actors do not act intentionally? Are you arguing the unintended consequences of a drone strike killing innocent civilians somehow becomes a natural evil, not moral evil, because they were not an intended target? Get the hell out of here with your equivocating and give me a break. I want to know how strongly you believe in your own bullshit. If I suggested we put an apple on your head so I can attempt to shoot it would you object?

Finally, "if you have a special little moral theory that says government is" NOT a "moral evil," because it exists independent of human agents acting intentionally "you will need to develop that independently and unequivocally from the sense of the term evil to which" you have been referring.

You've mistakenly conflated two separate points into one.

Your equivocation of the different senses of Evil, moral vs. a natural evil, was a separate crime from your assuming at the outset the conclusion that government is a moral evil. You've merely compounded your error level exponentially and dug deeper.

You have mistakenly conflated two points on a theory of evil

into one to arguing government as a necessary evil is akin to a natural disaster independent of human action. What can we expect next, an argument racketeering is not crime because human social interactions are a natural, not moral, evil?

I have pointed out you can't even use your own sense of the term in a proper context without conflating evil deriving from human action and evil deriving from nature. In addition, you have repeatedly demonstrated you are incapable of answering a direct question. You have repeatedly demonstrated you are incapable of presenting any valid premises for your concluded presumptions for any theory of evil. Since I did not assert any natural sense of the term evil, the burden of proof is not on me. Nor am I obligated to believe in any specific theory of evil to point out government is not a akin to a natural disaster void of human action. Since you have clearly demonstrated you are incapable of meaningful communication my only response is to await evidence for:

I require proof of claim government exists independent of human agents.

I require proof of claim government can limit or manage anything without human agents.