Comment: I won't debate the word moral specifically...

(See in situ)


wolfe's picture

I won't debate the word moral specifically...

Because I only use it to shortcut certain concepts in communication, to state the difference between right/wrong.

As far as your imaginary scenario about being subject to absurd laws invented by someone. Do you believe in property rights or not? Apparently not.

When you decide to enforce your laws on another person, on their property, that is a violation of property rights.

What if your law said weed was illegal? Would you enter my land to enforce that law? Both examples, murder and weed are equally absurd extremes. The difference is that yours is a natural consequence of trying to get people to agree on laws. So long as there is no opt-out competition mechanism, there will constantly be fighting over what is a valid law.

First, the scenario is highly unlikely in the real world due to retaliation and competition and it also happens to be absurd.

However, that is currently how governments function. To deny that is to ignore reality. When you enter a country, you are subject to it's laws, even the ridiculous, unfair, and corrupt ones. By entering the country you agree to be bound by them and agree to the consequences of those laws.

There are many ways throughout the world that murder is defined very differently. You are subject to the laws of the location. If you do not want to be subject to them, don't go.

What we offer is no different than what exists today in terms pf possibility. We have offer a system which has a different motivation set and therefore a market driven, preferable outcome.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/