Well ok, so no one should infringe on anything or anyone, right?

Correct. If a commune wishes to practice an internalized and isolated iteration of socialism; fine. This is about leaving people to live according to how they see fit, as it was meant to be. As I said, the economic interests of a firm in New York should have no sway upon 25 other Senators from fly-over country, in seeking a regulation that secures a monopoly for them, yet leaves the constituency disadvantaged within those other States and Districts, with their entrepreneurs unable to enter and compete in various industries relating to those regulated on behalf of those interests in New York.

Anyway, I've got to get going.

Why would you be anti-federal if you were utilitarian?

I've got to take a family member in for surgery, so we'll pick this up in the future.

Because the needs of the many should trump those of the few, if you're a utilitarian.

I’m utilitarian and I believe the federal state is the best way to achieve my aims.

Federalism is anti to federal state.

I know the words seem to confuse people, as they assume the meaning behind them.

Anyway, taking off!

I'm also very confused by this argument

Mine, or his?

His

I'm not utilitarian in principle, but I think I understand correctly that federalism and utilitarianism go very much hand in hand, and separating them seems very odd

I do understand however why federalism may be anti federal state

Not neccessarily anti, but... also not neccessarily pro

It would allow those federal states to exist and give people more localised control, but what powers the states have and how they’re managed, etc is up for debate. For sure.

Right, so federalism wouldn't be anti federal state, just anti... radical self-governance

Yes.

It’s obviously more centralised than I imagine he would like.

I mean, what one would like or wouldn't like is a tough question for a debate in itself (for example you're utilitarian, and I'm mostly anti-utilitarian, with virtually no exceptions, and this would certainly cause a heated exchange of opinions), but at least when discussing these things, how these principles overlap should certainly be understood first

As I understand it, its in the very nature of federalism to see people as numbers, not as beings to respect equally under all circumstances

Yeah agreed. You need a base understanding, somewhere to stand and then build from.

And I put no emphasis on "equally", but on "respect"

A federation, by its very nature, does not respect man, unless I have a fundamental misunderstanding about that

It certainly does not respect a man's freedom

It depends on the federation and what it has in place. A constitution can be used to ensure rights / freedoms of citizens for example.

I agree to you, to an extent. The federal government does not ‘respect’ the individual, because it has no need to.

That’s the role of the federal state.

The individual states, or more local institutions deal with the individual.

The role of the federal state IMO is to maximise happiness for as many as possible

Done through policies such as, universal healthcare, budget application, tax policy, etc.

As long as MORE people are economically well off, I personally don’t care about giving them uber freedoms.

Right, so it must be utilitarian

Not neccessarily egalitarian, but it could be of course

Sure, like anything really

It doesn’t HAVE to be egalitarian to be utilitarian.

But, generally those go together

And what I’d support.

Right, so that's one of the issues of utilitarianism. Both within and without the group of utilitarians (e.g. federalists), there's a fundamental disagreement about egalitarianism, and this causes many injustices

Some believe that a convergence to equality (whichever one) is good, some don't, and this divide questions the legitimacy of utilitarianism within its own governance

And then there are anti-utilitarians (like me) who question the legitimacy of the whole governance.
Reconciling all these groups on any level is impossible.

I agree, which is probably why we will just get slow doses of it over time.

Doses of what?

Egalitarianism

In my view, this is the way society is headed anyway.

It *seems* whether people disagree with egalitarianism or not, they’re slowly getting more of it.

For example, more and more countries are becoming socially liberal, something that pushes egalitarianism.

That seems impossible, there will always be those with most of the power, and those with virtually none

The argument for that is, the power difference can be lowered

Both socially and economically

And that’s what you see happening today. Government and parties attempting to do that.

It's a paradox, if you strive to create equality of power and you need power to do so, then you're creating a power imbalance

The harder you try to create a power equality, the less you can actually have it

The argument for that then would be, remove the barriers to getting that power. IE, allow people to run for office and government.

So even if there’s a power imbalance there, anyone could get that by running for office and getting elected by their peers.

That's too inefficient, no one would win

Why not? One offers something the other does not, something more beneficial to the voter.

It’s a free market of ideas. 😉

Who decides who has the best arguments?

The voters.

Then that's a power imbalance

How so? Everyone can vote equally?

Because the losers are not "morally wrong", they just lose

For example

It's the most simple example, but it also happens on a large scale unless tempered

Two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner

Clearly the sheep is going to lose

This is the fundamental flaw of a democratic system, it doesn't change anything about a power imbalance, in fact it brings it out

I understand what you mean, you can use different methods of voting and election to achieve as much equality as possible

In my view, that would be better than the current system. Even if it’s not 100% perfect.

My goal is to minimise that inequality as much as possible.

Even if I don’t achieve 100% equality, it doesn’t matter. As long as we’re closer to it, that’s fine.

The way I see it, the solution to this problem lies in an anti-democratic approach

Democracy must be tempered, not absolute

Then the problem is, how do people get elected to govern themselves?

Raffle?

For example, the solution of the wolves and the sheep lies in letting the sheep have guns so if they lose the vote they can kill the wolves

Which means the wolves won't vote to eat the sheep

The problem is, how do you decide who governs who?

That's an eternal struggle, governance is inevitable (as demonstrated by history)

Injustice, inequality, imbalance, and suffering as a result, it's part of life

But surely we can try minimise those injustices, inequality, imbalance and suffering 😉

For me it's about mitigating the cost on a moral individualistic level, not on a collective level

Well

What's the difference between two people dying or one person dying?

The utilitarian answer is: it's twice the cost because two is twice than one
My answer: no difference

Some people misunderstand what I mean by this

So let me explain

Please do

We can either place value on life, or we don't. If we place value on life, we can do this either by numbers of lives, or by the simple distinction between life and death.

Ergo we can say death is terrible just because it's death, or we can say death is more or less terrible depending on how many people die.

Fuck, I want to continue this, but I need to head out..

I only make a distinction between life and death, not between numbers of dead people.

Every single death is bad. More dead people are not more bad, they're just equally bad. It doesn't add up, it stays level.

so killing 1 baby is equal to killing a hundred?🤔

That’s what I was just typing

Yes, in my opinion it's the same. If you kill one, you could just as well kill a hundred, so you should be tried the same either way.

bruh

thats... an intresting way of looking at things

If that one death was violent and painful, would it be any different from the 100 deaths which may have been peaceful in their sleep?

If you deserve death for killing 100 babies, then you also deserve death for killing one.
If you don't deserve death for killing one baby, then you also don't deserve death for killing 100.

Makes communist death stats irrelevant

There's a difference between a murderer and a serial killer...

I know there's a difference, and I've thought about that

But to me it's purely numerical

A utilitarian sees added moral value in numbers, I don't

If you kill one person that's life, if you kill hundreds that's a death sentence

In this instance it might just depend on the person. I mean to you or me, we'd see the baby's death as a bad thing. To the parent, it's so much more devastating

I think if you murder 100 people, and you deserve death for that, then you should also deserve that for only murdering 1 person.

No I don't believe in death for killing one person as that's an eye for an eye territory which is morally questionable

That's the utilitarian morality

My morality is anti-utilitarian

Each individual counts

Surely it'd be better to make that person spend the rest of their life living with the consequences of their actions?

Death is too easy an escape

Well, that's how we've handled it so far

I see it more like this:

A serial killer is more likely to kill again, and that's why it makes pragmatic sense to kill him

True

But from a purely moralistic standpoint, there's no difference in my opinion

And since the world isn't purely moralistic, and utility matters, anti-utilitarian views are irrelevant.

Well, no I think it's not about utility

Or rather

I don't think it should be

I think it should be about pragmatism instead

Well, people shouldn't starve, but they do.

Morality and pragmatism, not uility

I see what you're saying, a murderer can only become a serial killer by killing again but if the murderer is in prison for life then only a murderer not caught early enough can become a serial killer

That's the pragmatic side of the argument, yes

The only difference between the two is how quickly justice is brought down

Morally speaking, I'd either kill both, or none, unless I have a pragmatic reason to differ

For example I'd kill Hitler, but not a one-time murderer, because I think pragmatism is important

I'd kill neither, and extract forced labour from them to cover expenses of imprisonment and turn a profit.

bruh haha

Or that, why not

I see nothing wrong with it

Serial killers tend not to be affected by their actions so killing them is better then letting them live as they don't regret what they did. But a single murderer is more likely to regret his one murder so life is justified

@Goddess Tyche that is also a reasonable response

Why is regret important?

Because it adds punishment

It's worse to live with what you've done then be absolved of it by death

But we can't really tell if people regret what they did or not

We can be fooled easily

True but statistically single murderers are more likely to feel regret then serial killers because of a phycological difference

Justice shouldn't be about statistics

However there are more single murderers then serial killers so if you wanted to keep prison population down then kill the murderer

Oh I'm not saying justice is but I'd rather a man live knowing what he's done then letting him be free with death

I think that would just scare innocent people of coming forward, as well as guilty ones

Doesn't seem useful

Probably I'm just running through different scenarios

It's interesting to view the situation from all angles

Right

Anyway, I hope I was able to demonstrate the flaws of utilitarianism as I see it

Not saying we should never make utilitarian choices

-isms are dangerous

Anything taken to an extreme is dangerous

At least parlament is being suspended today

Suspended? Like, by their necks? From the streetlights?

Well guess which fake news media has been around aztec west

Todays religous zealot mail removed

Good thing I got a new shredder

Noice

>let's spend the money on NHS instead

>conveniently forgetting that EU will take the money every year forever if you stay

>Yet the economic benefits we get due to being in the EU actually make it easier for us to fund the NHS.

>Forgets to mention that.

>EU bad

<:npc:502497359419408384>

<:ThinkingSayori:594297872187654144>

I'm reading through, while I sit in the lobby, waiting to observe this ophthalmological operation. I'll never understand how people can write on these touch-screen displays, as I haven't the patience.

<:thinkcide2:462282425486147585>

It's like smearing your feces on a cave wall, comes to them naturally

https://tenor.com/view/boomer-4chan-meme-birb-funny-gif-12208339

>greek opinion

Quiet broke bitch

>britbong opinion
Quiet anglojew

Ok german vassal

I mean i say that

But if our forein enemy manages to derail brexit we too will be german vassals

Thanks remainers you scum

LMAO

Git fucked britbong

you arent an empire anymore

just accept it that britannia will never rule the waves again

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898> <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898> <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898> <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898> <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898> <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898> <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

Slience vassal

Havent you gotta ask mama merkel to talk

Or her brother Ahmed

Ew

What is that

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/30/opinions/african-migrants-mexico-us-canada-driver/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fopinions

Sorry Canada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInF-tGFIbw

Some serious truth here

https://www.foxnews.com/world/amidst-tariff-threats-mexico-announces-56-decrease-in-number-of-illegal-immigrants-crossing-into-us

Oh yea

Oh yea

Oh yea

Oh yea

Too little, too late

Better then nothing

The thumbnail makes it sound like they made up a lower number so the tariffs stop <:smugon:512048583806025739>

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-parliament-prorogue-suspend-brexit-commons-latest-a9097401.html?amp

Bercow quit
🎵 Move bitch! Get out the way! 🎵

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1171073832980926465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1171073832980926465&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fuk-politics-parliaments-49636684

We still have to wait until October 31st for him to go

Gunz r bad mkay

trudat

broda

Guns are the best

We should have the right to bear arms in the UK

Tulsi Gabbard was on the Rubin Report yesterday. Seems like a pretty cool lady on most fronts apart from being pro-reparations or at least pro exploring the notion

who watches dave rubbin tho

London would literally be Mad Max world if we had more lax gun laws
...maybe we should have guns

Guns would be better

Everyone watches Rubin. We just dont like it.

If the criminals in London knew that all potential victims would be armed they would stop or be killed

huh

He was much better before Prager ahegoa'd him into Objectivism

why tho

I thought loads of people in El Paso were carrying but did nothing in the shooting?

Because no criminal wants to die, If the criminals knew there victims would be armed they would stop and the few that didn't would eventually end up being shot by their attempted victims

The El Paso shooting took place in a No gun zone did it not?

What percentage of mass shooters on the States have been stopped by civilian guns?

Most

And I don't know about that one

I will try to find the statistics on it

Hold on

Ok

I have found the statistics for 2012

Of the cases when the police were too slow 33% were stopped by armed potential victims

The police arrived on the scene in time in 51% of cases

<:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480> <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

http://dlvr.it/RClhYk

That is not surprising

Surely she can be prosecuted now?

Muh Hippocampus

I R E M E M B E R T H E L A U G H T E R

>Shoved down my throat

Huh, I didn't realize that people were being forced at Gun point to see this movie

http://dlvr.it/RCkLDK

**SOCIETY**

https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/1171082806883020800

I saw that

a ratio of 1/6

Not bad

could do better

He rescued 116