Message from @Viτriol²
Discord ID: 651353546050109453
Lately a lot of historic statues have been destroyed or vandalized, and the people who've done so had no interest in purchasing them beforehand
I think the consent of the governed; the majority should be represented when the community has contentions about a move.
In fact I would argue people who are willing to put up the money to buy a historic statue are far less keen on destroying it, speaking on average
No matter what that move is.
If that is true, then how effective is that regulation? I see nothing being done about those statues that have been destroyed
I agree that that is terrible, but it has nothing to do with my argument. I would argue that those were systems of organization that failed in upholding the will of the people, or perhaps the will of the people was with the iconoclasts who destroyed them and in that case I would be in the minority that wants history to be preserved.
I think the will of the people is either upheld by the people or it isn't upheld at all
I like to draw a comparison to Star Wars under Disney
The problem is that there is a clear contrast between anarchy and monopoly of force.
And a clear lifecycle for a human organization.
Meaning it grows exponentially until it is unable to.
I'm not sure what you mean
If you dismantle government; business would take on the mantles of government and become like government.
Because there would be a vacuum.
I know, and I accept that fact, but that's not a moral argument but a practical one
As far as I am concerned, no moral philosophy that isn't concerned with practical application is of much use to anyone.
I beg to differ
The practicality of spreading ideas is well documented
I mean why advocate a position that is impractical and not applicable to real-life?
You never know what comes next, everything starts with an idea
We have done that already
I think it's time to continue thinking
I mean always keep thinking, and I can spout non-sensical overblown straight out the top of my dome ideas as well. And in a discussion we can try to reach the reasonable middle-ground, and I can try to make a point with an overly ideal narrative.
But as far as my actual political position goes will always be the one I think would work the best when applied.
I don't know how my idea is overblown non-sensical
I was talking about my own, haha.
My point stands though.
I'm making two arguments
One is that I think all initiation of force is immoral
Thus the government is immoral
I disagree with that.
But I do see where you are coming from.
My second argument is that every move towards liberty is moral, thus we should increase liberty
Like poverty, I think the application of force is inherit to our species.
How would you define liberty?
Liberty is when another person doesn't infringe on your pursuits (that must abide by the same principle)
I often use the word "human thriving" which is essentially when a human being feels he is in the right time, at the right place, doing the right things. I suppose my moral philosophy would be to attempt to maximize that.
A feels ideology?
Yes, I'm not ashamed of that.
I think people should have good lives and feel good about them.