The Atheist Agora

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

TheEncogitationer wrote:

And none of it would be possible without governments outlawing plants and certain chemical configurations to create the black markets for them.

I have often wondered, what if we went full libertarian by legalizing all drugs and making it also legal for employers and landlords to discriminate against drug users to protect their own businesses.

Let’s have every electric company with different standards and voltages and no uniform electrical codes and same with plumbing. Let’s have every communication company spraying out whatever frequencies they want. What could go wrong? Drinking water and food safety standards are just handcuffs, drink and eat at your own risk. If you die, don’t buy that product anymore.  Speed limits are bullshit too. Pedal to the metal. Smoke whatever and wherever you want. Hell, get yourselves some real grenades and some TNT for the 4th. Let’s dump whatever we want, wherever we want. Hey there’s the river.

For every regulation there was a big fuck-up and if it all seems just like red-tape you just don’t get it. Packaging up risky mortgages into security products and then reselling them five times seems like a good idea..keep writing them, the more the better! GO GO GO!

Let’s just deregulate everything and the courts can deal with it all or better yet settle it with RPGs.

[UnseenParticipant]

@Reg

The main problem with potheads is that they are overly mellow to the point of you finding yourself doing their work just to get the work done, whereas a cokehead is actually boorish, narcissistic, and potentially dangerous. Tweakers are Cokeheads to a greater degree and are likely to commit crimes or act out of extreme paranoia. Heroin users are like all of the above depending where they are in terms of their need cycle.

@ Robert

I was only talking about going “full libertarian” when it comes to drugs, not construction standards, food safety standards, speed limits, etc. I forgot to mention that drugs wouldn’t just be legal but would be available at little or no cost.

 

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by  Unseen.

[DavisModerator]

Once you allow the government to impose speed limits, it is a slippery slope to the government eventually implanting chips in every citizen’s brain. Speed limits are anti-freedom, anti-American and probably break several constitutional amendments. No speed limits means more freedom which means more prosperity which means true liberty and what the founding fathers wanted. If you are for speed-limits, then you are for big government overreach and you should move to communist Belarus where they hate freedom.

[_Robert_Participant]

Davis, for a minute there I thought you were one of my neighbors, LOL. I used to get along with rednecks. Mostly harmless, not typically well educated but fun to hang around with. Salt of the earth. It is a shame how so many have been manipulated by frauds. And now they have learned to project their very faults on liberals to the power of 3.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

To go back to the original post:  the introduction of a negative causal factor, allowing staff to refuse vaccines, in order to stop them leaving the workforce, could lead to a sub-optimal outcome and may need remedial action in the future if unvaccinated staff spread covid to vulnerable patients.  So, it’s a flaw in the outcome, not to say a potentially fatal one, for some people. This conforms to my hypothesis: “no good comes of no good”.

On the other hand, it’s still the best consequences that can be achieved under the circumstances.

It’s hard to see what is “no good” about a health worker remaining unvaccinated, apart from selfishness, and potential fatal consequences.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Davis wrote:

Utilitarianism and deontological ethics cannot be bridged or merged or compromised. They are two totally different systems. Taking away the absolutism of deontological ethics would make it an entirely new system, as with taking away the flexibility of utilitarianism. It would not be utilitarianism anymore, but something new. It is very difficult to imagine how one could possibly create a coherent let alone effective moral system by combining the two.

The problem is that people (apparently, for some reason) insist on the two being separate and exclusive.  If intentions, attitudes etc. lead to actions, and actions lead to consequences – they’re not separate, but connected by a thread of prosocial or antisocial intention.

[DavisModerator]

The problem is that people (apparently, for some reason) insist on the two being separate and exclusive.  If intentions, attitudes etc. lead to actions, and actions lead to consequences – they’re not separate, but connected by a thread of prosocial or antisocial intention.

Simon, I am not arguing with you something that is:

1. Unambiguously the case, yes the two are exclusive…to say otherwise is to argue that something that is boiling is actually frozen.

2. About this with someone who doesn’t even have a basic understanding of it.

Educate yourself on this more. Until then, conversation over.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Davis wrote:

1. Unambiguously the case, yes the two are exclusive…to say otherwise is to argue that something that is boiling is actually frozen.

Don’t you want your theories to be correct?  Or do you just want to maintain your special theories, right or wrong?

[DavisModerator]

Don’t you want your theories to be correct?  Or do you just want to maintain your special theories, right or wrong?

Simon, educate yourself a little. I am not arguing with someone that the sky is not blue but green. Pick up some books and read.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@davis – so you can’t answer my question?  It’s not up for debate, that your theories might have something wrong about them?

I would have thought it is much more interesting to think about how intentions, actions and consequences are connected, than to keep insisting that they are not, for no good reason, other than the inadequacy of the ideology.

After all, a moral principle is an ideal way to be cooperative (or live in a family, or reproduce) just as there’s an ideal way to fix a car.  If we fix a car ideally, we expect it to work ideally.  Similarly, if we cooperate ideally, we can expect good practical, social and moral consequences.  To cooperate ideally requires a conscientious and prosocial attitude.

[DavisModerator]

It’s not up for debate, that your theories might have something wrong about them?

What deontological ethics are and what utilitarian ethics are…are not my own personal theories. They are well established and their approaches to moral problems cannot be combined any more than oil and water can. If you weren’t so monumentally intellectually lazy and stubborn but picked up a book and read it (and not even a long book at that)…you would realise this, as clear as the sky is blue and that 2 is an even number. Until you educate yourself on this, discussion over. Piss off.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by  Davis.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by  Davis.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

@simon – “if we cooperate ideally, we can expect good practical, social and moral consequences.  To cooperate ideally requires a conscientious and prosocial attitude”.

To me that line sounds very much like what Pangloss may have said in Candide and would have being delightful to Leibniz. You could end up with the best of all possible worlds with that optimistic ideal. But that ideal did not survive in Westphalia for too long, did it?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

You could end up with the best of all possible worlds with that optimistic ideal.

All other things being equal, higher quality cooperation would be expected to lead to higher quality results.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Davis wrote:

Until you educate yourself on this, discussion over.

It’s pretty boring to be more into defending -isms than doing real philosophy.

[DavisModerator]

It’s pretty boring to be more into defending -isms than doing real philosophy.

I’m not defending anything Simon, I’m calling out your ignorant claim that “the two could be mixed” or whatever. These systems were established generations before we were born. I am not in charge of them nor would me hoping they would change have any effect. Own up to your mistaken claim and concede it, or at least educate yourself on why you might be wrong.

[Author]

Posts