Moderation Questions

I expect Luciom to support my ideas 👍

I'm quite fond of the welfare state. I see no point in being a member of a society of hoarders.

If that's is where my country ever goes, then let us no longer pretend we are a society. I also refute the notion that I should in any way be bound by duty, obligation or law in a "society" that won't even care for its members. That is not a nation worthy of any respect, it's a glorified and very tedious round of king of the hill.

I'm not sure exactly what this means. You are going to subject to the laws, whether you personally feel bound by them or not. Also, consider whether there be some logical connection between the societal failure and the law you are not bound by.

It isn't intuitive to me that I should be able to drive my car into a playground w/o fear of legal consequences just because I live in a country that doesn't have adequate policies to address homelessness.

Why do you need to dismantle the basic fabric of the rule of law like per your proposal, instead of just increasing the penalties for repeated offenders? those do prove by they own actions not to deserve a place in society.

So the UK in 1875 or the USA or Australia or Germany weren't societies?

You aren't the first to dislike your society rules enough not to feel part of it in an obligatory moral sense, that happens routinely to many people, it happened to people on the right for decades in many european countries for example.

But see when there is little taxation and little government interference, at least you are not the slave of the same society you deeply despise

He says that he fails to recognize any moral validity in any society that isn't heavily social-democratic (ie in most human groups in history since agriculture).

I believe a huge portion of violent crime is committed by those under the influence of alcohol as well. Gotta work that into the equation somehow.

There is a reason why a podcast where one smokes pot with MikeTyson exists and a podcast where one gets drunk with MikeTyson doesn't.

far right when used to describe Milei* (or say Wilders, which is too moderate for him but at least i don't despise his whole platform), not Le Pen or the like.

Fascism is too collectivist, too paternalist, too authoritarian, too censorious, it's like the anti-me

because marxism isn't a crime in my country (and others in europe), fascism is, so a misuse of the second label has legal consequences when agreed upon by society, so yes it should be used very sparingly and only when clearly usable.

And btw it has been a while since i called anyone marxist in this forum (outside of those who actually self define as marxists)

I can't imagine that people calling you a fascist in this forum is going to subject you to criminal liability in Italy. But if I'm wrong about that, you should leave this forum immediately -- like, this instant.

Your example is turned on its head. It would be this hypothetical country that won't care for its members but enforces its laws that will have no issue with sending children to their death.

Which incidentally is how countries without social safety nets tend to go about their business, so this isn't even a hypothetical.

that's how the world worked until very recently everywhere (after agriculture).

There a difference between moral and legal obligations.

I know you're smart, but I've seen first-hand in my brother, who is a lawyer, how those things get muddled.

Do you have an obligation to do what the Mafia tells you to do just because you live in a Mafia controlled neighborhood? If not, would that mean you have no obligation to anything?

Anthropology isn't your strong suit. Basically, nothing empirical is.

The only strong suits involving him name him as a defendant.

I propose a pilot study in Bologna, backdated to birth.

Ok fash.

TD said that he wouldn't feel bound "in any way" by any sort of "duty, obligation, or law" in a society that didn't take care of its members. The distinction between moral and legal obligations isn't muddled in my mind at all. I would feel morally obligated not to drive my car into a playground no matter what sort of society I lived in.

In general, I don't think of laws as obligations that the individual owes to the state. I think of them more as a social contract among individuals in a society. I certainly don't think that you have an obligation to the state that requires you to obey unjust laws.

In general, I would say that lawyers understand the concept of civil disobedience at least as well as non-lawyers, and lawyers probably are more supportive of civil disobedience as a legitimate form of protest than non-lawyers are.

Dream on if you think that the owners of those machines will allow the machines' profits to be spread around more evenly. When has that ever happened in the west?

It's a fairly modern question. Dont know if it even came up before republic and death of socrates.

Social contract is a view. I see it as part of democracy and as democracy fails any moral reasons to obey the law goes with it. That doesn't mean there aren't other moral reasons that coincide with the law. (Re an old conversation microbet who once misunerstood me, even with democracy there can also be (and frequently are) overwhelming moral reasons to break laws as well as the moral reason to follow them - that too is part of a well fuctioning democracy).

Bingo

except plebs kept as well treated pets by their kings isn't a basis for democracy.

You have a social contract even in feudalism as a paesant of the lord (or in any other social arrangement). You do some work in his land and castle and he administers justices, fights the brigants if they come to your area, and defend you paesants.

Then you have a contract with other paesants, a lot of stuff simply is something you aren't supposed to do and so on.

What's very modern is to develop an "ability" to coscientiously refute your polity arrangement. Because of information and the knowledge many other systems exist. Tame deuce simply decided that systems that aren't social democracies are incompatible with his morals so he would act as a domestic enemy of society if end up being part of a society that isn't a social democracy.

I tend to agree with TD. Not going to comment on the rest

Please count me down as an enemy of a non democratic system and of laws that I find immoral.

not social-democratic doesn't mean non-democratic lol.

Democracy is identical if you remove all welfare state or if you double it.