E-conservatives and libertarianism
- Thread starter Garbad_the_Weak
- Start date
Garbad_the_Weak
Diabloii.Net Member
AeroJonesy
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
There's a big difference between charity and welfare.
Garbad_the_Weak
Diabloii.Net Member
jmervyn
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
No, welfare is grounded in the belief that confiscatory redistribution is in and of itself moral. Or, (considering the audience) that Robin Hood's methodology should be the law.
A forced morality is no morality, a forced charity is no charity.
No, welfare is grounded in the belief that confiscatory redistribution is in and of itself moral. Or, (considering the audience) that Robin Hood's methodology should be the law.
A forced morality is no morality, a forced charity is no charity.
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
yet those who force it (robin hood) do so voluntarily, which makes it moral again...
and considering that he practically owns the stuff that he steals (paradox, but practical), him giving it voluntarily to people would be considered charity
yet those who force it (robin hood) do so voluntarily, which makes it moral again...
and considering that he practically owns the stuff that he steals (paradox, but practical), him giving it voluntarily to people would be considered charity
jmervyn
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
Also, since when is thievery ownership? You can send me your life savings now; IT'S MINE!
So thievery is moral, just as long as you don't profit overmuch. Bernie Madoff, eat your heart out! :coffee:
Also, since when is thievery ownership? You can send me your life savings now; IT'S MINE!
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
you're being too simplistic about it.
stealing from a bad rich guy who got his money by oppressing the people and giving that money back to said people is of course moral!
thievery is not ownership, i said it was a paradox!
i also said he practically owns the stuff he steals, because he's not giving it back and the lords will likely never get it back, so it's practically his
PRACTICALLY being the key word here
you're being too simplistic about it.
stealing from a bad rich guy who got his money by oppressing the people and giving that money back to said people is of course moral!
thievery is not ownership, i said it was a paradox!
i also said he practically owns the stuff he steals, because he's not giving it back and the lords will likely never get it back, so it's practically his
PRACTICALLY being the key word here
jmervyn
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
Only to those who prefer to deal in shades of grey.
It is not. Because who is Robin to decide who is 'bad' and what is 'oppression'? Robin didn't become "Locksley" until later; he was originally just a peasant stealing from those better off. In other words, redistribution through envy.
Nothing paradoxical about it.
"Legally" and "Morally" are a bit more important for this discussion's purposes, you know.
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
alright then, i'll just concede to the last two points
but for the first ones:
lets say we have such a person, who acts not upon envy, but upon goodwill
now, if the peasants feel they are being oppressed and everyone else also thinks it, but doesn't speak out. one man suddenly steals stuff and gives to the poor...
who is he to decide what's good or bad? what's moral?
who is he? is now pretty subjective, you see, because at least from the peasant's point of view, he'd be doing "moral thievery"
and we all know what there is to do about subjective things... it's either pointless to discuss or someone actually tries changing opinions
alright then, i'll just concede to the last two points
but for the first ones:
lets say we have such a person, who acts not upon envy, but upon goodwill
now, if the peasants feel they are being oppressed and everyone else also thinks it, but doesn't speak out. one man suddenly steals stuff and gives to the poor...
who is he to decide what's good or bad? what's moral?
who is he? is now pretty subjective, you see, because at least from the peasant's point of view, he'd be doing "moral thievery"
and we all know what there is to do about subjective things... it's either pointless to discuss or someone actually tries changing opinions
SaroDarksbane
Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
I think the Robin Hood reference depends largely on your interpretation of the legend.
If the nobility is sending guards to your home to take goods by force, and Robin Hood retrieves them for you, that's a lot different than Robin Hood targeting a skilled merchant who gained his wealth through voluntary trade.
I think the Robin Hood reference depends largely on your interpretation of the legend.
If the nobility is sending guards to your home to take goods by force, and Robin Hood retrieves them for you, that's a lot different than Robin Hood targeting a skilled merchant who gained his wealth through voluntary trade.
WildBerry
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
I'd be careful to say anything definitive about him. As per Wiki states (you like your links disagreeing with what you say, don't you?):
Unless you are referring to how Robin Hood was originally interpreted (in which case you would be right, as per the dissertation on the early use of the name), your words carry little certainty.
BobCox2
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
Recent News on Robin Hood
Was Robin really just another hood?
Last update: March 14, 2009 - 5:18 PM
An academic says he has found evidence that Britain's legendary outlaw Robin Hood wasn't as popular as folklore suggests.
Julian Luxford says a note discovered in the margins of an ancient history book contains rare criticism of the supposedly benevolent bandit.
According to legend, Robin Hood roamed 13th-century Britain from a base in central England's Sherwood Forest, plundering from the rich to give to the poor.
But Luxford, an art history lecturer at Scotland's University of St. Andrews, says a 23-word inscription in the margins of a history book, written in Latin by a medieval monk around 1460, casts the outlaw as a persistent thief.
"Around this time, according to popular opinion, a certain outlaw named Robin Hood, with his accomplices, infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies," the note read when translated into English.
Luxford said the note is the earliest known reference to the outlaw from an English source and supports arguments that the historical Robin Hood lived in the 13th century, even though most popular modern versions of the story set him in the late 12th century reign of King Richard I.
Luxford said his discovery also may help settle debates in England about exactly where Robin Hood lived. The northern England county of Yorkshire has long claimed he was based there, but folklore has most commonly placed Hood in Sherwood Forest.
Recent News on Robin Hood
Was Robin really just another hood?
Last update: March 14, 2009 - 5:18 PM
An academic says he has found evidence that Britain's legendary outlaw Robin Hood wasn't as popular as folklore suggests.
Julian Luxford says a note discovered in the margins of an ancient history book contains rare criticism of the supposedly benevolent bandit.
According to legend, Robin Hood roamed 13th-century Britain from a base in central England's Sherwood Forest, plundering from the rich to give to the poor.
But Luxford, an art history lecturer at Scotland's University of St. Andrews, says a 23-word inscription in the margins of a history book, written in Latin by a medieval monk around 1460, casts the outlaw as a persistent thief.
"Around this time, according to popular opinion, a certain outlaw named Robin Hood, with his accomplices, infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies," the note read when translated into English.
Luxford said the note is the earliest known reference to the outlaw from an English source and supports arguments that the historical Robin Hood lived in the 13th century, even though most popular modern versions of the story set him in the late 12th century reign of King Richard I.
Luxford said his discovery also may help settle debates in England about exactly where Robin Hood lived. The northern England county of Yorkshire has long claimed he was based there, but folklore has most commonly placed Hood in Sherwood Forest.
lAmebAdger
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
can we go back to discussing how a perfect robin hood (the made-up one) would be moral or immoral?
my stance is: he's moral, no matter what anyone says about legal property... those nobles may have done legal oppression, but it's still unfairness and injustice according to Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy
can we go back to discussing how a perfect robin hood (the made-up one) would be moral or immoral?
my stance is: he's moral, no matter what anyone says about legal property... those nobles may have done legal oppression, but it's still unfairness and injustice according to Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy
WildBerry
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
Not saying your reasoning is wrong (while I do not indeed agree with it), but it seems Kant reference is superfluous, as I don't seem to recall him backing up your position.
And where did Kant authorise fighting fire with fire? I.e. where in Kant's moral dissertations is it said you can repay injustice and unfairness with another?
Not saying your reasoning is wrong (while I do not indeed agree with it), but it seems Kant reference is superfluous, as I don't seem to recall him backing up your position.
Garbad_the_Weak
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
Immoral. There is no magical standard of morality floating around out there. Something is moral if we say it is, and breaking the law is immoral.
Johnny
Banned
Garbad_the_Weak
Diabloii.Net Member
jmervyn
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
As to the rest, Robin Hood remains immoral despite his 'good' acts. He was the first of the anti-hero types I've previously argued with WB about. And whatever the historical veracity, it is pretty common for *some* terrorists to bribe the local population - whether for ingratiation and support, or whether to appear to not be as horrific as their acts would dictate. The fanciful Robin continues to rob merchants (and though it isn't implicitly stated, J00z), not exclusively nobles, and is therefore by default stealing from legitimate earnings.
You're usually quicker than that, WB. Of course I was identifying the early non-nobility literary aspect, though I suppose I should have quoted the exact part of Wiki I was using in support (end of 1st paragraph).
As to the rest, Robin Hood remains immoral despite his 'good' acts. He was the first of the anti-hero types I've previously argued with WB about. And whatever the historical veracity, it is pretty common for *some* terrorists to bribe the local population - whether for ingratiation and support, or whether to appear to not be as horrific as their acts would dictate. The fanciful Robin continues to rob merchants (and though it isn't implicitly stated, J00z), not exclusively nobles, and is therefore by default stealing from legitimate earnings.
WildBerry
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism
I did opt for you being on the ball and just typing it funny, as per usual.
I still think that your formulation was a bit misleading, as it seemed you were talking ("he originally was") about how the historical character was rather than ("he was originally depicted as") how the early uses of the name go.
I did opt for you being on the ball and just typing it funny, as per usual.
Remember where that thread is? I can't remember what we chatted about, I'm kind of tempted to check it again. You know that feeling how what you type dates and kind of gets embarassing and you just want to chalk it up to youth? I'm fully expecting to see some of that.