Trump said in the debates we need more regulation to make him do the right thing and follow existing laws. Now he's cutting regulations.

Canada agrees that NAFTA needs to be revised and that the US must have stronger regulations and workers rights to bring it up to Canada's level.

Pretty much says what direction this country is heading.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/opinions/nafta-canada-broken-labor-policies-warren-opinion/index.html

No more cheap US workers taking away jobs from Canada with their shoddy labor laws.

“Compare to Palestine's Gaza Strip with no elections in 10 years since Hamas was voted into power.”

Which feeds into the viscous tyrannical cycle that keeps Netanyahu in power.

Ogion:

Government officials and politicians need to confront moral dilemmas such as the ones you listed in some cases by necessity. Just because certain actions are necessary in very particular situations doesn’t make them any less necessarily immoral. The following paper describes it really well:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2265139.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A2cc676392399b5c9cc2a4a194b31137a

If you want a fun juxtaposition:

I’ve never heard anyone I personally know call for a full and immediate end to taxation in all its forms, yet I know several people who loudly and proudly proclaim that taxation is theft.

The paper is behind a paywall, but the fact that you have conceded that often coercion for the common good is both necessary and moral (pratically it will be the case in any collective action problem where society is better off when there are no freeloaders) Thus, your original supposition is easily disproven.

Uh no I said it’s not moral even if it’s necessary.

Also there’s not a paywall. You just hit accept and it takes you to the full paper.

Having been disproven, we move into the far more reasonable question of when coercion is moral and necessary. This argument that national service or compulsory service is immoral because coercion is involved has no validity as an argument.

So, here, the balance or interests that solves the problem the paper was alluding to in the abstract (which is only a "problem" if you adopt the wrong frame of reference) but interests are inherently social constructs, so what the balance of interests analysis will invariably show is the set of biases made by the speaker and nothing more .

National service and voting are in no sense necessary and therefore forcing people to be involved in them is absolutely 100% immoral.

Without question. Immoral anyway, but since necessity is lacking it’s also unjustifiable.

Suggesting an evil act is justified as moral if the act is necessary for public good downplays the evil act actually being evil. That’s an essential part of the paper.

(To give a frame of reference for what he meant in regards to interests, it was written at the heart of Watergate, during a time when everyone accepted trying to apply morals to politics was pointless because there was none.)

Apparently I used too many big words or something. You proposition that compulsion is evil is disproven and absurdly silly. So if I compel my teenagers to do the fucking dishes I am immoral? What a joke. I'll just let the utterly facile stupidity of your statement just hang there.


Basically, morality is in the mind of the speaker. Yours is the morality of a three year old ("you're not the boss of me. Waaaaaaaa! Will you fling yourself to the ground and kick and scream next?). In actuality, human societies are riven with compulsion of all kinds. All social norms are subject to varying kind of compulsion to behave or not behave in certain ways. Seeing as human are inherently social animals, you've just written off humans as immoral. Maybe some would agree, but I think most recognize the assertion as one of these stupid unfounded assertions used to undercut regulation sensu latu one doesn't like.

Funny, how we will see a quick pivot to suggesting that compelling women to carry pregnancies isn't evil or compelling LGBT people into second class citizenship is fine.

You never disproved anything.

And amazing that you go from suggesting compulsion is in fact moral to then try to back yourself up with relativism.

Compulsion is a form of harm, harm is immoral.

“Funny, how we will see a quick pivot to suggesting that compelling women to carry pregnancies isn't evil or compelling LGBT people into second class citizenship is fine.”

Funny, how I don’t believe either of those things lmao.

“Seeing as human are inherently social animals, you've just written off humans as immoral.”

Evolving to be part of social interactions doesn’t make a whole species immoral. I’m not Rousseau by any means. Also, being part of a social group is to some degree a choice. People chose to be part of communities for the sake of better survival, as opposed to communities forming and demanding by force that everyone of the species take part. The communities evolved, governments formed, and people were compelled into strict social roles. Compulsion exists in a situation that hinders free choice, the arbitrator who compels certain actions is the immoral actor, not the whole of society. Murder is compelling death unto another, and that’s universally immoral. Theft is compelling someone to hand over their property. These are treated as crimes, particularly given they are compulsion unjustified.

And on the point of having children do chores, it’s not hard to teach children to do them by choice given their necessity. “If you don’t do the dishes you won’t have plates, so it’d be a great idea to do them.”

“Maybe some would agree, but I think most recognize the assertion as one of these stupid unfounded assertions used to undercut regulation sensu latu one doesn't like.”

Interestingly, thinking that’s my point misses half the argument. Something can be justifiable even if immoral if it is NECESSARY. Justifiability, however, does not make an immoral thing moral. Perhaps if you stop thinking in consequentialist terms you can understand what I’m saying.

I understand what you're saying, but it's a bald assertion with zero support. You might as well have said that peppermint candy is immoral. Compulsion isn't harm and frankly often actually avoids harm. Repetition of an unsupported statement doesn't make it supported.

And yes, morals are relative. There are practically no universal moral positions, and frankly what many people assert as "moral" are downright repulsive to others. It seems that this fact is nearly inescapable except by a certain imperialistic mindset. Frankly, failing to consider the consequences of positions is not tenable. If your "moral" position leads to the extinction of all life, then you initial supposition of the morality of it was clearly wrong. Sure, you can make up crazy justifications, but ultimately, trying to assert morality without evaluating the impacts doesn't hold any water.

By being absolutist, you quickly back yourself into corners.

Finally, you clearly aren't a parent, much less of a teenager.

Harm is the central immorality. That position should never lead to human extinction. Compulsion, by removing choice, free association, and demanding particular action, is ultimately harmful to the compelled entity physically, mentally, financially, etc. and is therefore immoral.

I’ve not been backed into any corners because there’s nothing inconsistent about what I’m saying.

And as I said, those norms are enforced through compulsion on those who would violate them. You're turning yourself into knots trying to suggest that it is immoral to intervene against harm.

Murder is an interesting word, because it connotes a criminal killing. Societies differ hugely in terms of what constitutes a criminal killing though. What is acceptable in most of America would be anathema in other societies and killings that are considered mandated by god are anathema here. Once again, the bounds of what is or is not moral depends on the people asserting it.

And I don't think that your point is to be selective, but I do think that's the motivation. The only reason anyone thinks compulsion is immoral is because.the speaker ran into compulsion they didn't like.

And yes, societies as a whole do compel because all or practically all participants join in the compulsion. Failing to understand the nature of social pressure is part of where you go wrong.

Failing to understand personal responsibility and people’s freedom of making choices is where you go wrong.

“those norms are enforced through compulsion on those who would violate them. ”

Punishment of a criminal act is arbitration, not compulsion. A murderer was not compelled to commit their crime. The act or choice was not forced upon them. Because it also meant harm to another, consequences are arbitrated and remain moral so long as such consequence is proportional to the crime. Obviously, this is not universally followed. Those who don’t are acting immorally.

“Murder is an interesting word, because it connotes a criminal killing.”

The bounds of what I’m asserting should be obvious considering the consistency of my argument.

“The only reason anyone thinks compulsion is immoral is because.the speaker ran into compulsion they didn't like.”

I haven’t been compelled to one thing or another personally, so this argument falls flat. We’re talking hypothetically about compulsory national service and (to a lesser extent) compulsory voting. I intend to hold a government job (given that seems to be how you were to some degree defining national service earlier), and I vote. It’s the removal of choice that’s immoral, and neither of those things are necessary.

Social pressure impacts choice. It doesn’t remove it.

you guys love to talk nonsense and exist in a world of fantasy that has no bearing on reality.

How do you feel about compulsory national service, Brad?

there isn't going to be any compulsory national service. no one wants it no one will vote for it. It is as dead as Marley. He was as dead as a doornail. Dead, dead dead. you might as well wish for santa claus to visit you in july if you want to have a fantasy.

You might rather investigate the question: 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'

But do you think it should happen?