MB part 2

[Dale Eastman]

MB part 2 (part 1 was a productive and enjoyable hashing out of differences)

Part 1 first post
Part 1 last post

Dale Eastman Short reply: I think we made it to the right place to ‘call it’ in regards to the original claim.
Thank you, it was probably the best exchange of ideas I’ve experienced over facebook in a very long time.
Longer reply: I think I’m ready to allow the subject to change. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I’ve been ignoring your moral claims in all manner except to point out the logical flaw of interchanging them with facts and letting them guide your factual beliefs. I’d prefer to keep away from discussing morality, for the time being. I suggest our next topic be the concept of authority; mostly because it appears to play a huge role in your arguments surrounding government. That, and I think there are significant differences between how we each view the concept, that will lead to an interesting dialogue.

However, you have allowed me to dominate the flow of the first discussion, and I’d like to offer you the opportunity to steer the conversation in a different direction if another topic is more pressing on your mind. Does the concept of authority suit, or is there a more pressing topic on which you’d like to focus?

➽ As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I’ve been ignoring your moral claims in all manner except to point out the logical flaw of interchanging them with facts and letting them guide your factual beliefs.

I'm sure you'll appreciate the irony and humor. As I read this, I recognized that's very much related to when I have to keep repeating a specific question investigating what somebody actually means when they make a claim. In that case they don't want the claim examined. In your case, you just wanted me to stay on the point of your focus.

➽ I suggest our next topic be the concept of authority; mostly because it appears to play a huge role in your arguments surrounding government. That, and I think there are significant differences between how we each view the concept, that will lead to an interesting dialogue.

Agreed. And I will try to push the discussion of morality further down the timeline (further down the road). Remember, the promise is that I will try, not that I will succeed.

➽ However, you have allowed me to dominate the flow of the first discussion,

Lol. Not really. You just did an excellent job of standing on your logic and the conviction your logic gave you.

➽ Does the concept of authority suit,

Since we are at odds regarding which definition is appropriate, "authority" is an apt topic. I guess I'll start.

"Controlling Authority" was equated to "government". Government being a body of humans occupying government offices. Discussion of government often using the term in a reified manner; Government as a single entity, much like a king or a tyrant. As such, government becomes synonymous with ruler. Thus I equate "Controlling Authority" with "Ruler", using that nicer term instead of dictator or tyrant.

➽ Law
A body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by [a ruler].

By what authority does this ruler get the right to rule? In other words, whence comes this ruler's right to rule?

THUNK! I just kicked the morality issue down the road. Triggered by "right to rule."

I am putting (alleged) in parenthesis because my allegation is that the authority is false. For this discussion so far, the truth or falsity of authority is indeterminate. My intent is to prove the (alleged) authority is false.

Authority is a right and a permission to do "ruler" things. Delegation of Authority is the passing on of this (alleged) right and this (alleged) permission to do "ruler" things from one who has this (alleged) authority to one that does not.

Delegation Orders are a thing within the IRS. No D.O.: no permission to act as a ruler. This short tangential detour is to show an official (at that time if it has been superseded) D.O.

⚠ 5.1.11.6.10  (05-27-1999)
IRC 6020(b) Authority

1.  The following returns may be prepared, signed and assessed under the authority of IRC 6020(b):
A. Form 940, Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return
B. Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return
C. Form 943, Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees
D. Form 720, Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return
E. Form 2290, Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Return
F. Form CT–1, Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return
G. Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income.

2.  Pursuant to IRM 1.2.2.97, Delegations of Authority, Order Number 182 (rev. 7), dated 5/5/1997, revenue officers GS-09 and above, and Collection Support Function managers GS-09 and above, have the authority to prepare and execute returns under IRC 6020(b).  ⚠

End tax law detour. Of which I know just a little bit of.

<rant> Enough to know that government deliberately lies.</rant>

Whence comes the U.S. government's (alleged) authority to rule?
IOW, Whence come the U.S. government's (alleged) right and (alleged) permission to rule?

I claim this (alleged) right to rule comes from the U.S. CONstitution (sic), since this third organic document set up the present federal government in the U.S.

Varys explains it more concisely than I can. Please, watch this before reading my reply. Specifically, the riddle and Varys explanation of the riddle.
https://youtu.be/FpL6Fwu0wkw

"Power resides where men believe it resides."

That is my takeaway... Okay. Now on to your second post.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman part 2. Watch the video before reading this.

Authority is a concept. As a concept, it has no tangible properties. When we say the proverbial “ ‘They’ have authority”. We are referring to a concept. I ask you to stop for a second and consider whether you agree with this point before moving on to the next.

Point 2. Rights are a concept. Rights have no tangible shape. When we talk about rights, we are referring to a concept. Again I ask you to consider the truth of this.

If both of these statements are true, then when we ask the question “by what right do they have the authority (to be rulers)” we are discussing concepts.

In a society, all concepts have 2 kinds of interpretation. The interpretation of the individual, and the interpretation of the group.

Now, an individual can believe any concept they deem true, but if they desire to be part of the society, and reap the benefits of society, they must abide by the concepts of society. Let me give an example. Ownership. Ownership is a concept. An individual may say, “no one owns anything.” And there are plenty of people that have such a concept of ownership. But our society has agreed that ownership exists, and if I try to take your things, you have the “right” to defend it, and I might wind up in jail or worse. Society would accept your actions and punish me for mine.

The society has the greater power over the concept, because greater numbers equates to greater physical force.

The only escape an Individual has, is to leave society. “Go off the grid”. But in doing so, the individual loses the benefits of society: mass-produced food, electricity, plastics, gadgets and gizmos, laptops, cell phones, motorized anything, etc.

All of that. Everything I just wrote, is my precursor to the concept of authority. It comes down to this:

Whether or not an individual accepts an authority, is irrelevant to whether they have to obey that authority, in order to remain in society.

They are the authority, because society believes they are the authority.

Aaaargh!
In my best Apollo 13 Mission Control Voice, "Work the problem."
That's my admission that I've been triggered.

Moving on...

I'm going to assign the benefit of doubt to your motivation for your specific words.

➽ The society has the greater power over the concept, because greater numbers equates to greater physical force.

You are saying that "this" is what "is". I define "this" as the concept of "Might makes right."

I can not kick the morality can any farther down the road. Might does NOT make right; just; honorable; or moral. Greater power over the concept does NOT make right; just; honorable; or moral.

Stringing up ni99ers because of the melanin pigment levels in their skin because of "greater power" over the ni99ers did NOT make that action right; just; honorable; or moral.

➽ we are discussing concepts

Yes. We are discussing concepts.

And we are discussing the concept of "authority". My error in not nailing down the definition. This discussion of "authority" is a discussion of "a right to rule."

By what right do the rulers have a right to be the rulers?

➽ Whether or not an individual accepts an authority, is irrelevant to whether they have to obey that authority, in order to remain in society.

That translates to "Whether or not an individual accepts [a ruler's right to rule], is irrelevant to whether they have to obey that [ruler's rules], in order to remain in society.

➽ They are the authority, because society believes they are the authority.

Might does not make right; just; honorable; or moral.. Is it your argument that it does?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman, I appreciate that you are trying to keep morality out of it. I see that you’re struggling in this case.

“Might makes right” is a moral claim. Right & wrong are moral concepts.

I did not make a moral claim, I stated a fact. Ultimately all forms of authority come down to “might” but even that can be a concept. The riddle explains how.

I have nothing to move forward with; I’ll have to ask you read my last comment over again, and interpret it with this in mind, “whether good or bad, this is the way it is/ how it works”

I specifically asked: "By what right do the rulers have a right to be the rulers?"
I must assume these words are intended as the answer to the question.

➽ Ultimately all forms of authority come down to “might”...

Parsing:
Ultimately all forms of [a right to rule] come down to [the willingness to use extortion] -
Ultimately all forms of [a right to rule] come down to [the willingness to threaten violence and use violence against the victims] - 
Ultimately all forms of [a right to rule] come down to [the willingness to threaten harm and to actually harm the victims]...

I'm challenging you to take a moral position regarding that fact. Is deliberately threatening and deliberately harming a human who has done you no harm, a moral act?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman, here is a list of truths.

Conflict is an unmutable reality for all life

Humans are social animals

All social mammals form societies

In all societies, hierarchies naturally form

Leadership is one of the first hierarchies that form in social groups.

In societies rules must exist for the society to thrive, or even survive.

In all hierarchies, some will benefit more than others

In large societies there will always be disagreement over rules

Greed is an inherent human trait.

People in power will always abuse that power given enough time.

In an advanced human society, there must be a means for determining who will have authority

In most societies, that method is active physical force. This is the norm throughout history.

In a few societies, humans have figured out how to designate authority without the use of force. Most of them use an election system.

Not everyone will like the leader elected.

The elected maintains authority because the majority have accepted the method for choosing leadership.

Leadership always has the authority to set rules

Rules are necessary for a society to survive

Rules have no clout without negative consequences for breaking them

None of the above statements are moral statements, they are truths.

Existence must function this way, it’s not by accident.

So when you ask me to take a moral stance on the existence of authority, I cannot, because it is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It would be like asking me to take a moral position on the temperature at which water freezes.

Now, if you wanted to discuss individual rules or actions, then moral stances could be taken

➽ So when you ask me to take a moral stance on the existence of authority, I cannot, because it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Note to self: ⚠Naturally occurring.⚠

➽ Now, if you wanted to discuss individual rules or actions, then moral stances could be taken

That would be a good reply if I had actually asked you to take a stance on authority.
Your mis-read of my challenge is my error in how I framed my question. Correcting that error:

Is deliberately threatening and deliberately harming a human who has done you no harm, a moral act?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman
To start, I’m going to point out that the conversation has moved away from the concept of authority, and we are now discussing morality. I’m fine if that’s the path you want to take, but I wanted to make sure we both recognize that we’re putting a bookmark in the authority conversation and talking about something completely different.

In answer to “Is deliberately… a moral act”. I don’t think the _act_ is moral nor immoral, but the “deliberately” part certainly is. In other words, moral situations are based, not so much on the actions, but on the intentions.

Which also means, moral questions are situationally dependent.

If I run up and tackle you and start punching for no reason, that would be immoral.

But if I run up and tackle you and start punching because you brought a gun and opened fire in a school, that would be morally good, even if I had no children at the school and your actions were not harming me.

Threats are the same. Their morality is situationally dependent. If you threaten to kick my ass if I don’t do a handstand, when I’ve done nothing to you, then yeah, that’s immoral.

But if I threaten to spank my child if they try to pick up the stray kitty cat with two white stripes down its back, then that is a morally good act.

Now, I have a whole piece that ties this in with authority, but since we’re discussing morality, I’ll leave it at that to see if you agree first?

I got Zucked but it seems the posting restriction is currently not engaged.
We just lost a close family friend. Family, family friend, so It will be awhile before I reply.

Dale Eastman, I understand. Sorry to hear of your loss. Take all the time you need

I was very specific in describing the "situation": "deliberately harming a human who has done you no harm."

I specifically note that you did not give an immediate and unequivocal answer of yes. It was not until the sixth paragraph that you admitted the immorality of the very specific situation I was questioning.

Gleaning the important words of your admission, you stated: "If you threaten [...], when I’ve done nothing to you, then yeah, that’s immoral."

I agree with you that "moral questions are situationally dependent."

You have agreed with me that to threaten or harm a person that has done no harm to you is immoral.

Do you agree that this situation encompasses extortion?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman Wait a minute... Perhaps I didn't explain it well, but all that six paragraphs before, was my attempt at explaining that "no, the very general scenario (the opposite of specific) is not a black or white scenario."

If you had been specific and said something like, "If I came up and punched you for no reason..." then I can give you a clear, agreement that it's immoral.

but in relation to this statement, "to threaten or harm a person that has done no harm to you is immoral."

or this question, "Is deliberately threatening and deliberately harming a human who has done you no harm, a moral act"

My response is, that those are written too vague for a singular agreement or disagreement.

Here are just a few examples, where your statement is false.

1) Stopping a school shooter with violence even if their actions will not harm me.

2) Threatening one's own child with violence if they misbehave (also situationally dependent)

3) Smacking a hysterical person to help them focus and reset.

4) Giving my brother a Charlie Horse while playing around.

5) Killing an adult that has raped a child

6

Dale Eastman Oops, I hit enter on accident... well, I really didn't need to go on anyway, I could have gone on all day.

Part of the trouble with the logical flow of reasoning that you are presenting, is that you're starting with an invalid premise. You stated that, "I agree with you that "moral questions are situationally dependent." What follows from this is that we have to be more situationally specific in forming the premise to our moral arguments.

➽ If you had been specific and said something like, "If I came up and punched you for no reason..." then I can give you a clear, agreement that it's immoral.

You did just that when you wrote:
➽ "If you threaten [...], when I’ve done nothing to you, then yeah, that’s immoral."

I am deliberately and pointedly ignoring your words that I see as attempted red herrings.

➽ What follows from this is that we have to be more situationally specific in forming the premise to our moral arguments.

Okay.

If you harm me (or anybody else) who has done no harm to anybody else, are you and your action(s) immoral? (Sarcastic observation and commentary self-censored.)

Second inquiry: Do you agree that this situation encompasses extortion?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman Note, It's not a Red Herring just because a person can't reconcile it against their own beliefs.

But as I'm not positive what parts you think are Red Herrings, I can't say for certain that's what I think is happening. I can tell you that I never intentionally throw out a red herring and everything I wrote is very relevant to the subject of morality.

Now, on to your argument, "If you harm me (or anybody else) who has done no harm to anybody else, are you and your action(s) immoral? (Sarcastic observation and commentary self-censored.)"

I point you to the following examples, still:

2) Threatening one's own child with violence if they misbehave (also situationally dependent)

3) Smacking a hysterical person to help them focus and reset.

4) Giving my brother a Charlie Horse while playing around.

That's 3 of the 5 examples I gave before, that all prove your premise is not valid. I cannot move on to your next question until you can concede that my examples invalidate that premise.

It's a red herring if it attempts to distract my focus, and the focus of the silent readers; the lurkers, away from the point I am focusing on.

➽ Now, on to your argument, "If you harm me (or anybody else) who has done no harm to anybody else, are you and your action(s) immoral?

That is NOT an argument! That is a QUESTION. It's a very simple question. The answer is yes or no.

Mea Culpa on the communication failure. So I'll further simplify my QUESTION.

If you harm me when I've done no harm to you, are you and your action(s) immoral?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman I call Black-or-White fallacy on your question.

You ask, "If you harm me when I've done no harm to you, are you and your action(s) immoral?"

and you follow it with, "It's a very simple question. The answer is yes or no."

You're only allowing 2 possible answers when, in reality, the answers are infinite.

There are situations in which you could harm me, when I've done no harm to you, and it's _not_ immoral. EXAMPLE: We're joking around and you give me a Charlie Horse.

There are situations in which you could harm me, when I've done no harm to you, and it _is_ immoral. EXAMPLE: Stabbing me with a knife because you didn't like my answer to this question.

There are even situations in which you could harm me, when I've done no harm to you, and it's _morally good_. EXAMPLE: Slapping me out of hysterics.

I hope I have finally gotten through to you, because your premise is a dangerously flawed Black-or-White fallacy and if you cannot recognize that, we cannot move forward with a conversation about morality.

➽ You ask, "If you harm me when I've done no harm to you, are you and your action(s) immoral?"
and you follow it with, "It's a very simple question. The answer is yes or no."
You're only allowing 2 possible answers when, in reality, the answers are infinite.

Then let me simplify it more so. I have done no harm to you. You have initiated harm to me. Are you and your action moral in this specific situation.

Third inquiry: Does extortion fit in this situation?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman There's clearly a disconnect. You're not simplifying anything. You're really just saying the same thing with slightly different words. If anything, you make it more vague.

Now I get, making something more vague, in many ways simplifies something. "I don't hate him, I hate everybody!" nice and simple.

However, when looking for the answer to a question, it's simpler to be more specific. To simplify your question, you need to give me more specific parameters. Please, be more specific about motive. The action alone is neither moral nor immoral, but the situation, should I know more information, might be simpler to answer.

Please understand that I'm not trying to make this difficult. I'm trying to get you to recognize why I cannot give you a yes or no answer.

To give you an example of my inability to give a yes or no answer, let me ask you something I expect to be equally difficult to answer (hopefully).

"Have you stopped masturbating in front of elementary schools during recess, yet?" Yes, or No, those are your only 2 choices.

Hopefully, you can't honestly answer that with a yes or no, because either answer will lead to incorrect assumption about the situation.

The same goes for your question, "I have done no harm to you. You have initiated harm to me. Are you and your action moral in this specific situation?" either a yes or a no answer will lead to incorrect assumption about the situation.

What I'll say is this, (although it misuses your use of the word moral), No, neither I nor my acts are moral nor immoral "in this specific situation". The situation you described is not a moral situation until intent is added.

➽ you need to give me more specific parameters.

The specific parameters are you are attempting to harm me. Making it more specific, you are attempting to extort me. You have threatened to harm me if I don't do what you say. I have not harmed you, nor anybody else. I have told you to stop attempting to harm me. You have ignored me and are continuing to attempt to harm me.

Are you and your actions moral or immoral?

➽ What I'll say is this, (although it misuses your use of the word moral), No, neither I nor my acts are moral nor immoral "in this specific situation". The situation you described is not a moral situation until intent is added.

Your intent is to harm me when I've done no harm to you or anybody else.

Fourth inquiry: Does extortion fit in this situation?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman As you seem to be struggling with the concept, I'll note that here are the only specific parameters you added to the situation

1) My harm towards you is in the form of extortion. (Note, this is no longer your original claim. This is now specific to extortion)

2) "nor anybody else" - you have narrowed down the field of potential people being harmed to no humans.

3) "I have told you to stop... you have ignored..." - you have added that there is a clear understanding between parties that there is an unwanted attempt at harm.

Scenario:

I walk onto a farm and take a pig. As I'm leaving with my new pig, the farmer comes by with a shotgun and tells me to stop. I have done no harm to him nor anyone for that matter. I'm just benefitting from his resources. Yet, he is threatening to do harm to me if I don't give him the pig. I have told him, please don't shoot me, and yet he ignored me and continues to threaten harm.
I have included all of your parameters. My answer: No, I don't believe the farmer is acting immorally.

➽ 1) My harm towards you is in the form of extortion. (Note, this is no longer your original claim. This is now specific to extortion)

➽ you need to give me more specific parameters.

<snarcasm>
Isn't that exactly what I did?
</snarcasm>

➽ 2) "nor anybody else" - you have narrowed down the field of potential people being harmed to no humans.

You are either doing deliberate contextomy (Quoting out of context is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning) or you have inattentively understood what you read.

Assuming the later, here's those words again, changed slightly to make sure there is no further misunderstanding: "you are attempting to extort me. You have threatened to harm me if I don't do what you say. I have not harmed you. I have not anybody else."

In other words, YOU are the person initiating and intending to harm ME. I have not harmed you. Nor have I harmed anybody else. Therefore I have removed your excuse of initiating defensive harm.

➽ 3) "I have told you to stop... you have ignored..." - you have added that there is a clear understanding between parties that there is an unwanted attempt at harm.

Setting up your straw man for what follows. A reminder for you and anyone else reading this: YOU are the person attempting to harm me. I have told you to stop. The focal point is YOU. NOT what I might or should do about you and your attempted, and deliberate, continuation of harm to me. It's still the same simple question. Are you and your actions of continuing harm moral or immoral?

Quoting your straw man... Intact and complete:

➽ I walk onto a farm and take a pig. As I'm leaving with my new pig, the farmer comes by with a shotgun and tells me to stop. I have done no harm to him nor anyone for that matter. I'm just benefitting from his resources. Yet, he is threatening to do harm to me if I don't give him the pig. I have told him, please don't shoot me, and yet he ignored me and continues to threaten harm.

And now breaking it down: I walk onto a farm and take a pig. As I'm leaving with my new pig, the farmer comes by with a shotgun and tells me to stop. I have done no harm to him nor anyone for that matter.

You just stole his pig. You have done harm to the farmer. Is that a moral act on your part?

➽ I'm just benefitting from his resources.

Without his permission and against his will. Is that a moral act on your part?

➽ Yet, he is threatening to do harm to me if I don't give him the pig.

You seem to have confused offensive initiation of harm with defensive use of harm. The choice is solely yours thief, as to whether you cause harm to yourself by continuing in your endeavor to harm the farmer.

In other words, YOU are the person initiating and intending to harm ME, the farmer.

➽ I have told him, please don't shoot me, and yet he ignored me and continues to threaten harm.

Are you continuing to attempt to harm the farmer by taking his property against his will and without his permission?

➽ I have included all of your parameters. My answer: No, I don't believe the farmer is acting immorally.

I didn't ask you about the farmer protecting his property. I asked about you stealing the farmer's pig.

Bump post. I know you're a busy person.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman letting you know I still plan to reply. Really Busy at the moment

Dale Eastman So, I had an original direction I was planning to take this when you inevitably sided with the Farmer. I was planning to pull out the fact that some people believe a person cannot own another living thing and therefore taking the pig wasn't stealing, in his eyes. Meaning, according to the scenario, even though the farmer thinks the guy is stealing, the guy has done no harm under his own moral code. Therefore, to him, the Farmer is the aggressor.

And that line of argument leads down a nasty rabbit hole to which there is no bottom. Instead, let me take another angle that I think might actually have a light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm going to produce a new scenario. I'm going to drive at the heart of the matter. Charity's Charity (CC) decides to hold a pot-luck dinner. The rules are, everyone gets to enjoy the freedom to eat from many delicious dishes, and choose which dished from which to partake, but they must bring a dish of their own to share. If they show up without a dish and try to participate, they risk being locked in the shed. Of course, they will be given many opportunities to choose to produce a dish before that happens.

Johnny recognizes that his food, is his own, and nobody else's. But he also wants to go to the pot-luck. He accuses CC of extortion, claiming he is being forced to give up his food under penalty of getting locked in the shed. To be clear, Johnny does have the choice to not participate in the Pot luck, but then he misses out on all the wonderful dishes.

Is CC actually committing extortion? Remember, CC is setting the rules that a dish must be brought in order to participate, under the threat of getting locked in the shed.

IS CC acting immorally?

Is Johnny in the right, or the wrong? Why?

In order to avoid confusions, here are the corresponding players in this analogy.

Johnny = Every Citizen

CC = organizing authority = government

The Pot Luck = Society. i.e. the people and all their resources, come together.

The food = The resources and benefits of being in society. i.e. Having a job, making money, owning a house, buying resources from others, enjoying the safety of police, fire, & EMS. etc.

The shed = jail

Hey Dale Eastman, I noticed you liked my comment about being busy, but not my longer reply. Just want to make sure you saw it. It was posted on Thursday and starts with, “So, I had…”

Sorry for the slow reply. I've been busy also. Troubleshooting and repairing a Ford 4.6 motor. Owner paid $350 for a radiator shop to replace the radiator. It over heated a mile away after 10-15 minute idle time.

Long story short: The impeller shaft on the coolant pump sheared. Coincident to the radiator replacement. Go figure. Had to stop in the middle of removing the pump to inspect it. Had to go provide taxi service for father in law. Up here in damn Yankee land 26º F.

I've got your reply and am thinking about it.

While I do that, I do have a question based on what you wrote. Are you for or against "government"?

I have a hard time being for or against a naturally occurring system. Any group of people that get together, naturally form hierarchies. Those hierarchies naturally involve authority.
It would be like asking me if I’m for or against the food chain. I’m not for it, I’m not against it. I understand it is a natural phenomenon.

To be clear, I can be for or against certain forms of government. But not the concept of government

➽ Dale Eastman So, I had an original direction I was planning to take this when you inevitably sided with the Farmer. I was planning to pull out the fact that some people believe a person cannot own another living thing and therefore taking the pig wasn't stealing, in his eyes. Meaning, according to the scenario, even though the farmer thinks the guy is stealing, the guy has done no harm under his own moral code. Therefore, to him, the Farmer is the aggressor.

https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › anthropomorphism
The meaning of anthropomorphism is an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics : humanization.

https://www.psychologytoday.com › us › basics › anthropomorphism
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to non-human entities, including animals. Some people are more inclined to anthropomorphize than others, but it is a common ...

➽ I'm going to produce a new scenario. I'm going to drive at the heart of the matter. Charity's Charity (CC) decides to hold a pot-luck dinner. The rules are, everyone gets to enjoy the freedom to eat from many delicious dishes, and choose which dished from which to partake, but they must bring a dish of their own to share. If they show up without a dish and try to participate, they risk being locked in the shed. Of course, they will be given many opportunities to choose to produce a dish before that happens.

I appreciate the effort you are putting into attempting to support your point. You are reaching though...

➽ Johnny recognizes that his food, is his own, and nobody else's. But he also wants to go to the pot-luck. He accuses CC of extortion, claiming he is being forced to give up his food under penalty of getting locked in the shed. To be clear, Johnny does have the choice to not participate in the Pot luck, but then he misses out on all the wonderful dishes.

Objection! Assumption. Fact of Johnny wanting to partake of the pot luck not in evidence.
Objection! Second assumption. Fact of Johnny wanting anything to do with CC not in evidence.

Since you are using this scenario as a metaphor for government, you are neglecting the reality that the first rule is Johnny is required, under penalty of death, to contribute even though Johnny wants nothing to do with CC or its pot luck dinner.

➽ Is CC actually committing extortion? Remember, CC is setting the rules that a dish must be brought in order to participate, under the threat of getting locked in the shed.

Objection! Same assumptions.

➽ IS CC acting immorally?

If Johnny has no actual choice in regard to dealing with CC, then no, CC is extorting Johnny.

➽ The food = The resources and benefits of being in society. i.e. Having a job, making money, owning a house, buying resources from others, enjoying the safety of police, fire, & EMS. etc.

Objection! Square peg, round hole. You have listed seven specifics of what you want to use the food metaphor to generically address. Six of these specifics I am simply going to ignore because your implication that these are unobtainable without government is simply wrong. The seventh specific, "police" I barely accept as a strictly governmental function. The assumptions of the definition of "police" has not been discussed nor agreed to. Thus I address the issue of "police" as "LEO's", law enforcement officers. These government employees have no duty to protect. These government employees are not required provide protection. SCOTUS cites upon request.

A reminder in case you forgot, I anonymize certain discussions, such as this one, and archive them. I use this archive to insure overlooked points do not remain overlooked. From this archive:

YOU: you need to give me more specific parameters.

ME: The specific parameters are you are attempting to harm me. Making it more specific, you are attempting to extort me. You have threatened to harm me if I don't do what you say. I have not harmed you, nor anybody else. I have told you to stop attempting to harm me. You have ignored me and are continuing to attempt to harm me.

ME: Are you and your actions moral or immoral?

YOU: What I'll say is this, (although it misuses your use of the word moral), No, neither I nor my acts are moral nor immoral "in this specific situation". The situation you described is not a moral situation until intent is added.

ME: Your intent is to harm me when I've done no harm to you or anybody else.

Fifth inquiry: Does extortion fit in this situation?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman Ok, I'm taking some time to discuss even though it means I work late tonight because I really do enjoy this conversation.

You say - "Objection! Assumption. Fact of Johnny wanting to partake of the pot luck not in evidence."

This is not an assumption, it's a fact in the scenario. I make it clear that Johnny does have the choice to not participate in the Pot luck. Johnny chooses to go to the pot luck. Objection overruled.

You write, "Objection! Second assumption. Fact of Johnny wanting anything to do with CC not in evidence."

Again, in my scenario, Johnny may hate CC, he may even claim that CC is an extortionist and want nothing to do with CC, but Johnny still shows up at the Pot Luck. Again, that is a fact of the scenario. Objection overruled.

You write, "you are neglecting the reality that the first rule is Johnny is required, under penalty of death, to contribute even though Johnny wants nothing to do with CC or its pot luck dinner."

This is incorrect. Johnny is not required, under the penalty of death to contribute. He is only required to contribute if he choose to participate in the pot luck. Johnny has the option to not contribute and stay alive... all he has to do is exclude himself from the pot luck.

You write, "If Johnny has no actual choice in regard to dealing with CC, then no, CC is extorting Johnny."

But Johnny does have a choice. It just means that he misses out on the pot luck if he chooses not to follow CC's rules. So your point here is moot.

You write,"...you have listed seven specifics of what you want to use the food metaphor to generically address. Six of these specifics I am simply going to ignore because your implication that these are unobtainable without government is simply wrong...."

I posit that you are ignoring the six because they are devastating to your point. One cannot make (useful) money or exchange resources from others, for example, without existing in a society. That was the point I made and, since the truth of it is devastating to you point, I suggest you're ignoring it so you don't have to address it. I'm not trying to attack you, here. It's a human defense mechanism that we _all_ have and need to fight if we want to stay open minded.

You write, "The assumptions of the definition of "police" has not been discussed nor agreed to..."

Nor does it need to be defined for the purpose of this discussion. I warn against red herrings.

You write, "Your intent is to harm me when I've done no harm to you or anybody else."

Again, "harm" is not an intent, it's an action. This is very important to understand. Actions are neither moral nor immoral without intent. Extortion (the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats) is an action. Therefore, it is not immoral without more context. Specifically, in this scenario, is the extortion done with malice (the intention or desire to do evil; ill will)?

In the case of the Government (as a collective entity, not as an individual). The answer is No, the purpose of the extortion is not malicious, and therefore not immoral.

I have clearly answered your question. Back to my scenario. I've already answered all of your objections. Instead of wasting space reposting the scenario, I ask you to read it again, keeping in mind all my answers.

[Dale Eastman]

1 of 2

Took me awhile to compose a reply. You definitely challenged me to think about my choice of words. No hurry on your reply.

➽ Dale Eastman Ok, I'm taking some time to discuss even though it means I work late tonight because I really do enjoy this conversation.

Don't make yourself late because of this discussion, or I'll have to post my comments at the end of your work week. (Once I find out what day that is.) Take your time. Even a once every other week reply is moving the discussion along. This is a measured discussion with lots of thought.

And boy oh boy, did you make me think on this one. I had to interpret and decode your analogy to get (I hope) the points you've intended to make. And of course, to select my counterpoints. So onto our discussion.

➽ You say - "Objection! Assumption. Fact of Johnny wanting to partake of the pot luck not in evidence."  This is not an assumption, it's a fact in the scenario.

This is your scenario where you are asking me to assume arguendo that your facts are correct. I can not do so. Here is why:

In your 16 Dec 2021 scenario set up, you made these equates:
Johnny = Every Citizen
CC = organizing authority = government
The Pot Luck = Society. i.e. the people and all their resources, come together.
The food = The resources and benefits of being in society. i.e. Having a job, making money, owning a house, buying resources from others, enjoying the safety of police, fire, & EMS. etc.
The shed = jail

I reject your assignment of Johnny, a single entity, as being the entire group of humans.
(I reject your use of the word citizen for reasons that are at this time tangential to the discussion and of no present import.)

You purport to speak for every human in the group when you purport to speak for Johnny. I am one of those many humans. You presume to speak for me. Because I am one of the many humans in that group, I have just placed myself in your scenario. Therefore, you can not overrule my objection of you presuming to speak for me. The objection stands: Assumption. Fact of myself as one of Johnny wanting to partake of the pot luck not in evidence.

Likewise, the second objection stands: Second assumption. Fact of myself as one of Johnny wanting anything to do with CC (government) not in evidence. That you are trying to make a point of some of the humans in the group having a choice is so noted.

I am trying to work with what you presented. IMO, your scenario doesn't work very well as a metaphor to get your point across.

➽ The Pot Luck = Society. i.e. the people and all their resources, come together.

This is where your scenario fails the most. I reject your assignment of the pot luck being a society because you and I seem not agree as to what a 'society' is.

⍺ ⍺ ⍺
Any organized group of people joined together because of work, interests, etc. in common.
Company or companionship.
An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest.
The system or condition of living together as a community in such a group.
One's friends or associates.
Companionship; company.
(countable) A long-standing group of people sharing cultural aspects such as language, dress, norms of behavior and artistic forms.
(countable) The sum total of all voluntary interrelations between individuals.
(uncountable) The people of one's country or community taken as a whole.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/society
Ω Ω Ω

Society is a group of individual humans deciding to interact or not interact with other individual humans in that group. Much like you or anyone else deciding who is going to be friends with frequent interactions, or strangers with only minimal or no interaction.

I find your reference to the resources of any or all those individual humans to be of no bearing to the point I see you attempting to make.

➽ Johnny is not required, under the penalty of death to contribute.

To society.

Parsing your words:
Johnny is not required, under the penalty of death, to contribute to society.

Parsing further:
Johnny is not required, under the penalty of death, to contribute to a group of individual humans deciding to interact or not interact with other individual humans in that group. This is correct. This is not the point of contention.

➽ But Johnny does have a choice. It just means that he misses out on the pot luck if he chooses not to follow CC's rules. 

But [Dale] does have a choice. It just means that [Dale] misses out on [society] if he chooses not to follow [government's] rules.

But [Dale] does have a choice. It just means that [Dale] misses out on [interactacting with other individual humans] [in that group] if he chooses not to follow [government's] rules.

I don't need to obey government's rules to be a part of a society; to be part of a group of other individual humans freely choosing who they wish to associate with or not associate with.

➽ One cannot make (useful) money or exchange resources from others, for example, without existing in a society.

Agreed. That is not my contention. My problem is with you not recognizing that a 'society' is merely a group of interacting and/or non interacting humans. Your scenario doesn't reach.

➽ Again, "harm" is not an intent, it's an action.

I understand your intended point. Your statement is not correct either. "Harm" is the result of an action.

➽ Extortion (the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats) is an action.

I so stipulate that your statement, as you have presented it, herein shortened to 'Extortion is an action', is a fact.

⍺ Extortion is the practice of obtaining benefit through coercion. WikipediaΩ

Thus I also stipulate that 'Coercion is an action.'
I am assuming that you would agree that both are actions that you want accepted as amoral minus intent.

⍺ Coercion is compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threats, including force. WikipediaΩ

➽ Actions are neither moral nor immoral without intent.
➽ Therefore, [extortion] is not immoral without more context. Specifically, in this scenario, is the extortion done with malice (the intention or desire to do evil; ill will)?

Extrapolation from your claim indicates that according to you, absent (ill) intent, extorting or coercing a human to act in an involuntary manner is not immoral.

2 of 2

The discussion/ argument trifurcates at this point. The divisions are (A) initiatory offensive intent, (B) protective defensive intent, and (C) equalizing retaliatory intent.

Category (C) I am still processing. I can see category (C) being moral or immoral based upon what I'm going to refer to as the details of the situation. I will just drop 'Talion Law' here. I'm actually not 100% convinced of the morality of Talion Law at this point in time. On the other hand, I do see Talion Law as being in the defensive category of compelling the harming person to not do harm.

I agree with you in regard to category (B).
'Coercion'; 'compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner'; compelling an attacker to involuntarily end their attack; compelling an attacker to involuntarily end their attempt to initiate harm is moral. Self-defense as always moral.

I do NOT agree with you in regard to category (A).
An initiatory offensive attack; an initiatory offensive 'compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner' is always a harm. Deliberately doing harm to another is never a moral act. Refusing to make another whole after inadvertently doing them harm is immoral.

➽ In the case of the Government (as a collective entity, not as an individual). The answer is No, the purpose of the extortion is not malicious, and therefore not immoral.

For the moment I will not challenge your use of the reified term 'government'.

⍺ Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory".

Reification is part of normal usage of natural language (just like metonymy for instance), as well as of literature, where a reified abstraction is intended as a figure of speech, and actually understood as such. But the use of reification in logical reasoning or rhetoric is misleading and usually regarded as a fallacy.[3] WikipediaΩ

I will indirectly challenge your reasoning for why the answer 'No' is incorrect by way of reductio ad absurdum.

In the case of the [Mafia] (as a collective entity, not as an individual). The answer is No, the purpose of the extortion is not malicious, and therefore not immoral.

"The purpose of the extortion is not malicious;" the purpose of the extortion is to gain operating funds for the entity doing the extorting.

Logically, Both are exactly the same. You will claim they are not. I'm sure the discussion will then focus on how the government (allegedly) gets a right to rule and control (that the mafia does not). So anticipating this direction I point out: There is no divine right of kings; there is no divine right of the collective; there is no divine right of the majority; there is no divine right of government.

Now I will challenge your use of the reified term 'government'. Government as a concept is no different than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Government is not a collective entity. Government is a fictitious entity, an artificial person recognized by law. It is not human, it doesn't bleed, it doesn't die.

Government is merely men and women. This is an indisputable fact. This is proven by the simple fact that government can do nothing itself. It needs men and women to act for it. If every single man or woman that works for government in whatever capacity, be it an elected or appointed officer, agent, or employee went home on Friday and simply did not return to work Monday, their government would have ceased to exist that Friday.

The fact that government is merely a group of humans is a fact that proves that government is not some supernatural entity, demigod, or any other magical creature.

It is 'ASSUMED' that these mere humans have some sort of 'authority' over other humans because of their 'official' positions; because of their holding of some government office.

By 'authority' I specifically mean 'a right to govern'; 'a right to rule'; 'a right to control'.

The self-evident truth of all humans being created with equal rights means that all humans are created with an equal lack of ownership (and ownership rights) of other humans; all humans are created with an equal lack of rights to govern, rule, or control other humans that would be concurrent with ownership.

A simple and incontrovertible point of logic is one can not delegate (give away to another) an authority (a right to rule) one does not have. No human can give an authority (a right to rule), that they don't have, to any reified construct. I am assuming that you are going to deny this point. If so, I have a bunch of Socratic questions for you to drill down on why you don't agree.

Getting back to your claim... You assume the action of the collective is not malicious. The collective doesn't act. Individuals alleged to represent the collective do. By extension, you assume the action of the individual alleged to represent the collective is not acting malicious intent. Whether your assumption is correct or not is moot.

Contrary to your claim that absent malicious intent an action is not immoral: An act intentionally done, that causes harm, is immoral. Concurrent with the lack of rights to govern, rule, or control is the lack of a right to initiate harm.

➽ In a society, all concepts have 2 kinds of interpretation. The interpretation of the individual, and the interpretation of the group.

UNI-NOTWE is the logic error in your assumption. You and I are not we.

You and I would be a group of two. Absent my specific consent, you presume to speak for me when you presume to speak for this group. Likewise, if there are 8 others in the group that have not given you specific consent to speak for them, you presume to speak for 9 humans when you presume to speak for the group. This group interpretation you claim exists doesn't unless all 10 humans in the group interpret things exactly the same way. Which means absent that specific consent, you are presuming to interpret things for 9 humans.