I think you are missing a point here. Morality of a group is something subjective. You assume that violence cannot be moral. Well, it can be. It depends on how you define it.
The reason you cannot debate properly with statists is for the same reason you post your version of the Spock up there and I am posting my version of the Spock down here (without saying that I agree with the statement).
I do agree with your philosophy, I adhere to anarchic and capitalistic principles myself, but your approach will come off as ignorant because you assume that ethics is something universal. Ethics are shaped by the environment. What is ethical for you is not for another. What was "moral" 200 years ago, its not today.
In the future don't be suprised some future nerds caling us "statists of the blockchain" because we allowed being sheep in Steemit while the whales had all of the wealth, deciding what content will be displayed.
This simply is not true. Everybody owns themselves. Therefore theft, assault, rape, and murder are the simultaneous acceptance AND rejection of property rights. It is objectively true that something cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously. There you go! Objective morality explained in four words.
It doesn't pertain to morality but...
The figure below is concave.
Image source 'Buddhism Plain and Simple' by Steve Hagen
Ask yourself if the statement above is valid, invalid, or both?
Exactly. I agree with most of @larkenrose’s assertions but it is important to remember that ’right’ and ’wrong’ are both human constructs. Taking clear cut positions on issues of incredible complexity often means that you are not considering all variables. Is government bad? Is government good? I think the true answer is both.
Thanks @larkenrose for pushing your agenda as the world is much better when people speak their minds; however, I must ask if this is the tone you take when debating statists? If so I would consider adjusting your tactics as it may come across as condescending, thus any debate is likely to be a pointless endeavor.
The consistency of matter and energy are not human constructs. When you steal, assault, rape, or murder, you are saying "property rights are valid for me and invalid for you." This cannot be universalized and this internal inconsistency is objectively determined.
Government is predicated on the idea that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. This is false and therefore the initiation of the use of force to act in the name of the State.
@@ -1,67 +1,5 @@
-The consistency of matter and energy are not human constructs.
+%3E
When
@@ -197,11 +197,165 @@
ined
-.
+%0A%0Aofcourse it can. they can say that they need it to feed their group instead of yours. Also. all these things happens whether a goverment exists or not.
%0A%0A
+%3E
Gove
@@ -452,101 +452,441 @@
ries
-. This is false and therefore the initiation of the use of force to act in the name of the State
+%0A%0AActually that's a the law of nature. Morality is subjective. what is moral for you is not for someone else. You consider it moral to have a girlfriend and masturbate on a porn side. some others don't. same applies about human life for some. Humans simply do not share the same values. %0A%0AYou are reaching wrong conclusions saying %22therefore%22 does not take you anywhere. avoid using %22anarchic%22 mantra. it's easy to catch your foot in it
.
Moral relativism is satanism. There is an objective right and wrong. You are not god of the physical domain and allowed to determine what is right and wrong. If you crush someones skull in that is an objective wrong. You have stolen property that doesn't belong to you. And you will suffer the consequences via natural law.
except NOBODY assumed violence could not be moral. I think you are projecting your own asumptions about morality onto others.