I suppose that depends upon whether or not I am a figment of your imagination?

If I donâ??t think that you think, then isnâ??t that the same as Me thinking that you are non-conscious â?¦ Inanimate? And if I believe you are non-conscious, then why would I assume you have any rights relative to me?”

You’re free to assume what you like.

Does whether you actually think or not depend on whether I think you do?

John Kennedy: It’s a consequence of human nature but independent of individual perspective.

How can human morality be independent of human perspective? Or are you asserting the existence of an Absolute Morality? (I believe in the existence of an Objective Morality myself, but not an Absolute one).

John Kennedy: In this it’s like your thought which is a consequence of our common nature but independent of my opinion. Whether you think or not is independent of whether I think you think, though it is not independent from your nature as a human being.

Iâ??m still not seeing your point.

If I donâ??t think that you think, then isnâ??t that the same as Me thinking that you are non-conscious â?¦ Inanimate? And if I believe you are non-conscious, then why would I assume you have any rights relative to me?

John Kennedy: Likewise slavery is right or wrong independent of individual opinion even though morality is a consequence of our nature.

How can slavery be â??rightâ? or â??wrongâ? independent of (conscious) Opinion? I mean, the Earth apparently orbits the Sun independent of our opinions, but that is because Celestial Mechanics is a consequence of the laws of Physics.

Are you suggesting that Morality is also a result of (consequence of) the laws of Physics?

Kind of like saying that Morality is the result of â??Godâ? isnâ??t it?

But perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

John Kennedy: If you want to affirm that morality is not independent of individual perspective then your then you affirm that your argument for government has no moral basis.

I donâ??t comprehend what you are trying to say here. Why would I assume the action is independent of the object in the first place?

It’s a consequence of human nature but independent of individual perspective.

In this it’s like your thought which is a consequence of our common nature but independent of my opinion. Whether you think or not is independent of whether I think you think, though it is not independent from your nature as a human being.

Likewise slavery is right or wrong independent of individual opinion even though morality is a consequence of our nature.

If you want to affirm that morality is not independent of individual perspective then your then you affirm that your argument for government has no moral basis.

Are you seriously asking if slavery is immoral independent of human perscpective?

Why donâ??t you tell me??? What does a rock think of slavery?

Do the laws of physics condone it?

Independent of perspective.

From their perspective, or from ours (yours and mine)?

Look, if I see a grown adult who is constantly relieving themselves in their pants, then I would suspect that they suffered from some kind of mental impairment. However, if I witness the same behavior in very young children then I donâ??t find it that odd at all.

“Now of course a Society could agree upon a â??Constitutionâ? â?? a contract defining specifically what an â??Individualâ? is and enumerating the specific fundamental and inalienable rights of Individuals, which (henceforth) the majority will not (can not) violate under any circumstances.”

Suppose the majority of the inhabitants of a territory agree that blacks may be enslaved and bought and sold as property. Is it then moral to enslave, buy and sell blacks within the territory?

Slavery always exists in one form or another Mr. Kennedy only the name (semantics) changes.

Now of course a Society could agree upon a â??Constitutionâ? â?? a contract defining specifically what an â??Individualâ? is and enumerating the specific fundamental and inalienable rights of Individuals, which (henceforth) the majority will not (can not) violate under any circumstances.

How is “99 to 1″ a moral argument?

If the majority of the inhabitants of a territory favor slavery is that a moral argument for slavery?

Iâ??m familiar with the â??orphanageâ? if that is what you are referring to?

I was thinking Dani = Daniel, and I donâ??t think I have ever met a â??Danielâ? who wasnâ??t at least part Irish. Plus, something in the tone and/or substance of your posts made me think Christian/Catholic (which of course would tie in with the Irish business. I think all of the Irish (like the Italians) are required to be born Catholics).

Just a silly little guessing game, I like to play.

You’re right about JTK. He is obviously very bright and has put much thought into his opinions.

Well thank you for the kind words Ms. Dani. I enjoy reading your posts very much as well.

As for Mr. Kennedy, I find him to be a very intelligent, respectful, and wise individual. I have no doubt that his belief in the superiority of Anarchy as a â??political systemâ? is genuine. For the most part I would say he is highly rational, although I have accused him of having a mystical streak.

Ms. Dani: The whole thing has definitely moved me to deeper thinking AND appreciating more what we have here in America.

I agree — there is a lot to be optimistic about.

Ms. Dani: JTK wouldn’t be able to say the things he’s saying if it weren’t for the very govt he’s bashing securing his liberty to do so.

I guess it would depend on who ends up running the private security force? ;-)

Hey — so was I correct the other day Ms. Dani? Are you an Irish girl by any chance?

Just to be clear Tony, I am NOT advocating a â??tyranny of the majorityâ?, I am simply advocating majority rule. Mr. Kennedyâ??s point is that the majority has no rights to control the Individual. I believe that is a ludicrous position to hold, but it is the kind of anomaly that occurs when you believe in â??free willâ?.

Now as you point out, our government (the Constitution) is set up to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. The minority are granted certain â??inalienable rightsâ? which the majority cannot infringe upon under ANY circumstances. But keep in mind Mr. Kennedy and myself were discussing a hypothetical situation with a small isolated society â?? not the U.S.

Tony: It also appears that you want to force your “social contract” onto to others.

If by â??Social contractâ? you mean I want to force you to accept certain definitions such as: â??Murderâ?, â??Robberyâ? and â??Rapeâ?, then Yes you are correct. A society is not a society unless there are common rules of conduct for Individuals within that society.

Tony: Are you in favor of forcing Kwanza on me?

I guess if a majority of the citizens wanted to establish a national holiday, or day of celebration to commemorate some significant event in our shared history that would be okay. Why, do you see something wrong with that? If a lot of people want to spontaneously have a birthday party for you, should the government step in and stop them?

Tony: Will your society evolve into one where your government determines sustainable lifespans as in “Logan’s Run?”

The ultimate needs of the Society outweigh the ultimate needs of the Individual.

If I recall correctly, the reason the society set a limit on itâ??s citizenâ??s lifespan in Loganâ??s Run was because there had been a Nuclear war and there was limited space available for the citizenry to live. Now regardless of how realistic a plot line this is, I would say that if a Society has to sacrifice a single Individual so that the Society itself (the â??Manyâ?) can survive then it is relatively simple arithmetic.

Why do you suppose that 1 guy jumps on the hand grenade, sacrificing himself to save his 6 buddies in the fox hole? Are you saying it is preferable if the 1 guy just jump out of the fox hole and saves himself while his 6 friends get blown to bits? I guess if you believe you will cease to exist when you die that would be the proper way to play it?

Serpent, my man, you are carrying my banner. What a great summation.

Although. as solid as your argument is, you cannot rationalize with someone (JTK) who’s irrational. Who knows, maybe JTK is disagreeing just for the sake of debate, although I don’t believe so.

The whole thing has definitely moved me to deeper thinking AND appreciating more what we have here in America. JTK wouldn’t be able to say the things he’s saying if it weren’t for the very govt he’s bashing securing his liberty to do so.