Wait just a minute. You want to sieze the high ground with lofty claims of morals and ethics, howl about theft and ransom, then turn right around and dissect words like society and justice when they are inconvenient? Bollocks. You are riding a mental merry-go-round.
You are absolutely, to a t, a sophist; you seize on one aspect of something I say, spin it off into something else, then make a non sequitur argument and pretend that is something while ignoring everything else I say. The fact you use things like 'lofty' and 'howl about' to color your language, making it SOUND like you're saying far more than you actually are, makes it even worse. Even more, you pick up an abandon arguments at will, only to circle back later, but you rarely bother to DEFEND your points. Case in point, we were talking about why you think private policing was bad, and you shifted the argument, I broke down why your response was wrong not merely from the term you used (justice) but also why it was more broadly wrong, yet you seize upon the justice part, don't actually prove me wrong, and then ignore the rest.
How does me having the moral high ground, and legitimately bringing up issues of morals and ethics, and making direct arguments about theft and ransom have to do at all with dealing with other words. These are not even in the same category. Theft and ransom are
acts, ones that can be clearly broken down and addressed, and drawn directly into taxes and the like, and as a result, one and directly address morals and ethics because so long as both parties agree theft and ransom are immoral (which I'm assuming you do,) than the moral high ground goes to whoever is arguing against theft and ransom, to which point the argument becomes are taxes theft or not,
an argument you never dispute. You merely make an argument for common good or necessity, but
that wouldn't change them being theft or not.
On the other hand, terms like society and justice are far more nebulous. Society is an abstract concept with broad potential meanings, and at the core, a non-entity. There is no existent thing called 'society,' merely billions of individuals with individual rights. Likewise, justice is abstract, but one that at least has a more established meaning. The point is, though, that
police are not about dispensing justice. So your use of 'justice' was in error, which I pointed out. Just like I pointed out even using that term,
your argument was still terrible.
The words justice and society aren't
inconvenient. They're just
wrong. That would be you and terms like theft or ransom, hence why you never bother to address the core points, and instead dance around it.
You engage in rampant projection; the only one riding a 'mental merry-go-round' is you.
Does not sound like a scenario I would want to be part of. Watch from a safe distance? Maybe.
Why, exactly? I was laying out potential options, none of which you bothered to explain why they were bad. Further, given I DO have the moral high ground, this is is just you refusing to acknowledge your support for a system that is neither moral nor ethical. I'd have more respect if you just admitted you had no principles.
