Roger Waters supports fox hunting?

[bong]

Bong with respect you cannot argue your case, all you do is embark in a tirade of swearing and abuse. You say I don't know much about you, well you know nothing about me, yet the first posting you made was full of swear words and insults towards me (now deleted fortunately) and I hadn't even heard of you at that time. This is not healthy behaviour.
Furthermore I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK who want cruel sports banned and the majority of MPs in the UK Parliament who voted for a ban are not religious maniacs as you seem to believe they are. In respect of your claim please give me some statistics! I'd be very interested.

Finally I've hardly said anything to you, yet as you yourself mention (being 'hot under the collar' ) you have launched into tirades of abuse and rage from your first posting here. Control yourself man for goodness sake.

O.K. I swore once in that first post I called you a f%#$ing W%$#er I guess that is a tirade of swearing and so completely full of coarse language and abuse. I'm rather surprised that my user name and profile wasn't completely banned because of the amount of foul language that I used (sarcasm). No I don't know anything about you, and like I said, you know nothing about me, so how can you make the statement that "I need help"??
I don't believe that I implied that the people who want fox hunting banned were "religious freaks" I used that term to compare those who want foxhunting banned to those who "run up to you in the street and try to tell you how good Jesus is and that everyone should join their religion because of it".
If the overwhelming majority of people in the United Kingdom who want Fox hunting banned are not "religious freaks" then whats your problem?? I never once implied that these people are all "Jesus Freaks" I don't know where you got that from in my post but I never even vaguely implied that.
I guess one sentence with two curses (in my country "wanker" isn't considered a curse)is considered a tirade of abuse and rage. Hmm, Glad I live in acountry where there are more important things to worry about than someone calling someone else a F----ng W---er. Wow, how I lowered myself to the lowest form of human being when I typed that. What a horrible person I must be. I've really set back the evolution of the human race by several millenia with that comment.

[mosespa]

Bong said "Do you like it when people tell you that the things you like to do are bad??
I don't think you do."
Your words here are akin to what I would expect to hear from a child having a tantrum, not an adult.
I don't like seeing people getting a buzz out of animals being ripped apart for the hell of it, plain and simple, and it should be made illegal to do this.
I am a professional person and in all my years of debating this with foxhunters no one has ever spoken to me like you have before. It is obvious that you cannot argue your case, but there's no need to resort to insults. It just shows you up, as well as the foxhunting lobby.
I won't be coming here again.

All right...in the above statement, Kingfox rails against insulting people to make your point...after Kingfox insults.

Kingfox states what Kingfox likes and doesn't like and declares that what Kingfox doesn't like should be made illegal.

Kingfox obviously doesn't realize that attempting to legislate morality is IMMORAL!!!!

Kingfox says that Kingfox will never come here again...but then goes on to post a few more times.

I haven't read Kingfox's loooooooooooooooong posts, but I intend to because mosespa enjoys arguments just as much as Kingfox obviously does and thinks that Kingfox might make a worthy opponent for mosespa.

Would Kingfox like to pick a topic (other than foxhunting, that is,) or should mosespa?

[KingFox]

Bong I have no real problem with you, but I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I swore at you for no reason and was always angry. Let's keep this civilised eh.
Hello Mosepa, and regarding the statement you made:
Law is not a preventative measure, it simply allows for punishment once and offense has ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED!!
You seem to overlook the utilitarian perspective of laws and punishment, that is of laws acting as a deterrent to crime, as espoused by the positivists JOhn Stuart Mill and Jeremy BEntham to name a few legal philosophers, and which is a tenet of the legal system in the WEst today.
Similarly your statement 'attempting to legislate morality is immoral.'
That's a big statement, especially from a Buddha like yourself. Ultimately there is a degree of overlap between morality and secular law in any society, and furthermore it can be argued that human beings are themselves moral beings, and if no morality existed there would be no society as this acts as a sanction against wrong acts. However if you wish to transcend morality and become something akin to a Nietzschean Superman, then I applaud you as this takes a lot of guts, and one where you have to primarily overcome yourself, not others.
The debate of natural versus positivist law has gone on for centuries, I doubt very much if it will be resolved here!
Finally I can see from your reply Spinoza that you've given a lot of thought to the points I have written , thank you so much !
Hopefully I'll see you all after Christmas (that is if I still have internet access), till then all the best.

[mosespa]

Hello Mosepa, and regarding the statement you made:
Law is not a preventative measure, it simply allows for punishment once and offense has ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED!!
You seem to overlook the utilitarian perspective of laws and punishment, that is of laws acting as a deterrent to crime, as espoused by the positivists JOhn Stuart Mill and Jeremy BEntham to name a few legal philosophers, and which is a tenet of the legal system in the WEst today.

Thinking of a law as a deterrent to crime is the same thing, I think, as viewing a bottle of hair dye as a deterrent to graying hair.
Simply because there is a law against something does not by any means stop that thing from happening.

There is a law against murder, murder still occurs on a daily basis and in great numbers. There is a law against rape, yet a woman is raped every six seconds in New York City alone.

To look at law as a deterrent to crime is to see it as a very poor deterrent. Law does not deter crime. In fact, anyone who will not commit a crime simply because there is a law against that act is copping out. They are using the fact that there is a law as an excuse to sidestep the fact that they personally feel that act to be wrong. They are refusing to accept the responsibility of their own moral judgment, and are instead assigning that responsibility to the people who made the law the will not break.

In short, they wouldn't commit that act even if there weren't a law against it, they just don't want to admit it out of fear of appearing to be a "goody-two shoes," or any one of a thousand other reasons that have nothing to do with a law.

Right now, as you read this, a woman is being raped, a child is being murdered, a man is being mugged, someone is breaking into someone else's house, someone is speeding in their vehicle on the road, someone is speeding on methamphetemine, someone is growing pot, a minor is drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, someone is shoplifting.

Now, Kingfox...I ask you, WHY are these things happening when there are laws against these things?

Law is not a deterrent to the criminal element, only to "law abiding citizens" who most likely wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

Similarly your statement 'attempting to legislate morality is immoral.'

Laws are made by a minority of people who claim to represent the majority. In this way, it could even be said (though this is admittedly an extreme,) that one man sets forth the code that all others are to abide by or else face consequences.

Let's say this one man decides that smoking marijuana is wrong. This is his subjective opinion, yet he decrees it morally wrong to smoke marijuana.

Morality is subjective; what one person thinks is moral may not be considered moral by another...the law should be objective.

How is it morally right for one man to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body?

Early in the Twentieth century, it was decreed that the manufacture, transport, possession and consumption of alcohol was immoral and therefore made illegal.

Sales of alcohol skyrocketed, crime involving alcohol boomed.

I state, again, that any attempt to legislate morality is in itself immoral.

It is wrong to force one's beliefs upon others, in other words.

That's a big statement, especially from a Buddha like yourself. Ultimately there is a degree of overlap between morality and secular law in any society, and furthermore it can be argued that human beings are themselves moral beings, and if no morality existed there would be no society as this acts as a sanction against wrong acts.

There should not be an overlap. Morality is largely considered a part of one's spirituality. In this country (the USA) there is a law of seperation of church and state. In a sense, legislating morality is against the law in this country. Quite a paradox, eh?

Morality is up to the individual, however. One's morality is based upon one's view of right and wrong which is shaped by one's experiences...which are personal. Granted, others may share one person's opinion of what is moral...but if they were to examine it closely enough, they would discover areas in which their agreement stops.

There is no single moral edict that ALL people agree upon. Therefore, it is useless to use law as a means of forcing morality. You might as well try to force all people to dress alike, to think the same, to eat the same food, to listen to the same music, to watch the same television shows.

However if you wish to transcend morality and become something akin to a Nietzschean Superman, then I applaud you as this takes a lot of guts, and one where you have to primarily overcome yourself, not others.
The debate of natural versus positivist law has gone on for centuries, I doubt very much if it will be resolved here!

A great man once said something to the effect of, "That government which governs best is that government which governs least. I agree with this and with it's logical conclusion which is 'That government which governs best is that government which governs NOT AT ALL.'" (Emphasis mine.)

The only correct function of a government is to protect it's citizens from hostile force and to settle legal disagreements.

It is not right for a government to use hostile force against it's citizens. Attempting to legislate morality is using hostile force.

I eagerly await your next post on this subject, Kingfox. I hope you still have the internet.

[KingFox]

Mosepa you said "In fact, anyone who will not commit a crime simply because there is a law against that act is copping out. They are using the fact that there is a law as an excuse to sidestep the fact that they personally feel that act to be wrong. They are refusing to accept the responsibility of their own moral judgment, and are instead assigning that responsibility to the people who made the law the will not break. "

Actually I agree with you here, more than you think. True, all too often people who do not commit a crime are in truth fearful of the punishment that will ensue. When such sanctions are removed, such as in war for example, then you see formerly 'good people' behaving like psychopaths, simply because they can, they have the power to do so and the normal sanctions have been removed (I think you will be interested in of all things a controversial psychology experiment whcih examined this, Zimbardo et al's prison simulation experiment 1972; admittedly a psychology experiment with no real life ecological validity as such, but nevertheless, the results were chilling) . But nevertheless it remains, rightly or wrongly, that for the majority of people, the public, the fact that the law exists as a deterrent stops these crimes being committed. Take away threats of punishment and the law, and you find so called 'good' people behaving very badly, and 'bad' people perhaps behaving even worse. Society and all forms of social cohesion break down, anarchy reigns.

Similarly when you say that laws are made by a minority claiming to act for the majority, again, you are correct. However, it is argued, at least in THEORY, that in a modern western democracy such as in the US and Europe that politicians are democratically elected by the people, and therefore, in theory, when proposing legislation this is executed in society's name (I think your president possesses the 'title' 'First Servant of the People' or something to that effect). I state though that this is the principle in theory, sadly often not in practice. However again it can be argued that although as you rightly point out morality is subjective, there nevertheless exists a general consensus amongst society as to some fundamental moral values. Any social group it is argued must have at least some consensus of morality for the survival of the collective (Nietzsche's 'herd instinct' as he derogatively termed it). Ultimately there will always exist some tension between collective norms and values, and the liberty of the individual. Granted, too much of the former becomes an oppressive, witch hunting, fundamentalist state, but too much of the latter and there is ultimately a breakdown of society, no social cohesion, a Nietzschean/Dostoevskyan dystopia.
Coming again to your point of prohibition in the US, you are correct, alcholism rocketed... forbidden fruit is nicer!

When you mention that there should be no overlap between morality and legislation, as said there is always an overlap between the two, and to separate them both would in many cases would ultimately lead to their non existence (do forgive me if what I say here sounds convoluted). Even a country such as yours, which prides itself in the freedom of the individual, has morality in its laws, for example in rights of private property (compare with for example former Native American societies, who had totally different status goals to modern capitalist America). It can even be argued, almost paradoxically, that the idea of the freedom of the individual is in itself a moral stance and judgment. As Sartre pointed out 'even not choosing is in itself a choice'.
I think you'll find that I agree with most of what you say. However when you say that morality and the law should not overlap, this would I imagine be very difficult to realise, as both tend to overlap and blend into the other. Get rid of one, and sometimes you get rid of them both, one tends often to mirror the other.
But if I might get back to the debate on foxhunting, just briefly, I believe this is cruel, as is badger baiting and dog fighting and other such acts on animals who in effect are voiceless, do not give their consent to such acts, and technically speaking have no rights. Fundamentally I suppose this is my moral judgment. Is it right of me therefore to protest against this, or should I passively allow people to do this? Surely when people protest against what they believe to be 'wrong', this is the basis of a pluralist society? I am sure you possess views that you feel strongly about, as said, it can be argued that people are moral beings.

I must say that I enjoy talking (writing) to you, what you have written is still begs more thought and reflection on my part. I am using this at work and after Christmas I don't know whether I'll be taking up another job. Hope to speak to you soon.

[mosespa]

Mosepa you said "In fact, anyone who will not commit a crime simply because there is a law against that act is copping out. They are using the fact that there is a law as an excuse to sidestep the fact that they personally feel that act to be wrong. They are refusing to accept the responsibility of their own moral judgment, and are instead assigning that responsibility to the people who made the law the will not break. "

Actually I agree with you here, more than you think. True, all too often people who do not commit a crime are in truth fearful of the punishment that will ensue. When such sanctions are removed, such as in war for example, then you see formerly 'good people' behaving like psychopaths, simply because they can, they have the power to do so and the normal sanctions have been removed (I think you will be interested in of all things a controversial psychology experiment whcih examined this, Zimbardo et al's prison simulation experiment 1972; admittedly a psychology experiment with no real life ecological validity as such, but nevertheless, the results were chilling) . But nevertheless it remains, rightly or wrongly, that for the majority of people, the public, the fact that the law exists as a deterrent stops these crimes being committed. Take away threats of punishment and the law, and you find so called 'good' people behaving very badly, and 'bad' people perhaps behaving even worse. Society and all forms of social cohesion break down, anarchy reigns.

And yet you say that people are inherently moral. If this is so, then it would seem that if laws were removed, people would still behave in accordance with their inherent morality.

War is not a good example to use of people becoming sociopaths when the normal restrictions are removed. As Dalton Trumbo pointed out, most soldiers only fight because they are commanded to.

Armed forces are a prime example of collectivist thinking and sheep-like behavior. (Mind you, I'm not knocking them; they protect my cowardly ass:)) When you join up, the first thing they (your commanding officers) do is strip away your individuality. You become just a cog in a machine. You are expected to surrender your freewill and follow commands, PERIOD. You are not to think for yourself, just follow orders.

It just so happens that those orders are often to kill, however you have to.

I think the brutality you mention in war is the result of a psyche breaking down because one has been programmed to follow orders ("KILL") that go against everything one has been taught ("Thou shall NOT kill.")

Granted, if all restrictions were to be removed, there would be a period of anarchy, but the new would wear off and people would fall back into their routines. As Alan Moore once said, "Anarchy means 'without rule,' not without order."

Similarly when you say that laws are made by a minority claiming to act for the majority, again, you are correct. However, it is argued, at least in THEORY, that in a modern western democracy such as in the US and Europe that politicians are democratically elected by the people, and therefore, in theory, when proposing legislation this is executed in society's name (I think your president possesses the 'title' 'First Servant of the People' or something to that effect). I state though that this is the principle in theory, sadly often not in practice. However again it can be argued that although as you rightly point out morality is subjective, there nevertheless exists a general consensus amongst society as to some fundamental moral values. Any social group it is argued must have at least some consensus of morality for the survival of the collective (Nietzsche's 'herd instinct' as he derogatively termed it). Ultimately there will always exist some tension between collective norms and values, and the liberty of the individual. Granted, too much of the former becomes an oppressive, witch hunting, fundamentalist state, but too much of the latter and there is ultimately a breakdown of society, no social cohesion, a Nietzschean/Dostoevskyan dystopia.
Coming again to your point of prohibition in the US, you are correct, alcholism rocketed... forbidden fruit is nicer!.

There is a saying, "With freedom comes great responsibility."

What this means to me is that in order to be truly free, you must govern yourself accordingly. True freedom of the individual respects the freedom of ALL individuals.

Granted, this leads to the sticky argument of "What if one person believes it's okay to commit murder. It's his individual belief and it must be respected," But, committing murder infringes on the individual rights of the victim.

This is what law should be about and only this, protection of indiviual rights and keeping those rights from being infringed upon.

I feel that it is not the place of the law to decide when and where people should be allowed to drink a beer, to decide what a person can or cannot purchase with their own money.

The law should not regulate what a person can or cannot do as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another person.

It's that simple.

When you mention that there should be no overlap between morality and legislation, as said there is always an overlap between the two, and to separate them both would in many cases would ultimately lead to their non existence (do forgive me if what I say here sounds convoluted). Even a country such as yours, which prides itself in the freedom of the individual, has morality in its laws, for example in rights of private property (compare with for example former Native American societies, who had totally different status goals to modern capitalist America). It can even be argued, almost paradoxically, that the idea of the freedom of the individual is in itself a moral stance and judgment. As Sartre pointed out 'even not choosing is in itself a choice'.
I think you'll find that I agree with most of what you say. However when you say that morality and the law should not overlap, this would I imagine be very difficult to realise, as both tend to overlap and blend into the other. Get rid of one, and sometimes you get rid of them both, one tends often to mirror the other.

It is my contention that morality and legislature should be rigidly seperate.

I believe that they are structured to be so. In the purest sense (and of course, nothing is ever practiced in it's purest sense,) legislature is designed to govern the safety of the citizenry whereas morality is designed to govern behavior.

That's how it should be...but...well, you know how it goes.

But if I might get back to the debate on foxhunting, just briefly, I believe this is cruel, as is badger baiting and dog fighting and other such acts on animals who in effect are voiceless, do not give their consent to such acts, and technically speaking have no rights. Fundamentally I suppose this is my moral judgment. Is it right of me therefore to protest against this, or should I passively allow people to do this? Surely when people protest against what they believe to be 'wrong', this is the basis of a pluralist society? I am sure you possess views that you feel strongly about, as said, it can be argued that people are moral beings. .

First of all, hunting is as natural as eating. Hunting occurs in nature...animals hunt each other. As I've said before, hunting for food I have no problem with. It is only when people hunt for a stuffed carcass or a fur coat that I see it as cruel. Hunting for food is not cruel...it's just the way things are.

I must say that I enjoy talking (writing) to you, what you have written is still begs more thought and reflection on my part. I am using this at work and after Christmas I don't know whether I'll be taking up another job. Hope to speak to you soon.

Thank you, I feel the same way...I am enjoying our discourse.

I look forward to continuing...if it's okay with Keith, of course.

[Spinoza]

And yet you say that people are inherently moral. If this is so, then it would seem that if laws were removed, people would still behave in accordance with their inherent morality.

War is not a good example to use of people becoming sociopaths when the normal restrictions are removed. As Dalton Trumbo pointed out, most soldiers only fight because they are commanded to.

Well , i think that you must look at war not only from the "soldiers" point of view but from an economic, patriotistic/etnic point, as you may have seen in Yougoslavia and perhaps also in Ruanda. Those "soldiers" ( patriotists ) did in fact behave sometimes like animals ( murdering, raping, etc, knowing very well that the others are powerless because there is no Visible law or a governement to protect them. Racist-thinking then comes up on the surface, as well as other fantasies slumbering in the human mind ( read the books of Nancy Friday on fantasies of Women ( only from an intellectual oint of view, you know .

Similarly when you say that laws are made by a minority claiming to act for the majority, again, you are correct. However, it is argued, at least in THEORY, that in a modern western democracy such as in the US and Europe that politicians are democratically elected by the people, and therefore, in theory, when proposing legislation this is executed in society's name (I think your president possesses the 'title' 'First Servant of the People' or something to that effect). I state though that this is the principle in theory, sadly often not in practice. However again it can be argued that although as you rightly point out morality is subjective, there nevertheless exists a general consensus amongst society as to some fundamental moral values. Any social group it is argued must have at least some consensus of morality for the survival of the collective (Nietzsche's 'herd instinct' as he derogatively termed it). Ultimately there will always exist some tension between collective norms and values, and the liberty of the individual. Granted, too much of the former becomes an oppressive, witch hunting, fundamentalist state, but too much of the latter and there is ultimately a breakdown of society, no social cohesion, a Nietzschean/Dostoevskyan dystopia.
Coming again to your point of prohibition in the US, you are correct, alcholism rocketed... forbidden fruit is nicer!.

There is a saying, "With freedom comes great responsibility."

What this means to me is that in order to be truly free, you must govern yourself accordingly. True freedom of the individual respects the freedom of ALL individuals.

Isn't there a contradiction? You can't "respect" ( in the sense of approving the freedom of ALL individuals and at the same time being responsible. The word responsibility points at a distinction between acts that are good and acts that are lees good or wrong. By making this distinction, you come up with an ordeal not only on your own life and acting but also on the life and acting of others.

Granted, this leads to the sticky argument of "What if one person believes it's okay to commit murder. It's his individual belief and it must be respected," But, committing murder infringes on the individual rights of the victim.

The individu's rights are something granted to him by a government or a "state". He is not born with those rights. He is just a being like the other beings ( plants, stones, foxes ), with no intrinsic rights. Intrinsic rights are an invention of humankind ( maybe deducted from the state of reality , or the world surrounding us )

This is what law should be about and only this, protection of indiviual rights and keeping those rights from being infringed upon.

I feel that it is not the place of the law to decide when and where people should be allowed to drink a beer, to decide what a person can or cannot purchase with their own money.

The law should not regulate what a person can or cannot do as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another person.

It's that simple.

When you mention that there should be no overlap between morality and legislation, as said there is always an overlap between the two, and to separate them both would in many cases would ultimately lead to their non existence (do forgive me if what I say here sounds convoluted). Even a country such as yours, which prides itself in the freedom of the individual, has morality in its laws, for example in rights of private property (compare with for example former Native American societies, who had totally different status goals to modern capitalist America). It can even be argued, almost paradoxically, that the idea of the freedom of the individual is in itself a moral stance and judgment. As Sartre pointed out 'even not choosing is in itself a choice'.
I think you'll find that I agree with most of what you say. However when you say that morality and the law should not overlap, this would I imagine be very difficult to realise, as both tend to overlap and blend into the other. Get rid of one, and sometimes you get rid of them both, one tends often to mirror the other.

It is my contention that morality and legislature should be rigidly seperate.

I believe that they are structured to be so. In the purest sense (and of course, nothing is ever practiced in it's purest sense,) legislature is designed to govern the safety of the citizenry whereas morality is designed to govern behavior.

Laws are based upon general visions, ideas, ideologies: first principles from which one starts to build up a whole structure. These first principles are unproved statements, axioma's. It is on this distinction that you, mosespa, make a statement that Law and morality should be divided.

That's how it should be...but...well, you know how it goes.

[mosespa]

The individu's rights are something granted to him by a government or a "state". He is not born with those rights. He is just a being like the other beings ( plants, stones, foxes ), with no intrinsic rights. Intrinsic rights are an invention of humankind ( maybe deducted from the state of reality , or the world surrounding us )

Hold it right there, pal. I don't know about where you live, but the country I live in (USA) was founded on the principle that "all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creater with certain inalienable rights and that among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

No one "grants" me rights...I WAS born with them.

I again quote Ayn Rand (without permission:)

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission.
If you exist only because society permits you to exist--you have no RIGHT to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill--but the inalienable INDIVIDUAL right of another man to live. This is not a "compromise" between two rights--but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched.

[drafsack]

Anyway back to the subject of fox hunting. You might as well hunt foxes as the're not that nice to eat.

[Spinoza]

Hold it right there, pal. I don't know about where you live, but the country I live in (USA) was founded on the principle that "all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creater with certain inalienable rights and that among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

No one "grants" me rights...I WAS born with them.

I again quote Ayn Rand (without permission:)

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission.
If you exist only because society permits you to exist--you have no RIGHT to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill--but the inalienable INDIVIDUAL right of another man to live. This is not a "compromise" between two rights--but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched.

You're not born with them strictly speaking. Some people are born with power or force or intelligence or other qualifications which give them the power to defend their own life. They can force other people to give them the right to live. If i'm strong enough i force others to give me the right to live. Your great principle of your state you were born in, from where did that come ?? God, The Devil ??? People invented that principle. They used that principle as a fundament of their society. Now, in this time long after the birth of your state, it is society that grants those rights based on that principle to everybody in the state, even the simple-minded, the weak, the poor.

[mosespa]

You're not born with them strictly speaking. Some people are born with power or force or intelligence or other qualifications which give them the power to defend their own life. They can force other people to give them the right to live. If i'm strong enough i force others to give me the right to live. Your great principle of your state you were born in, from where did that come ?? God, The Devil ??? People invented that principle. They used that principle as a fundament of their society. Now, in this time long after the birth of your state, it is society that grants those rights based on that principle to everybody in the state, even the simple-minded, the weak, the poor.

"Rights" are a intangible...they are a concept. Being intangible, it's almost ridiculous to argue whether they can be given or taken away.

Granted, a person can be imprisoned, but does this take away their right to think as they please? It does not.

As for force...no one has the RIGHT to use force for any reason except for defense against someone attempting to use force against them.

Now, simply because no one has the RIGHT to use force doesn't stop people from attempting to use force.

Again, rights and laws are things that do not do what people expect them to do. A law or a right is not infallible...it can be broken at the will of an individual.

My contention is that too many people place too much emphasis on the notion of "law" or "state" or "society." These things only have the power that the individual gives them.

There is a Randian notion called "Sanction Of The Victim" which states that no one can do ANYTHING to you without your participation in the act.

"...there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win--and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent."
(Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)

"The State" only rules you as long as you allow it.

It is true that in order to be truly free of any "state," one must live in a fashion that was once referred to as "underground." To work in an environment in which what you are payed is not reported by your employer...in which all of your transactions are conducted in cash..."true" freedom almost demands a nomadic existence free of any paper trail.

To many people this is not a desireable state of existence. But it all boils down to one fundamental choice...which is more important, a life of luxury burdened by the worries of a materialistic world; or a carefree life of liberty unburden by things that others can take away from you at will?

Which is more important? Your "self," or the things that you sacrifice your "self" in some form or another to have?

The teachings of zen state that attachments are the source of all human suffering, because of the sense of loss that comes when the things we are attached to are no longer there.

Only by removing attachments to the physical realm can one attain true freedom.

[catch22_love23]

Wow, all you Floydians are so...how should this be put...AWESOME! That you talk about this shit. I'm impressed if you can't already tell. Just got done with final exams and I'm too tired to figure out a decent argument for this particular discussion. Just wanted to let you know that your debates, for the most part, are much appreciated.
Thanks,
just another world citizen

[flashback]

I live in eastern Ky,the hills where the are plenty of foxes as well as other game.I guess fix hunting over here is different,the don't kill foxes over here.really the fox hunters buy foxes to turn loose just to be able to run thier dogs.I've seen people bring in fox hides to sell and the fox hunters wouldd surround them like they were going to kill them,the law would have to help them get away.Hunting where I am from is supported by hunters,there are more turkeys',more deer than ever before,and now hunters are helping the state reintroduce elk.We have the largest elk pop east of the rockies.All this was done through proper management and everybody working together.So i have to say fox hunting isn't bad the way we do it usually.

[catch22_love23]

This reply is very general - sorry for that. However, if I were the King or the Queen of the Universe, and got to make up all the laws of the land, I would not allow the killing of animals (or humans). I don't care how much fun it is for some people to kill them. I also don't care that people like to eat them. I don't like to be around when something is being killed. ("So, then don't be around when animals are being killed" is what someone is probably thinking now, huh?) Yes, that's what I usually do, since lots'o' things are being killed all the time right now everywhere, all over the world. I just stay out of it and away from the killings (how long will that privilege last?). But if I were in charge, since I'd have that power (ha ha ha) I would just go ahead and make killing illigal. Of course, the punishment for that crime would be death.

But if I got to meet Roger Waters face to face, I wouldn't talk about the fox thing. I'd ask him whether or not Pink Floyd ever played with Led Zep or about any of those other weird mysteries surrounding the Floyd.

[mosespa]

You don't have to ask Roger that...I can tell you that...



PINK FLOYD NEVER PLAYED WITH LED ZEPPELIN!!!!



Jimmy Page considered the Floyd "boring" and "artsy fartsy." He wouldn't deign to play with them.

The closest there ever came to being a jam between Floyd and Zeppelin is when David Gilmour and John Bonham played in the "Rockestra" on the Paul McCartney And Wings album "Back To The Egg."

However, John Bonham is not Led Zeppelin and David Gimour is not Pink Floyd.