Zack, Zack Bass wrote: > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ... >> >>>> -- at least until the community can decide how much (if any) >>>> of Kevin's remaining assets should go to compensate Jane's heirs. >>>> >> ... >> He took it upon himself to be judge of his own case, seated himself >> alone as Jury, declared sentence without consultation, denied any >> possibility of appeal, insisted the sentence be carried out immediately >> and proceeded to appoint himself executioner. >> >> > > That has not one thing top do with whether or not Kevin is doing Wrong. > When is it Immoral (and remember, that is what I've been asking about, > not what some jerks might do - we all know that shitheads often punish > me for victimless acts) for one man to do that which a hundred men may > morally do? > I expect Kevin feels his actions were moral. If Kevin and (what was her name?) Jill were alone in the world, Jill's opinion of his morality is no longer germane. Kevin rules. Alone.
I have already made it very clear that I do not believe his actions were moral. Kevin was wrong, wrong, wrong. So Kevin and I differ with regard to the morality of his actions. If I and Kevin are now alone in his world, I will do what I may to protect myself from this clearly dangerous (and immoral) person. If we share a more populated world, then other people may take a legitimate interest as well. "Self-interest" I might add. You may characterize those who would take that interest as "jerks" and "shitheads" but even such as they may rightly have an interest in protecting themselves from Kevin. The point is that Kevin doesn't get to determine what is moral for all others. And those others may differ -- both with Kevin and among themselves. If Kevin and each of those others attempt to insist that their own morality constrain all others, we may rightly expect "a war of all against all." That would certainly make for an interesting life, though probably a short one. G.
