This is topic Is Government Equivalent to Armed Robbery? OR The Libertarian Debate Thread in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
I don't think it's really fair to make this into a match pitting Libertarians vs. all comers, so perhaps people can start with how much government they think is appropriate. Or if you don't like that, just pick up where it left off in the abortion thread.
So, I'll start it off by saying that businesses grow larger every day, and there are more mergers and buyouts than I care to follow. In our government, the branches check and balance each other, and an important role any governing body plays (or should play) involves checking and balancing these corporations to protect individuals.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The federal government grows larger every day as well. I can't say I'm any more pleased with that.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
And to think, I might soon be part of it.
<shameless plug for CS Job Search Miniblog thread>
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
Is Government Equivalent to Armed Robbery? Well, I'd say that's a bit extreme...unless you don't feel like paying your taxes!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
This thread split from a different one. The armed robbery thing is about where it left off.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, yes. The thing is that it's better than the armed robbery by any random collection of private individuals that you get without a government; that usually has rabe and murder thrown in with it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I doubt that most instances of armed robbery include rape and murder.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm still not sure why people think wealth needs to be redistributed. How many people actually take their money out of circulation? Most people invest it so it's doing good for the economy, or they spend it and it still does good for the economy. What else is there? Do people actually bury it in the backyard or stuff it in the mattress?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
i still think the income tax is unconstitutional, so when i can, i'm just going to leave.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I doubt that most instances of armed robbery include rape and murder.
You did not read my post sufficiently carefully. I was referring specifically to the kind of armed robbery you get in the absence of governments, which is not at all what we have today. In other words, I was referring to things like the Indo-European invasion of Europe, the Hebrews taking over the Fertile Crescent, and the Mongols over most of Eurasia.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Well, yes. The thing is that it's better than the armed robbery by any random collection of private individuals that you get without a government; that usually has rabe and murder thrown in with it.
Libertarianism does not advocate the absence of government - rather, it suggests a minimalist government.
I'll expand my thoughts on this when I haven't just gotten home from a long day at work.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Edit: replying to KoM.
My friends love to talk idiots out of being anarchists for that reason. My friends are bigger than they are. Anarchy just wouldn't be pretty.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Libertarianism does not advocate the absence of government - rather, it suggests a minimalist government.
I understand this, yes, but I was responding to the original question, rather than your particular version of libertarianism.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't think it's really fair to make this into a match pitting Libertarians vs. all comers, so perhaps people can start with how much government they think is appropriate.
Where in the original question does it suggest a version of Libertarianism where there is an absence of government (incidentally, that version of Libertarianism doesn't exist - it's called anarchy, and equating the two is like equating Democrats with Socialists, or Republicans with Fascists)?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right here :
quote:Is Government Equivalent to Armed Robbery?
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Not all government is the equivalent of armed robbery.
Government is needed where there are large numbers of people. I like what the author says of government in this book, namely that government is essentially a large group of people hiring someone to do tasks for the greater good; things like street sweeping, building aquafirs, lighting streetlights, enforcing laws, etc. I agree that these things are needed, and that we do need government to see to these things. I just don't think government should be in the Robin Hood business. I also think most of the things we need government for are local things that are, right now, legislated on the state and federal levels. I don't think that's right.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And the government pays for the street sweepers by - mandatory taxes, collected by force where required. What, you think you can make everybody in a city of five thousand agree that street sweeping is necessary? Or even a village of fifty?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You did not read my post sufficiently carefully.
You are right. My bad.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And the government pays for the street sweepers by - mandatory taxes, collected by force where required. What, you think you can make everybody in a city of five thousand agree that street sweeping is necessary? Or even a village of fifty?
Still not armed robbery though, if you benefit from those taxes. More like...forcing you to purchase something you may not want.
I think as long as a majority of the people think it's a good idea, and it will benefit at least *almost* everyone, it's fine.
I also think, as I said, that most of that should be on a local level. That would make it easier to find a nearby town with government you like...or convince people to your way of thinking and take over. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, well, 'forcing you to purchase something you don't want at a price not set by you' is not exactly armed robbery, sure. But it can come quite close. It all depends on the price being set and what you are getting. Indeed, even in armed robbery you are arguably purchasing something : The robber does not kill you if you give him your money. (At any rate, that is the implied bargain. The robber may not live up to it, of course.) It's all a matter of degree.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
airmanfour: given there's a Constitutional amendment that specifically allows the income tax (because it was previously declared unconstitutional), you've got a funny interpretation .
However, leaving is a perfectly good solution. Allow me to ramble about what might happen in a world absent government (and similar types of coercion):
People would quickly begin to gather together in these self-organizing, consensual "communities" -- perhaps they'd call them "cities".
People in these "cities" might periodically choose a few among them to deal with administrative details. To simplify accounting, there could even be a regular collection of the funds to be used collectively as part of the joint agreement! We could call those collections "Sexat".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Does everything have to be about sex? Excuse me, sexat?
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
It's not about sex, it's about xes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Government, even to libertarians, is a necessary evil. Libertarians are potent and vigilant advocates of the defense of civil liberties, not willing to see them traded for hollow comforts or temporary safeties, but they cater (in varying degrees) to the necessities of the Social Contract against forces and frauds percieved as unethical.
Their defenses of personal right, however, often come at the expense of reasonable social policy and maintenance. Postindustrial economies have a lot of public needs, and an appetite for public monies that is too large for most Libertarian tastes, but a Libertarian system would be terribly degenerative to the quality of life indexes, and the vital infrastructures, of a nation such as ours. It's an inferior system in practice -- at least in my opinion -- and this is contended against with theory and axiom.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm perfectly willing to trade a chunk of my income for the benefits provided by the government. That includes some public services which do not directly benefit me. Assuming I make it to old age, I will be happy to help pay for other people's children to go to school, even though there's no way for it to directly benefit me. I suppose it's all part of the social contract. I've voluntarily taken part in the privileges of living in this society, and I've therefore obligated myself to certain responsibilities, such as paying taxes. The problem with this viewpoint is that there's really no way to opt out. Maybe someone should go create a taxless libertarian paradise somewhere. Then again, the fact that one doesn't exist right now (so far as I know) might indicate something...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:I don't think it's really fair to make this into a match pitting Libertarians vs. all comers, so perhaps people can start with how much government they think is appropriate.
Where in the original question does it suggest a version of Libertarianism where there is an absence of government (incidentally, that version of Libertarianism doesn't exist - it's called anarchy, and equating the two is like equating Democrats with Socialists, or Republicans with Fascists)?
Not at all. There is a significant anarchist wing in the Libertarian Party.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I will be happy to help pay for other people's children to go to school, even though there's no way for it to directly benefit me.
Sure it does. You interact with these children. They will grow up and either work with you, directly or indirectly, or work for you.
Or, they may not get educated, leaving them limited options, and may decide crime is the best answer, and that can also directly affect you.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Armed robbery? I'm not too sure about that, but I would liken government to the mafia, or at least the portrayal of the mafia popularized by Mario Puzo novels.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Since I am the one who made the original comment about 'armed robbery' on the other thread, I suppose I ought to elaborate. I believe that violent force (or equivalently, the threat of it) should only be used in the protection of rights. What those rights actually are is a separate question, but for discussion's sake I'll go with those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
I think that taxation for the purpose of reasonably funding the organized protection of rights (e.g., police, the court system, national defense, etc.) is perfectly fine. All residents benefit from this protection, and to expect some small contribution for its collective maintenance makes sense; if people don't want to pay, they should be free to look for some other place to live (or perhaps even continue living here after it's made clear that they're on their own & the rest of us are not going to actively protect them). I personally prefer a sales tax as the fairest method of collection, but the point is that I do not consider all taxation immoral.
Once we leave the realm of protecting rights, which I deem to be the only legitimate purpose of government, then I certainly do regard taxation as evil.
I do not have the right to use a gun to threaten my neighbor unless he gives me money; this is true without regard to whether I plan to use it for what I think is a good cause (say, helping orphans). If I go rob him with another neighbor as my accomplice, it's still wrong; the fact that another person is willing to endorse my evil action in no way legitimizes it. If I do it with seventeen neighbors as accomplices, it's still wrong. If I do it with 300 million accomplices, it's still wrong.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I will be happy to help pay for other people's children to go to school, even though there's no way for it to directly benefit me.
Sure it does. You interact with these children. They will grow up and either work with you, directly or indirectly, or work for you.
Or, they may not get educated, leaving them limited options, and may decide crime is the best answer, and that can also directly affect you.
They may. And then again, they may not. And kids who are educated in the public school system have a vastly higher crime rate later in life than those who go to private schools. By your logic, the entire public school system should be scrapped.
(Oh, I wish.)
Lisa
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I'm perfectly willing to trade a chunk of my income for the benefits provided by the government.
And I have no problem with that. The problem comes when you're perfectly willing to trade a chunk of my income for those benefits.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, Lisa, I seem to recall that we have had this conversation before, and you agree that some amount of government - courts, military forces - is necessary, and that these would be paid for by taxation. Right?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
But those could be paid for through taxes that are not based on income, could it not?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Libertarianism seems to me to rest on a number of faulty premises.
First, it seems to treat "private property" as a basic notion that can enter into fundamental moral principles, rather than a socially-constructed notion. I don't see how this can be squared with our history. My own impression is that our natural inclinations to control parts of the natural world (e.g. animals marking "their" turf, which no one would agree that they really "own") led to conflict over these objects as humans organized into tribes and later civilizations, and the idea of property eventually emerged as a solution to this problem.
Viewed this way, the free market is a useful tool that we have built rather than a natural force to be respected or protected. And we have the right to alter our tools to meet our needs.
Second, I think libertarianism takes a narrow view of "freedom," turning it into something that is in many ways useless to us. Freedom is seen as freedom from external force, rather than freedom to do what you want. But the latter form of freedom is the one that benefits us.
Someone starving alone in the wilderness has all the "freedom from" he could want, but it does him no good. He would be better off in a place where he had more "freedom to" eat and find shelter, even if the society there reduced his "freedom from." And the goal of morality, ethics and government is to make people better off. So the freedom to do what you want is what matters ethically.
Further, the whole idea of "freedom from" rests on a mistakenly limited notion of what it is to exert force on someone. There are many ways to exert force, or the threat of force, other than direct violence. I can threaten you by pointing a gun at your head. Or I can tell you that your child is starving, or about to fall off a cliff, and I'll do nothing to help unless you do as I say. In this case I am forcing you to do what I want. But the latter kind of force gets exerted in the free market all the time. People are forced into unfair contracts because they have no other choice. I believe that this kind of force, as well as violence, is ethically wrong and the laws should try to prevent it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: But those could be paid for through taxes that are not based on income, could it not?
Sure, but how is that relevant? You are still having money taken away from you without your consent.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Destineer,
Threats are concidered force under libertarianism (the philosophy, I don't know what the Libertarian Party position is but I assume it would be the same.) Your example is flawed. Libertarianism belives in enough government to protect us from Force and Fraud. Whatever form that Force and Fraud takes within reason.
You're correct on the concept of "Negative Rights" (or "Freedom From" as you phrased it.)
A libertarian believes in Fundemental Negative Rights and that there are no Fundemental Positive Rights (A Positive Right is one where someone else must do something for you.)
There are, however, Derived Positive Rights. For example:
You have the Fundemental Negative Right not to be imprisoned unjustly, therefore you have a DERIVED Positive Right to a fair trial.
You have the Fundemental Negative Right not to have your house broken into, so you have the Derived Positive Right to have the cops come and investigate if/when it happens.
Pix
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Threats are concidered force under libertarianism (the philosophy, I don't know what the Libertarian Party position is but I assume it would be the same.) Your example is flawed.
But isn't it a central part of libertarianism that I can never do wrong through inaction? In my example, all that I'm doing is allowing the child to die -- which would've happened anyway if I wasn't there.
If you allow as a threat something like "If you don't do what I want, I'll do nothing," it seems like most contracts would involve some amount of coercion.
(By the way, I think that most contracts do involve some amount of coercion, and wealth redistribution is one way of reducing this phenomenon.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Irregardless wrote
quote:I believe that violent force (or equivalently, the threat of it) should only be used in the protection of rights. What those rights actually are is a separate question, but for discussion's sake I'll go with those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
I suggested that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a better source for defining rights than the U.S. Constitution (which after all is only accepted in one small part of the world and was written over 200 years ago when the very concept of Human Rights was a radical idea). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been ratified by all but two of the worlds nations. It represents the global majorities view on the rights of persons. That declaration enumerates the following rights.
quote:Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Given this definition of rights, efforts taken by a government to redistribute weath in a way that ensures all members of society an adequate standard of living, just compensation for work, social security, health care and education is necessary for the protection of human rights. Since it is the responsibility of the government to protect the human rights of its citizens, it is not only not the equivalent of armed robbery for a government to redistribute weath to attain this goals, it is the clear ethical responsibility of government to do so.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
In the case of a child falling off a cliff, ASSUMING you had no hand in putting the child in the situation, would not be force. You would be selling a service. ie: I will tell you where your child is in danger in exchange for money or whatevre you were requesting.
But tell me, how is this different from calling the gas company turning off your heat in the dead of winter for lack of payment? You could freeze to death without the heat and unless they get what they want you're doomed.
Granted, I would save the child, if possible, and return her to her mother without desire for reward. But the thing is, you don't have to.
How many people have been sued for trying to help others? Tons. That's why many places have "Good Samaritan" laws to protect them.
How often does a cry for help from a dark ally go unanswered?
Would you, as a non-libertarian, support criminal charges for anyone who fails to render assistance? Should it be a crime not to run into a burning building after someone elses child? Break up a fight where a gun is involved? Tend the bleeding of a man who just got stabbed in a robbery with the burgler still there?
Or would you reserve criminal charges for those who fail to help people when only minimul effort/risk is involved.
Remember, libertarianism doesn't address wether or not you SHOULD help others, only wether or not you MUST help others.
The glorious thing about socital pressure is that any pendejo who says "Gimme $50 and I'll tell you where your dieing 8 yr old is" would be shunned.
Pix
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Wow. I *THOROUGHLY* disagree with several elements of the 'Universal Declaration', and I don't know that there is any nation that actually upholds all of those things. I cannot see how a human being can assert a "right" to be given things for free by other people. The only rights I recognize are those which might be summed up as 'the right to be left alone.'
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Of course it's hard to say how high a standard people should be held to. All I need to prove my point is that some cases of failing to render help are obviously wrong and should be against the law. Especially when they involve threats like my example of the endangered child.
Also, you haven't really addressed my other two big points about the artificial nature of the market and the fact that positive rights (not negative rights) are what improve our lives.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
There are plenty of derived positive rights. Can you give me an example of one you think is fundemental?
You really didn't say much past "The Free Market is Artificial" and "Positive rights are Good"
The person starving in the wilderness is free to build a shelter or forage for food. Maybe you should put him on the moon if you wish to be really contrived so he'll be free from air too. Thing is though, this isn't a particularly useful analogy because what we're debating is freedom from the external force of others. It has nothing to do with resources availible.
Pix
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Wow. I *THOROUGHLY* disagree with several elements of the 'Universal Declaration', and I don't know that there is any nation that actually upholds all of those things. I cannot see how a human being can assert a "right" to be given things for free by other people. The only rights I recognize are those which might be summed up as 'the right to be left alone.'
Amen.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:There are plenty of derived positive rights. Can you give me an example of one you think is fundemental?
I think there's only one fundamental right -- the right to do what you want. This is what I would call freedom. And it's not like you either have it or you don't. There are degrees. I would say that society should be constructed in such a way as to provide the citizens with as much overall freedom as possible.
quote:Thing is though, this isn't a particularly useful analogy because what we're debating is freedom from the external force of others. It has nothing to do with resources availible.
But it may be that giving up some freedom from external forces can provide us with more resources. Roughly, I think that's how our society works. We give up some "freedom from" (paying taxes is one way that this happens) in exchange for some "freedom to" -- which is what we should want anyway. "Freedom from" by itself is not beneficial.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: suggested that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a better source for defining rights than the U.S. Constitution (which after all is only accepted in one small part of the world and was written over 200 years ago when the very concept of Human Rights was a radical idea). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been ratified by all but two of the worlds nations. It represents the global majorities view on the rights of persons.
Rights are not be defined based on what documents say, nor by what the majority believes should be a right. Rather, documents should be written to reflect what rights we reason that we actually do have, and be rewritten or rejected if they conflict with that reasoning. This is because documents are only as correct as whoever wrote and agreed to them, and that "whoever" may or may not have any idea what they are talking about.
In the case of the Universal Declaration, the rights given do not reflect a global majority, but rather the views of certain politicians in a majority of the countries. And I think it is a very poor listing of rights - those that you quoted, for instance, are far far more broad than the rights human beings actually have, just as members of a society. I think it should be fairly clear that social security, unions, certain standards of living, and even education are things that have only recently been taken on by the governments, and have historically not been given freely to the people of seemingly just societies - suggesting that they are not fundamental rights.
It is reasoning that should determine what rights we do or do not have - rather than supposedly authoritative documents. That's easier said than done, of course.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think it should be fairly clear that social security, unions, certain standards of living, and even education are things that have only recently been taken on by the governments, and have historically not been given freely to the people of seemingly just societies - suggesting that they are not fundamental rights.
The same thing can be said as of the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to public assembly. At the time of that the US constitution was written, no country in the world guaranteed these rights to its citizens.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I think it should be fairly clear that social security, unions, certain standards of living, and even education are things that have only recently been taken on by the governments, and have historically not been given freely to the people of seemingly just societies - suggesting that they are not fundamental rights.
The same thing can be said as of the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to public assembly. At the time of that the US constitution was written, no country in the world guaranteed these rights to its citizens.
Yet they *could* exist. Someone living even 3,000 years ago could assert that they should be free to talk all they want, to worship whatever god they wanted, etc. Such things are possible merely by one's existence. Claiming that people have a "right" to be provided something artificial like health insurance or internet access is laughable.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Claiming that people have a "right" to be provided something artificial like health insurance or internet access is laughable.
Funny, that's how I feel about private property.
You certainly can't have a fundamental right to something artificial, but you might have a derivative right to it. For instance, you might have a right to health care because it improves your life, and the job of your government is to improve your life when possible.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Claiming that people have a "right" to be provided something artificial like health insurance or internet access is laughable.
Funny, that's how I feel about private property.
Well, I deny that private property is an artificial concept. And any society that fails to protect it will lose most of the incentive for people to *do* anything. If I could not secure my own property, I wouldn't work.
quote:You certainly can't have a fundamental right to something artificial, but you might have a derivative right to it. For instance, you might have a right to health care because it improves your life, and the job of your government is to improve your life when possible.
I disagree with the italicized portion so strongly that I am almost unable to express it in words.
And besides that, taking away my property at gunpoint doesn't feel much like "improving my life."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Well, I deny that private property is an artificial concept
Private land ownership is a concept that developed in Europe between 400 and 500 years ago. It is unquestionably an artificial concept.
Consider a hunter gather society in the Western US in around 1300 AD. In such a society would you agree that the right to gather food was a basic human right. If a person was forbidden to gather berries or hunt buffalo, and the community provided no other means by which a person could obtain food, wouldn't you agree that this persons fundamental human rights were being violated. Certainly the need to eat is a human need which is equal or greater than the need to speak ones mind or worship god.
Now add to that society, modern private property "rights" that allow a land owner to prevent trespassing. Unless every person is guaranteed ownership of land that contains buffalo and berries, how can their fundamental right to gather food co-exist with private property rights?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Well, I deny that private property is an artificial concept.
Many societies have done without the concept of private property. For example:
quote: 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Acts 2:43-45 (NIV)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You're confusing Property, with Real Estate, Rabbit.
Everything you own is private property, not just the land you live on.
Further, could you provide evidence that land ownership is an artifact of the Renaissance? Or do you mean that it wasn't until then that commoners were allowed to own and that the nobility didn't count because they were members of the government?
Pix
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And kids who are educated in the public school system have a vastly higher crime rate later in life than those who go to private schools. By your logic, the entire public school system should be scrapped.
(Oh, I wish.)
Lisa [/QB]
Abolishment of the public school system would produce overwhelmingly unwanted results, and is nigh indefensible.
Also, I hope we're not trying to establish any links between public education and higher crime rates, as the association is spurious and related instead to obvious associations involving income levels.
Demographics show that those who have access to education -- by either public or private means -- have lower rates of criminal activity. Public education systems help with crime rates; the better the system, the better the social benefit. So any such delineation of public schooling crime rates vs. private schooling crime rates ... only works to color a positive social benefit as a negative one, while not actually being a case against public schooling. That 'logical' analysis is not correct.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, private land ownership was developed far more than 400 to 500 years ago. But a bit over 1000 years ago, it was very common in certain cultures (including those in most of Europe) for the apportionments of land to be periodically (annually, often) re-allotted, for instance.
Actually, that period in European history is very interesting because the area(s) went through several major changes in land allotment policies, moving from various more tribally or roman oriented systems to several systems of what we would now call feudalism and eventually the eminence of towns, with the "members of the bourgs" being the influential holders of property.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There was Private land ownership in Rome 2000 years ago. In fact, the reason many of the buildings in Rome are so oddly shaped, is that many times Emperor's (I know for a fact this happened several times to Augustus) couldn't buy enough land in a small area to build something, so they had to build it right up to the borders of other oddly shaped buildings, forcing him to shape them accordingly.
Also, farmsteads were all over Italy. From time to time the allyare publicus would be alloted out to the people, but generall that was run by the wealthy, until the tribunes started ramming home pro-pleb legislation that divied out the land to the landless.
Private land ownership is as old as nations are.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
One thing that's always interested me is the story of how things became private property. I mean, at some point there were very few people and lots of essentially untouched land (and the things found on and under the land, of course).
The notion that humans can divide up the resources via various adopted schemes I'm fine with, its just the extension from that to a particular system of the division being somehow "right", particularly because of the incredibly arbitrary ways things were divided up in the first place.
The idea that "first come" or at least "last person to kill all the others in the past" is a justifiable basis for a nigh-absolute heritable, transferrable privilege with respect to that property seems silly to me.
Reasonable way to apportion things in scarcity? Sure. Morally imperative way to apportion things no matter what? Why?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lyrhawn: the roman villa system of organization, while similar in many ways to our private property system of today, could arguably be considered a very different animal.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(note that I'm not commenting on the presence of private property in roman cities, a very different question).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well if you want to get into the specifics somewhere else I'm game
I was just making an in general point.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But a bit over 1000 years ago, it was very common in certain cultures (including those in most of Europe) for the apportionments of land to be periodically (annually, often) re-allotted, for instance.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit by what I meant by private land ownership. I was referring in specific to modern property rights, such as the right to buy and sell land, the right to prohibit trespass on land and even the right to exclusive use of resources on the land. These are all fairly modern concepts. In fact if you look at current "property rights" in Europe they differ substantially from property rights in the US because the US broke from European law about the time that these rights were in hot dispute.
And no Pixiest, I was not confusing property with Real Estate. I was using Real Estate as one example of private property which is an artificial concept. I can give others.
In traditional Navajo culture, there is no personal ownership of things. Things are owned by a family or a clan but not an individual. In Navajo culture, if you need the money in your mother's wallet or the the shirt in your sisters closet, its OK for you to take it. There is no need to ask permission or even tell them. These things are as much yours as they are theirs. At least this is how it has been explained to me by several Navajos. (My apologies to the Dinee if I have misrepresented their culture. It was not intended).
The point is that private property is an artificial construct and one which is still in flux. For example, if I go to the store and buy a cabbage -- it becomes my private property. But what exactly does that mean. Clearly it doesn't mean I can do anything I want with it. If I just leave the cabbage on a public sidewalk, I would be guilty of littering. If I through it at some ones window, I would be guilty of vandalism. If the police believe that my cabbage is material evidence in a crime, they can take it away from me and keep it plenty long enough that it will no longer be of value to me. If I simply buy one cabbage everyweek and store them in my basement until they rot and fill the entire neighborhood with a nauseating stench, I could be charged with all kinds of crimes and have not only the cabbages taken away but possibly my home as well. So what rights to the cabbage do a get when I buy it? What exactly does it mean to own the cabbage.
And no I'm not trying to be obtuse. My point is that ownership and "private property" are abstract concepts. We know what they mean because they are part of our culture but they are still artificial concepts.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Whoo, start a thread, don't touch it for a few days, and then you have to spend half an hour reading to chatch up...
I'm a bit confused on what people mean when they are talking about artificial rights. If a right is artificial, does that mean that it's not really a real right, but one only because we say it is? Because any existing right you could name is only a right because we claim it as such. Rights, by their nature ARE artificial in the same way money is. There's certainly no logical or empirical proof you could give to show a right exists that doesn't distill down to "because we said so." The simple fact is that rights, like morals, are in essence imperative statements, which have no true/false value.
Now, I'm going to contradict myself here, but bear with me. Rights, like morals, do exist for another reason besides, "we said so." They exist because they are practical ways to define, enforce, and improve interpersonal and societal relationships. A right is really only as good as it is useful.
That's why a government, in it's most fundamental purpose, exists to protect and improve the lives of those it governs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Because any existing right you could name is only a right because we claim it as such. Rights, by their nature ARE artificial in the same way money is.
Not everybody agrees. There are many people who believe in "Natural" or "God-given" rights.
quote:There's certainly no logical or empirical proof you could give to show a right exists that doesn't distill down to "because we said so."
This is true. But just because something cannot be proven doesn't mean that it isn't important to people.
quote:The simple fact is that rights, like morals, are in essence imperative statements, which have no true/false value.
There's certainly no logical end emprical proof you could give to show this.
That's fine if it's your opinion, but realize that everybody won't share it with you.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Not everybody agrees. There are many people who believe in "Natural" or "God-given" rights.
"Natural" rights still exist because of someone's say-so, regardless. If rights existed in a natural state, they would presumably be similar to physical laws, and would be impossible to violate. "God-given" rights are just more derivative: "we say God said so."
quote:This is true. But just because something cannot be proven doesn't mean that it isn't important to people.
I never said they weren't. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish here.
quote:There's certainly no logical end emprical proof you could give to show this.
That's fine if it's your opinion, but realize that everybody won't share it with you.
Learn some introductory logic, and you will realize how wrong this is. This is fact. Imperative statements, fundamentally, are opinions. I'm not sure how to be much more clear on this.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If rights existed in a natural state, they would presumably be similar to physical laws, and would be impossible to violate.
Unless there's a difference between a "law" and a "right".
quote:"God-given" rights are just more derivative: "we say God said so."
Unless they literally are God-given.
quote:Learn some introductory logic, and you will realize how wrong this is.
I got an A in Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic. I'm pretty sure I learned some stuff there.
I don't believe that all morals are mere opnions or imperative statements. Some of them are facts as real as anything else in the universe. Unprovable ones, yes. But true nonetheless.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I gotta agree with Mr. P here. Nothing in logic establishes that there are no moral truths (and my own studies extend all the way to set theory).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Specifically, it's the wording of a moral truth as an imperative statement that's the problem.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is certainly possible that there exist god-given rights, but it is completely certain that there do not exist god-enforced rights. So for all practical purposes, and whatever people may want to believe about the Platnoic ideal of rights, they have to be treated as manmade.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: it is completely certain that there do not exist god-enforced rights.
It depends on what you mean by enforced. It is pretty certain that God does not prevent us from infringing on rights, but it's not certain that there are no consequences from God if we do.
quote:So for all practical purposes, and whatever people may want to believe about the Platnoic ideal of rights, they have to be treated as manmade.
I don't have any problems people treating them as manmade.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It depends on what you mean by enforced. It is pretty certain that God does not prevent us from infringing on rights, but it's not certain that there are no consequences from God if we do.
God is so weird. I mean, what would you think of me if I told you, "I'm not going to try to prevent you from doing something wrong, even though I easily could, but I will punish the heck out of you after you do it."
Sorry about the digression.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I assume the theists here would consider that to be preventing people from doing the wrong thing - you've been told about the consequences, after all.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:
quote:So for all practical purposes, and whatever people may want to believe about the Platnoic ideal of rights, they have to be treated as manmade.
I don't have any problems people treating them as manmade.
Whether or not we disagree on the point that the the purpose of rights is practicality, we can (I hope) agree that they do have that pragmatic aspect to them. To libertarians and non, what do you think are the most necessary rights?
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I think "necessary" rights are difficult to define. To say that a right is necessary is to say that it is exceptionless. For example, we do not have the right to free speech when what we will say will lead directly to someone else's endangerment (think Novak). In other words, when the right to free speech of one person conflicts with the right to privacy of another person, then one of the rights cannot be absolute. But then, I guess that's a pretty strict definition of necessary, and I can easily avoid my difficulties by broadening it a bit.
Anyway. The right to not be tortured or treated inhumanely is probably one of the most necessary rights. I can't think of other rights that would conflict with it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:God is so weird. I mean, what would you think of me if I told you, "I'm not going to try to prevent you from doing something wrong, even though I easily could, but I will punish the heck out of you after you do it."
I would question your authority to punish me.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You wouldn't also think that, if I really opposed evil, I would use all my powers to prevent it as well as punish it?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Dest, that's really for another thread.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: You wouldn't also think that, if I really opposed evil, I would use all my powers to prevent it as well as punish it?
Not if what you really wanted was for me to do was to choose to do the right thing.
It's much like the situation with me and my children. Of course I want them to not do unwise things right now, because I want them to be happy and not suffer the consequences of bad choices.
But even more than I want them to do wise things right now, I want them to learn how to make wise choices. In order for them to learn this, they have to have practice making chioces. That includes making mistakes.
I would be derilict as a father if I make sure my children were never able to make a mistake.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is of course why you allow your children to kill each other.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
"A human being is endowed with free will. He can use this to choose between good and evil. If he can only perform good or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange, meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil or (since it is increasingly replacing both) the Almighty State. It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil. The important thing is moral choice. Evil has to exist along with good, in order that moral choice may operate. Life is sustained by the grinding opposition of moral entities."- Anthony Burgess commenting on his novel A Clockwork Orange Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Which is of course why you allow your children to kill each other.
It's an analogy, not a exact paralel.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Private land ownership is a concept that developed in Europe between 400 and 500 years ago... Perhaps I should have been more explicit by what I meant by private land ownership. I was referring in specific to modern property rights, such as the right to buy and sell land, the right to prohibit trespass on land and even the right to exclusive use of resources on the land. These are all fairly modern concepts.
And he bought the parcel of land, where he had pitched his tent, from the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for one hundred pieces of money. -- Genesis 33:19
Then Abraham stood up and bowed himself to the people of the land, the sons of Heth. And he spoke with them, saying, "If it is your wish that I bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and meet with Ephron the son of Zohar for me, that he may give me the cave of Machpelah which he has, which is at the end of his field. Let him give it to me at the full price, as property for a burial place among you." ... and he spoke to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, saying, "If you will give it, please hear me. I will give you money for the field; take it from me and I will bury my dead there." And Ephron answered Abraham, saying to him, "My lord, listen to me; the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver. What is that between you and me? So bury your dead." -- Genesis 23:7-9, 13-15
These are accounts written roughly 3,400 years ago, describing real estate transactions that took place centuries earlier.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Many societies have done without the concept of private property. For example:
quote: 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Acts 2:43-45 (NIV)
For one thing, this situation was voluntary (i.e., not a governmental abridgement of rights); but you are incorrect to interpret this as a lack of private property ownership. Among the same community just a couple of chapters later, we have an account of a couple selling a piece of property, then contributing only a part of the proceeds but representing it as the whole. In rebuking them, the apostle Peter says, "Wasn't it yours while you possessed it? And after it was sold, wasn't it at your disposal?"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Irregardless, You are making the radical assumption that because the Bible reports the buying and selling of land, that owners of this land had property rights to the land similar to those enjoyed by modern american land owners. Historical evidence all indicates that they did not.
[ January 23, 2006, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Irregardless, You are making the radical assumption that because the Bible reports the buying and selling of land, that owners of this land had property rights to the land similar to those enjoyed by modern american land owners. Historical evidence all indicates that they did not.
Feel free to present this evidence.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Isn't being able to sell your property on your own initiative one of the cornerstones of property rights?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.