posted
It seems to me that, if you have a minimalist government, there is an issue of how that shall be enforced. After all, every state we have now began as an organisation geared for war, and pretty much only for war; welfare is a much more recent invention than the machine gun. Ultimately, all power comes from the barrel of a gun, and therefore from the minds of people who wield guns. If the population does not want your minimalist state, how can you compel them? And if they consent to the 'abrogation of their rights' that you insist modern government is, how shall you object? After all, you are entirely at liberty to move to Antarctica and make a living hunting penguins. (And, in those lawless environs, Greenpeace is quite at liberty to shoot you, but that's a separate matter.) So is everyone else. It follows then, that modern government has at least the minimal consent of the governed; even of those who call themselves libertarian.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My name is not Star. It is not sL or starLisa or StarLisa. It is Lisa.
Oh, I'm sorry. The fact that you sign your name StarLisa confused me. Yeesh.
quote:Second of all, what you are saying is only true in the context of the corrupt thing you know as government. If the government doesn't control the cash, then it's not true at all. And it should not control the cash.
So all tax must be voluntary? Let's say the John Galts of the world - the minority - are contributing the majority of the taxes. If a handful of these Galts decide to just stop paying taxes, how should the State handle this? Let them go on their merry way and close all the courts for lack of money?
If all taxes are voluntary in this way, than certain people will be contributing more resources to both the government and the police. Someone will always choose to pay more. Do you seriously believe that these greater contributers will not expect greater benefits from the government?
If taxes are not voluntary, than the State has to use guns to take the money from the rogue Galts. Somebody has to pay for the guns. And who will expect the benefits for having paid for the guns? That's right, the folks who paid the taxes.
Government cannot be objective.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'd quite like to get back to the topic of 'thinking with your brain'. Can we have this defined?
I asked someone why she was going to vote for Kerry. She said, "He seems more capable than Bush". I asked her what she meant. She shrugged and said, "I don't know. He just seems like that to me." I pointed out that if she didn't know why she felt that way, wasn't she making a pretty important decision for no real reason at all? She said, "It's not for no reason. That's how I feel."
That's by way of counter-example. That's thinking with your emotions. Emotions are important, but they are not a tool of cognition. When you get the two mixed up, it's pretty pathetic.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Objectivism is about the basic fact that you aren't entitled to my life or my property or my earnings just because you're a corporation and have political friends. And that you aren't entitled to my life or my property or my earnings just because you're poor and don't have health insurance.
What makes something "your property"?
It could be a few things. One. If it belongs to no one else and you take possession of it, it's probably your property. Of course, in the case of things like homesteading, you do need to "prove the land", but other than that, simply taking possession is enough, provided someone else hasn't done so first.
If you create something that didn't previously exist, it's your property.
If someone voluntarily transfers ownership of their property to you, it's now your property.
Thanks for asking.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is it your property because "the Law" says its yours?
No.
(Remainder of scary totalitarian ranting snipped for simple decency.)
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I assume you refuse all benefits of taxation, then, beyond the value contributed by yourself, because you believe that they are the fruits of slavery?
It's impossible to determine how much of such things are being paid for by what I've paid (albeit against my will) in taxes. So no, I don't refuse such benefits. I would be willing to, though, if I didn't have to pay taxes.
It's also impossible to go from the mess we have right now directly to a healthy and proper society. Not without a violent revolution, and no one wants that. There needs to be a transition.
But saying we can't have things right later this afternoon doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for them. If the Founding Fathers who recognized that slavery was contrary to the values they were getting ready to fight for had insisted on it at the time, the secessionists would have lost, and independence would never have been declared. Should they have remained oppressed subjects of the British crown?
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Some other comments on your post:
Things are not just worth what their purchasers will pay for them.
In a certain context, that's true. A thing can be worth X to me and Y to you. So what, though? To the purchaser, a thing is worth what they will pay for them. Or they won't pay for them. That's sort of a no-brainer.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Even if you assume that worth is determined by sale price (and economists are pretty darn sure that marginal worth is what is determined by selling price, not any sort of average or typical worth for that good),
Hi. I'm an economist. Of sorts. I have a degree in it, at any rate. And I'm here to tell you that there are many different economic theories, not one of which accurately describes reality in all its facets. Economics is on the level of Psychology when it comes to theories. Some are accurate in certain limited cases, but overall, "voodoo economics" is redundant.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: that selling price is a combination of the value the buyer and the seller place on the item, not just the buyer.
Bottom line, if the buyer doesn't like the price, the buyer doesn't buy. That's why I don't have a new car. It's not that I can't buy one. It's that I won't. Not now. It's not worth it for me.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Also, some items do not sell, yet it makes little sense to call them worthless, when what seems to be the case is they have greater value to the owner than the price anyone is willing to pay.
The problem here is that you're dropping context. When you speak of what something is worth, there is always an implied: "to whom?" If something doesn't sell, it means that it is not worth the price to the buyers. It might be worth a lesser price to buyers. And if it's something that buyers wouldn't take for free, that still doesn't mean it is worthless. It might be worth something to its creator.
There's no such thing as "intrisic worth" of a thing. Worth is always subjective.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to repeat this, because it's important to the discussion at hand. There is no such thing as intrinsic worth. To speak of such a thing is to waste your time. What a thing is worth is purely subjective. It can only be worth X to Y.
Value... I go by Rand's definition of that word, which is somewhat different than "worth". Value is that which one acts (or wishes to act -- my addition) to gain or to keep.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Perhaps I should explain. I have on numerous occasions put in a great deal of effort to construct a post built on logical arguments and/or empirical scientific evidence. If such a post happens to disagree with your preconcieved notions, you follow my post with some glib statement that blows it off.
I find this to be extraordinarily rude. When anyone takes the time to carefully explain their reasoning on a subject at hatrack, they deserve to have their ideas intelligently critiqued and not blown off as a joke. I have come to understand, that you will not grant that kind of respect to my posts. I am uncertain whether this is because you can't logically address the points I make, or if you are just to arrogant to condescend to rational discussion.
You sound like your feelings are hurt. So I'll try and explain. First, the reason I dismissed what you wrote as I did (I can't speak for Pix, but maybe there's some similarity) is that what you wrote was so horrible in its implications that I could hardly even look at it, let alone respond to it civilly. But perhaps you hadn't considered those, and perhaps you don't get it.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It is entirely possible to make a Law that says 50% of your property, is now the property of the poor.
It's been done. It doesn't make it the case, however. If something is mine, it's mine. If I get mugged, my money doesn't become the property of the mugger. Passing a law that says it does doesn't make it so, either. "If the law says that, the law is an ass".
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: And objectively, if the Law is what makes it your property, then the law can unmake it your property.
See, when you start by asking what makes something property, and then continue by assuming that the answer is "the law" and go on to make arguments based on that answer, you're taking a risk. What if the answer is that it's not the law that makes something property? Then you've wasted your time creating arguments based on vapor. That's what you did in this case. "If the law is what makes it your property". It's not. "Then the law can unmake it your property." It can't. The word "then" implies a conditional. The condition hasn't been met, so the rest of the argument fails.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is it because you "made" it? If so what did you make it from and how did you obtain the right to use those material.
An honest way of doing this is to wait for an answer before assuming that you know what the answer is going to be.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you used tools that were made by others, then they in fact also "made" your property and should have some right to it.
This is fallacious. If I stole the tools, you might have an argument. I don't think you would, frankly, but at least there's the possibility. But if someone makes a tool, that doesn't mean that they are part makers of what I make with that tool. I traded for that tool. I gave up something of mine in exchange for that tool. A transaction that was freely agreed to on both sides. The toolmaker voluntarily gave up ownership of that tool to me in exchange for what I gave him. If he didn't like the deal, he would have kept the tool.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Did you use any knowledge that was taught to you be someone else in making this "property"?
Quite probably. So what?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Did you use any resources of nature to make your property?
Unowned resources? If you're going to discuss something like this, you need to be more clear about what you're asking. For example, suppose I sail to an island in the middle of the ocean that has never been claimed by anyone. On this island, I find a rock. I take possession of that rock. It's now my rock. It belongs to me. If someone else tries to take it away from me, they are committing an act of violence.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If so, do all people have equal unfettered access to those resources?
In principle, originally? Why not? In practice, it's awfully hard to find resources that someone hasn't already taken possession of. Space exploration is going to change that eventually, but pretty much everything on earth has been claimed by this point.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If not, how did you obtain the right to use those resources? If a law gave you the right to use certain resources and denied that right to others, why is that any more just than a law which would require you to give your property to others?
A law didn't. Law can recognize and protect rights. It can't create them.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Did you purchase that property? If so did, did you pay a fair price for the item?
Who gets to say what's fair? If the buyer and seller agree, that's all that matters. If the buyer doesn't want to buy, the buyer doesn't have to buy. If the seller doesn't want to sell, the seller doesn't have to sell. No one else in the world has the right to say yay or nay about it.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: How did you determine that what a fair price was for the item? Any economist will confirm that the market price for an item has little if any relation to its intrinsic worth.
Anyone who uses the words "intrinsic worth" as though they mean anything is making a mistake.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Can every individual obtain the same property for the same effort that you expended?
Why does that matter? Since when are individuals entitled to any such thing?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If not, how much of the difference is the result of your personal virtues or failings as opposed to accidents of birth.
Again, what's the relevance of the question?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you purchased the object, but paid less for it than its intrinsic worth,
There's no such thing as intrinsic worth.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: you obtained your property by cheating others.
Since the question is based on a false concept, the conclusion you reached is a false conclusion. No "cheating" pertains.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Can you complain about others cheating you out of the use of your property, when you have cheated to obtain your property?
This is why some people don't respond to your arguments as you'd like. You start with invalid premises, and then say things like this. A statement which assumes its own premise. Do you honestly not get the extent of the fallaciousness you're engaging in here?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you have benefitted from knowledge, wealth, tools, labor, laws or any other product of your society, then any property you "own" you owe in part to the society which enabled you to obtain it.
Not at all. I don't "owe" anything to the molecules of oxygen I just processed through my body as I wrote this, either. Rights come first. Not society. And none of the things you mention are "products of society". Society didn't create those things; people did. Individuals did.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To say it is "yours" and society has no right to demand you share it, indicates an utter ignorance of humanity, society and justice.
So after paragraphs of vague definitions, false concepts, assuming your conclusions, and answering your own questions, you finish up with an accusation of "utter ignorance of humanity, society and justice". And then you whine when you don't get a civil response. Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It seems to me that, if you have a minimalist government, there is an issue of how that shall be enforced. After all, every state we have now began as an organisation geared for war, and pretty much only for war;
That's not even slightly true.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: welfare is a much more recent invention than the machine gun. Ultimately, all power comes from the barrel of a gun
At which point, I can't even bring myself to read the rest of your rant. I swear, O King, you are scarier than Rabbit.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Your debate tactic of calling people "scary" or "childish" is getting old. If you really have nothing to add to the discussion other than ad hominem attacks try saying nothing.
It's not clever or enlightening, and you aren't changing anyone's mind.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I say it, it's because I mean it. It's not a debate tactic. I'm not the one here who thinks in terms of debate tactics, Bob.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might notice where I explicitly reject the notion of implicit value, lisa .
quote:To the purchaser, a thing is worth what they will pay for them.
One part of my argument is that it is essential an 'at least' be inserted in this sentence.
Also, I realize that there may be a confusion here. I am arguing based on an equivalence between the words value and worth, which it seems Pixiest was not equating, she seems to be equating price and worth (both are reasonable mappings), so I was reading her post in response to Rabbit as saying something other than it did (that price was equal to value).
As for the potshot at economists, considering most of the rest of your post seems to be agreeing with the reasoning that price is marginal value, and that for some people value may be greater than price, this doesn't seem to be one of the areas where you think their theories are kooky .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... Rabbit chides me for not responding to her well thought out posts, yet when I do a point by point rebuttal of her manifesto she completely blows me off except to take a shot at me in another thread.
It's prolly for the best. Her "Society Owns You" rant made me physically ill.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Roads are primarily paid for by the gas tax. I pay as much as I use. As I said in my post above, it's one of the few taxes I have no problem with. It's not a tax, it's a user fee.
Not true. Highways are paid for primarily by the gas tax. Local streets are paid for primarily by property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes. Unless you drive only on highways (which is impossible), you're driving is subsidized by other taxes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you perchance give me an example of a state that did not begin as an organisation for war? And I still stand by my question : How are you going to enforce your minimalist state, if people don't want one?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hmm... Rabbit chides me for not responding to her well thought out posts, yet when I do a point by point rebuttal of her manifesto she completely blows me off except to take a shot at me in another thread.
It's prolly for the best. Her "Society Owns You" rant made me physically ill.
Or maybe I've been off line for the past 12 hours.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and two more questions. Where are you going to get power, if not out of violence or the threat of it? I'm not saying anything about the morality of it, just asking about the practical enforcement. And finally, what part of "property is an absolute right guaranteed by Heaven, the Fates, and my assertion that it's so" is 'thinking with your brain'?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Can you perchance give me an example of a state that did not begin as an organisation for war?
Australia. The various colonies that became the United States. The United States itself. The State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan. Lebanon. Kuwait.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And I still stand by my question : How are you going to enforce your minimalist state, if people don't want one?
Do you mean if people don't want a state at all? That's not an option. If they want a state where they're entitled to violate the rights of others, we'll simply work to convince people that such a thing is wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As for the potshot at economists, considering most of the rest of your post seems to be agreeing with the reasoning that price is marginal value,
No. I agree that it can be. Not that it need be.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: and that for some people value may be greater than price, this doesn't seem to be one of the areas where you think their theories are kooky .
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they want a state where they're entitled to violate the rights of others, we'll simply work to convince people that such a thing is wrong.
But here's the rub: at some point, you'll get a majority on your side. You'll create your state, which restricts the freedom of individuals to violate the rights of others. It will restrict this freedom through the application of force. Once your state possesses the only legitimate force, control of the state becomes a desirable good, and intelligent, self-interested people will attempt to seize that good.
And you're back where you started.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they want a state where they're entitled to violate the rights of others, we'll simply work to convince people that such a thing is wrong.
But here's the rub: at some point, you'll get a majority on your side. You'll create your state, which restricts the freedom of individuals to violate the rights of others. It will restrict this freedom through the application of force. Once your state possesses the only legitimate force, control of the state becomes a desirable good, and intelligent, self-interested people will attempt to seize that good.
And you're back where you started.
That's just as true of religion. Preventing religion from taking over the country by putting that in the Constitution has actually been fairly effective. Despite the constant challenges to it, it has, by and large, held. This is something that should be as absolutely guaranteed by the constitution as the freedom from imposed religion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Can you perchance give me an example of a state that did not begin as an organisation for war?
Australia. The various colonies that became the United States. The United States itself. The State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan. Lebanon. Kuwait.
Australia's government descends directly from that of England, which began as a way to raise troops for the kings to fight in France; and, like most nineteenth-century governments, it didn't (initially) do much except keep internal order and raise troops for imperial commitments. The same is true of the American states, whose initial governmental organisations were anyway pretty much limited to drilling the militia to fight the Indians; and the United States began as an alliance of convenience for fighting the British. As for Israel, you are surely joking, right? I mean, there wouldn't be a state of Israel if they hadn't won their civil war. If there's a better example of a state organised purely for war, I don't know what it is, unless perhaps Prussia. Lebanon gained independence in a violent revolt against France, and certainly was no welfare state ; just what are you suggesting they were, if not an organisation for fighting wars? And basically ditto for Kuwait and Jordan.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And I still stand by my question : How are you going to enforce your minimalist state, if people don't want one?
Do you mean if people don't want a state at all? That's not an option. If they want a state where they're entitled to violate the rights of others, we'll simply work to convince people that such a thing is wrong. [/QB]
I'm sure that will work real well, yes. How many divisions has the Pope?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Something is "my property" because I made it or traded something for it.
But you didn't make it out of nothing. Since you are born with no property, and you now own property. At somepoint in your life, you have obtained property that you neither made nor traded for something. What's more, you weren't born with the knowledge needed to make anything. Every skill you have, you gained by learning from your community. In this sense, your property was made, at least in part, by the community and not solely by you.
quote:Law defends your rights, it doesn't give them to you.
Absolutely, but the question we are debating is whether property ownership is an in alienable right. You are begging the question. Why is property ownership a right and not a privelegde?
quote:Material, tools, real estate, raw resources. These are all paid for by a form of portable work we call Money.
This is an idea that is historically indefensible. All resources on this planet existed long before they were owned by anyone. At some point some one claimed the exclusive right to use certain natural resources either because they were there first or were stronger than others. If someone steals my bike and then sells it to you. Does the fact that you traded something for my bike to a thief it make it yours? Most people, and our current laws, agree that if you buy something that was stolen, it is not yours. Yet originally, virtually every resources was stolen.
quote:When you take someone's work without their consent, it's called Slavery.
What constitutes consent? Force labor takes many forms. If people are given a choice of trading their labor to you, or going to prison or being killed -- is that consent or slavery. If people are given a choice of going without food, water, clothing and shelter, or trading their labor to you, is that force or consent. Where do you draw the line at what constitutes free consent and what is coersion. Most of the people on this planet work at a wage they can not set. They do so because their only choice is starvation. People can not choose not to eat without surrendering their inalienable right to life.
quote:Life is unfair. You can't balance it. You can't make everyone as talented and lucky as everyone else. It's just not possible.
True, but that doesn't mean that we should not strive toward fairness. If you truly believe that there is no point in striving for fairness, then why do you object to the unfairness of society taking your property without your consent.
quote:However, that doesn't mean that simply because someone is less talented and lucky than someone else that the more talented and lucky person owes them anything
I have never claimed that you owed anythign to the unlucky and the untalented. My claim is that you owe something to the community, because you benefit in incalculable ways from being a member of a community. No human being would survive their infancy, without a community.
quote:Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. That is how you define what's a fair price.
No, that's what defines a market price. I suggest you read Adam Smith.
quote:We all contribute and get the aforementioned portal work "Money." It is with this you buy whatever you need. It is as if you made whatever you bought yourself because your portable work was what you traded for it. Just as the person you buy from will take that portable work and buy whatever they need.
Fair is defined in the OED as
quote:Free from bias, fraud, or injustice; equitable, legitimate. Hence of persons: Equitable; not taking undue advantage; disposed to concede every reasonable claim.
and in the websters dictionary fair is defined as
[quote]: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism : conforming with the established rules : consonant with merit or importance.[quote]
To say that an exchange is "fair" implies that things have an objective value which makes equitable exchange possible. Market forces will not result in "fair" exchanges unless all traders are on equal footing. If some people are trading from a position of luxury and others are trading from a position of necessity (which is the condition in our world), market forces will reinforce the existing inequity rather than lead to equitable exhanges. In other words, market systems allow the wealthy to coerce the poor into inequitable trades. You operate under that assumption that the free market is never coercive, but that assumption is patently untrue.
Consider hypothetical (but very realistic) 15th century fishing community in Iceland. The only substantive source of food in this community is fish which can only be caught in fishing boats. Fishing and making boats are key skills which are taught all the children of the community. As a member of this community, I am given the knowledge and resources to make my own boat. I make the boat, which takes about a years worth of labor during which my family and other members of the community feed me. I made this boat and so everyone agrees that its my boat. One day, I get hole in the bottom of my boat and so I haul it on shore and spend a couple of days repairing the boat. While I'm fixing my boat, there is a catastrophic storm and all the other boats belonging to the community sink. By an act of chance, I now control the food supply for the entire village. While the other members of the village can build new boats, it will take a very long time to complete these boats. The people cannot choose not to eat until their new boats are finished. What this means, is that I can demand any price for the fish I catch. I could demand that the people trade all their property to me for food, and they would essentially have not choice but to agree or die. By your definition, this would be fair. In fact, I could demand all their labor in exchange for food, and they would have no viable option. If I am a skilled trader, I could arrange it so that all future boats built in this village will belong to me. After all, boat builders have to eat. All I have to do is set the price of fish that a boat builder needs while completing a boat, equal to the price of a boat. The boat builders have no room to negotiate. They have to have food, where as I an get along fine only one boat. In effect, I could enslave all the other members of the community because I control the one thing that every member of the community must have to live -- food. While they might nominally consent to trade all their labor for my food, such consent is meaningless because we are not trading from equal positions. I am trading for luxuries, if they don't consent to my terms, I will continue to live. They are trading for necessities, if they don't consent to my terms they will starve.
A stronger trading position can be used as a means of coersion in exactly the same manner that stronger arms and bigger weapons can be used a means of coercion. By your definition, it would be completely fair for me to enslave every member in my village in exchange for the minimum amount of food required to maintain their lives.
People can and are unjustly coerced by "market forces" just as easily as they can be coerced by another force.
From my view, while the boat would be my property, it would also be in some sense property of the village. I was only able to build my boat because of the support and instruction I obtained from the members of my community. I owe a debt to my community, because without them I would be as unable to catch the fish I need to live as they are to catch fish after their boats have been destroyed. If I am unwilling to assist the community while they rebuild their boats, then the community has every right to coerce me to use the skills they gave me for the benefit of the community rather than for my personal gain.
The system you propose, in which any "trade" you can get me to agree to will inevitably lead to coersion or as you call it slavery.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Can you perchance give me an example of a state that did not begin as an organisation for war?
Australia. The various colonies that became the United States. The United States itself. The State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan. Lebanon. Kuwait.
Australia's government descends directly from that of England,
Cheater.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The same is true of the American states, whose initial governmental organisations were anyway pretty much limited to drilling the militia to fight the Indians;
I don't think that's true.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: and the United States began as an alliance of convenience for fighting the British.
No, it didn't.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As for Israel, you are surely joking, right? I mean, there wouldn't be a state of Israel if they hadn't won their civil war.
"Civil war"? The hell? What are you smoking, O King?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If there's a better example of a state organised purely for war, I don't know what it is, unless perhaps Prussia. Lebanon gained independence in a violent revolt against France,
Lebanon was partitioned off of Syria because the Muslims couldn't get along with the Christians. It was created specifically to avoid that problem.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And I still stand by my question : How are you going to enforce your minimalist state, if people don't want one?
Do you mean if people don't want a state at all? That's not an option. If they want a state where they're entitled to violate the rights of others, we'll simply work to convince people that such a thing is wrong.
I'm sure that will work real well, yes. How many divisions has the Pope? [/QB]
posted
I don't have a enough knowledge of economics to post anything significant in this thread. But I did want to say that I am finding your posts absolutely fascinating, Rabbit.
Then I suggest you find a source for your disbelief, neh? What other functions do you think colonial governments had? (I'll give you the Puritans enforced some blue laws, but I'll take that under 'internal order'.)
quote:"Civil war"? The hell? What are you smoking, O King?
The civil war between the Jews and the Arabs. I suppose you would prefer to call it the Glorious War For Independence From Corrupt Foreign Oppression, or something. But you can hardly deny that it was a war. And by the way, smoking is much healthier than injecting directly into the vein, as you are clearly doing. Shall we stop the personal attacks there, or shall we see who can get banned first?
quote:No, it didn't.
Yes, it did. Now that we have our assertions cancelling each other out, suppose you tell me how the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation are not an organisation for war? Consider particularly the third article:
quote:...for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them...
quote: <yawn>
I'm so glad to see you have the ability to admit when you have nothing constructive to say about a given argument. Doesn't it worry you that you are managing to come off as less interested in civil discourse than me, of all people?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to repeat this, because it's important to the discussion at hand. There is no such thing as intrinsic worth. To speak of such a thing is to waste your time. What a thing is worth is purely subjective. It can only be worth X to Y.
B.S. Intrinsic value has been an underlying assumption in human philosophy since at least the time of ancient Greece and probably before that. It can be argued that intrisic value is an underlying proposition in the Judaic Law and the codes of Hamurabi. In fact, up until the 20th century virtually every philopher agreed on the existence of "intrinsic value", including Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Moore, and infinitiem presume that "intrinsic value exists.
It is only in very recent times that the existence of "intrinsic value" has even been called into question. To boldly proclaim that "There is no such thing as intrinsic worth. To speak of such a thing is to waste your time. " begs one of the central and most debated philosophical questions of our century.
The idea that intrinsic value does not exist, is the radical position. As a result, simply proclaiming such a statement without clear logical support, brings into doubt every conclusion that follows from the argument.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I notice you didn't respond to the rest of my point about what the actual functions of the Australian government were.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On intrinsic worth, the argument Rabbit is making seems rather equivalent to agruing for creationism on the grounds that evolution is the radical position. Which I guess was true for a few years in the 1800s, actually, so I'm not sure where I was going with this. Oh yes; what is the evidence all these esteemed thinkers proposed for their notion of intrinsic worth? How would you measure the intrinsic worth of something?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Something is "my property" because I made it or traded something for it.
But you didn't make it out of nothing.
But I did make it out of things that belonged to me. Or which didn't belong to anyone.
You seem to think that things that no one owns are actually owned by everyone. That's not true.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Since you are born with no property, and you now own property. At somepoint in your life, you have obtained property that you neither made nor traded for something.
Wrong. I own my life. And if I trade a small bit of my life for some money (that's called a job, Rabbit), I then own some money. I can then trade the money for other things. It's not really that complicated. Honest.
Or perhaps I was given some property by my parents. I love my parents.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What's more, you weren't born with the knowledge needed to make anything. Every skill you have, you gained by learning from your community.
Wrong. Every skill I have, I gained by learning from individuals. To the extent that they charged me for that knowledge (traded values with me), they voluntarily gave of their time. No debt is owed after that. To the extent that they did not, no debt is owed here either, because there can be no debt without an agreement.
If I see someone using a hammer to hammer a nail, I've learned that I can hammer a nail with a hammer. But unless the hammerer has gotten me to agree up front that I have to pay to watch him, I might as well have watched a beaver build a dam. Do you think I owe something to a beaver who builds a dam? I don't.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In this sense, your property was made, at least in part, by the community and not solely by you.
No. That's where you keep messing up. If I make a hammer and you buy it from me and hammer a nail, I did not hammer that nail. Not in any way.
Nothing I make is made by anyone but me.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Law defends your rights, it doesn't give them to you.
Absolutely, but the question we are debating is whether property ownership is an in alienable right.
Property ownership isn't even a right. It precedes rights. Owning property derives from ones ownership of ones own life. I own my life, which means that I own the product of that life. The only way in which it can be alienable is if I give it to someone else or exchange it for something in its place.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are begging the question. Why is property ownership a right and not a privelegde?
Define privilege. A privilege, as I understand it, is something granted by someone else. Something someone else has that they give to you, but don't have to. Who is the "giver" here?
I think it's pretty clear that you see everything as basically owned by everyone in the aggregate. "Society". <gag> And that society merely permits individuals to exercise ownership of what really belongs to society. It's not like this is the first time I've run into that kind of socialist mishmash.
What you don't understand is that society is just the name of a bunch of people. It owns nothing. It has no perogatives. It comes after the individuals that make it up.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Material, tools, real estate, raw resources. These are all paid for by a form of portable work we call Money.
This is an idea that is historically indefensible. All resources on this planet existed long before they were owned by anyone. At some point some one claimed the exclusive right to use certain natural resources either because they were there first or were stronger than others.
Because no one else had a greater claim. If no one exists who can say, "No, you can't have that, it's mine," then on what basis do you say that someone can't just come along and claim it?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If someone steals my bike and then sells it to you.
Commas are nice, too. Even nicer than periods, sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Does the fact that you traded something for my bike to a thief it make it yours?
No. But taking possession of something that no one owns isn't the same as taking possession of something someone else owns. Unless you're starting from the socialist idea that everything is already owned by "society". In which case, there's really not a whole lot to say. It would mean, if that's really where you're coming from, that you're espousing totalitarianism of the blackest kind.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Most people, and our current laws, agree that if you buy something that was stolen, it is not yours. Yet originally, virtually every resources was stolen.
Like I said, you think that taking possession of something no one owns is stealing. That's only possible if you think it really does belong to some amorphous thing called "society". And that's a very, very dangerous and scary idea. It's also completely unsupportable.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:When you take someone's work without their consent, it's called Slavery.
What constitutes consent?
Consent is consent. Human beings are not children who cannot decide whether to agree or not and need some sort of übercritter looking over their shoulder and ratifying such decisions.
If I don't pay taxes, the government will put me in jail. That makes those taxes involuntary. Lacking in consent. Some people may consent after the fact. Good for them. I'm not one of those.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Force labor takes many forms. If people are given a choice of trading their labor to you, or going to prison or being killed -- is that consent or slavery.
Slavery.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If people are given a choice of going without food, water, clothing and shelter, or trading their labor to you, is that force or consent.
Consent.
This isn't rocket science, Rabbit. No one owes you food, water, clothing or shelter. They're all things that you want. Some of them are things that you need. But your need -- and certainly your want -- doesn't equate to an obligation on someone else's part. Whereas you are entitled to your life. And being killed or imprisoned is a violation of that life.
This is important, Rabbit. Helping is not the same as not harming. Harming is not the same as not helping. If I don't give you a dollar, I haven't done anything wrong. If I take a dollar away from you, I have. If you are hungry and I give you food, that's good. If you are hungry and I don't give you food, that's unfortunate. If I take your food away from you against your will, I'm a criminal.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Where do you draw the line at what constitutes free consent and what is coersion.
Like I said, it's not all that complicated. Consent is consent. If there is a natural consequence, that's one thing. If the consequence is that someone will commit violence against me, that's something very different.
And no, it doesn't matter if it has the same outcome. If no one gives me food (and I can't get food without someone giving it to me), I will die. If you shoot me in the head, I will die. But those are still not the same thing. I don't owe you food. I do owe you not to shoot you in the head.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Most of the people on this planet work at a wage they can not set. They do so because their only choice is starvation. People can not choose not to eat without surrendering their inalienable right to life.
That's harsh. And that's why there are so many organizations the world over which are voluntarily dedicated to helping such people. See, that's a very good thing. It's good to help people. But it's voluntary. It's not something you are entitled to force.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Life is unfair. You can't balance it. You can't make everyone as talented and lucky as everyone else. It's just not possible.
True, but that doesn't mean that we should not strive toward fairness. If you truly believe that there is no point in striving for fairness, then why do you object to the unfairness of society taking your property without your consent.
Fair and just are two different things. Taking what's mine isn't unfair. It's unjust.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:However, that doesn't mean that simply because someone is less talented and lucky than someone else that the more talented and lucky person owes them anything
I have never claimed that you owed anythign to the unlucky and the untalented. My claim is that you owe something to the community, because you benefit in incalculable ways from being a member of a community. No human being would survive their infancy, without a community.
The "community" is just other people. I take nothing from other people that they do not voluntarily give to me. As a gift or in trade. I owe no debts that I have not accepted upon myself of my own free will. Nor do you. Nor does anyone.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. That is how you define what's a fair price.
No, that's what defines a market price. I suggest you read Adam Smith.
And I suggest you lose the idea of intrinsic worth. There's no such thing.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To say that an exchange is "fair" implies that things have an objective value
But things do not. Things can only have a value to someone.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: which makes equitable exchange possible. Market forces will not result in "fair" exchanges unless all traders are on equal footing. If some people are trading from a position of luxury and others are trading from a position of necessity (which is the condition in our world), market forces will reinforce the existing inequity rather than lead to equitable exhanges. In other words, market systems allow the wealthy to coerce the poor into inequitable trades. You operate under that assumption that the free market is never coercive, but that assumption is patently untrue.
You're abusing the word "coercive".
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What this means, is that I can demand any price for the fish I catch. I could demand that the people trade all their property to me for food, and they would essentially have not choice but to agree or die. By your definition, this would be fair.
It would be legitimate. It would be your choice.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In fact, I could demand all their labor in exchange for food, and they would have no viable option. If I am a skilled trader, I could arrange it so that all future boats built in this village will belong to me.
Unlikely.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: After all, boat builders have to eat. All I have to do is set the price of fish that a boat builder needs while completing a boat, equal to the price of a boat. The boat builders have no room to negotiate. They have to have food, where as I an get along fine only one boat.
They can find food elsewhere. Or go elsewhere. They can outbreed you. It's a silly example, because there are always options.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In effect, I could enslave all the other members of the community because I control the one thing that every member of the community must have to live -- food. While they might nominally consent to trade all their labor for my food, such consent is meaningless because we are not trading from equal positions.
They can agree or they can leave. Or they can find other sources of food. When you break your leg, they can refuse to help you. You'd be utterly irrational to act this way, but you could do it.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I am trading for luxuries, if they don't consent to my terms, I will continue to live. They are trading for necessities, if they don't consent to my terms they will starve.
Not necessarily. There will always be ways to improvise. You have a low view of human beings, Rabbit.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: A stronger trading position can be used as a means of coersion in exactly the same manner that stronger arms and bigger weapons can be used a means of coercion. By your definition, it would be completely fair for me to enslave every member in my village in exchange for the minimum amount of food required to maintain their lives.
Nope. Taking advantage of a trading position is not the same as enslaving people. What you describe could never happen in real life. You've set the conditions artificially and fictionally.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: People can and are unjustly coerced by "market forces" just as easily as they can be coerced by another force.
Again, you're abusing the term "coersive."
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: From my view, while the boat would be my property, it would also be in some sense property of the village.
Only if you agreed to that in the first place. If you really are just using communal property, that's one thing. You've been deliberately vague about that in your example. There's a difference between "yours to use" and "yours".
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I was only able to build my boat because of the support and instruction I obtained from the members of my community. I owe a debt to my community, because without them I would be as unable to catch the fish I need to live as they are to catch fish after their boats have been destroyed.
You owe such a debt only if you take it upon yourself of your own free will. It's not something that can be imposed upon you from the outside.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If I am unwilling to assist the community while they rebuild their boats, then the community has every right to coerce me to use the skills they gave me for the benefit of the community rather than for my personal gain.
Not unless they gave you those skills on the condition that you owe them such things in return. If no such agreement was made, no such agreement exists.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The system you propose, in which any "trade" you can get me to agree to will inevitably lead to coersion or as you call it slavery.
Funny how you go from a caricature of village life to "inevitably". Your example is unrealistic. It bears no relationship to reality, and does not produce the conclusions you're looking for.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is what I see as a fairly clear explanation for why "intrinsic good" must exist.
quote:Suppose that someone were to ask you whether it is good to help others in time of need. Unless you suspected some sort of trick, you would answer, “Yes, of course.” If this person were to go on to ask you why acting in this way is good, you might say that it is good to help others in time of need simply because it is good that their needs be satisfied. If you were then asked why it is good that people's needs be satisfied, you might be puzzled. You might be inclined to say, “It just is.” Or you might accept the legitimacy of the question and say that it is good that people's needs be satisfied because this brings them pleasure. But then, of course, your interlocutor could ask once again, “What's good about that?” Perhaps at this point you would answer, “It just is good that people be pleased,” and thus put an end to this line of questioning. Or perhaps you would again seek to explain the fact that it is good that people be pleased in terms of something else that you take to be good. At some point, though, you would have to put an end to the questions, not because you would have grown tired of them (though that is a distinct possibility), but because you would be forced to recognize that, if one thing derives its goodness from some other thing, which derives its goodness from yet a third thing, and so on, there must come a point at which you reach something whose goodness is not derivative in this way, something that “just is” good in its own right, something whose goodness is the source of, and thus explains, the goodness to be found in all the other things that precede it on the list. It is at this point that you will have arrived at intrinsic goodness.[10] That which is intrinsically good is nonderivatively good; it is good for its own sake. That which is not intrinsically good but extrinsically good is derivatively good; it is good, not (insofar as its extrinsic value is concerned) for its own sake, but for the sake of something else that is good and to which it is related in some way. Intrinsic value thus has a certain priority over extrinsic value. The latter is derivative from or reflective of the former and is to be explained in terms of the former. It is for this reason that philosophers have tended to focus on intrinsic value in particular.
For example, In Pixiest posts she repeatedly implies the "slavery" is bad. Why is slavery bad? The implication is that the freedom to profit from ones own later is a good thing. So I ask, why is freedom good?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You sound like your feelings are hurt. So I'll try and explain. First, the reason I dismissed what you wrote as I did (I can't speak for Pix, but maybe there's some similarity) is that what you wrote was so horrible in its implications that I could hardly even look at it, let alone respond to it civilly. But perhaps you hadn't considered those, and perhaps you don't get it.
I get it just find. I simply don't think that whether or not you find an idea repugnant has any relevance to its validity. The more I explore the underpinnings of "private property rights" the more I find the idea morally repugnant, yet I make an effort to logically explain my position rather than simply mocking you. I believe I deserve the same.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Here is what I see as a fairly clear explanation for why "intrinsic good" must exist.
I'm snipping that lengthy passage because it's silly. If you ask me, "Is helping people good," my answer is going to be, "Give me context."
A vicious murderer is running after a 10 year old child with the loudly proclaimed intent of killing the kid. He slips and bangs his head. You can go and give him a sip of water, and maybe bandage up his head. Is that helping someone? Yes. Is it good? Absolutely not. On the contrary; you'd essentially be making yourself an accomplice to murder.
Or a poor man comes up to me and asks me for a dollar. All I have is a dollar. Is it good for me to give him my dollar? Not when it's just going to transfer the need from him to me, it's not.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: For example, In Pixiest posts she repeatedly implies the "slavery" is bad. Why is slavery bad? The implication is that the freedom to profit from ones own later is a good thing. So I ask, why is freedom good?
It's not that freedom is good. It's that I own my life. For someone else to steal that is wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh, I forgot this :
quote:Cheater.
I notice you didn't respond to the rest of my point about what the actual functions of the Australian government were.
It was a penal colony that declared independence.
1. That is an extreme oversimplification of Australian history, to the point of being a real distortion - or to put it less politely, a lie. I suggest you take a quick look at the Wiki; you appear to be confusing Australian with American history. 2. I don't see what it has to do with my point, in any case. What were the functions of the Australian government? Were they internal order + external security, or were they something else?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: For example, In Pixiest posts she repeatedly implies the "slavery" is bad. Why is slavery bad? The implication is that the freedom to profit from ones own later is a good thing. So I ask, why is freedom good?
If we have to debate that we have no hope of ever finding common ground.
And I believe you just showed what you really are.
quote:If it belongs to no one else and you take possession of it, it's probably your property. Of course, in the case of things like homesteading, you do need to "prove the land", but other than that, simply taking possession is enough, provided someone else hasn't done so first.
How does the fact that you claimed something first, give you an ethical right to its exclusive use?
There is nothing which belongs to no one. Ownership of a thing, implies an right to use that thing. Consider a peace of land which is not owned by anyone in particular. This implies that you and I and anyone else who comes across this peace of land can walk across it, we can pick the berries that grow there, gather the stones, cut the trees etc. In effect, this land belongs to everyone not to no one. There are only things which belong to everyone, that is things which every person has an equal right to use, and things which belong to someone in particular, that is things of which some one claims the exclusive use.
If you claim something as your property which once belonged to everyone, then you have stolen from everyone.
quote:If you create something that didn't previously exist, it's your property.
When you show me a person who can create something ex-nihilo, this will be a relevant statement.
quote:If someone voluntarily transfers ownership of their property to you, it's now your property.
Define voluntary. As I have explained in my previous post, any trade which is undertaken between unequal partners can involve and element of coersion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Thanks Lisa, Great post.
Rabbit wrote:
quote: For example, In Pixiest posts she repeatedly implies the "slavery" is bad. Why is slavery bad? The implication is that the freedom to profit from ones own later is a good thing. So I ask, why is freedom good?
If we have to debate that we have no hope of ever finding common ground.
And I believe you just showed what you really are.
Pix
We are not debating whether or not slavery is bad. We are debating whether or not anything is intrinsically bad or good. If you maintain that slavery is bad just because it is, I will agree but you have then agreed to the proposition that somethings are bad and good in and of themselves with out relation to anything else. You have agreed that things have intrinsic value.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are using 'value' in two different senses, which is really bad for debate. One sense is 'moral values', one of which is that slavery is bad. (Incidentally, I still don't think this is somehow 'intrinsic' in the fabric of the Universe, as Lisa and you both seem to believe; I just don't feel like being a slave myself, and am willing to extend the same protection to others.) The other is monetary value, a completely different concept. How can you measure the intrinsic monetary value of anything? You can't, even in principle; therefore it doesn't exist.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. That's where you keep messing up. If I make a hammer and you buy it from me and hammer a nail, I did not hammer that nail. Not in any way.
No, you did not hammer the nail. But without the hammer that you made, I could not have hammered the nail. Therefore the hammering of the nail can never be considered an act performed by an independent being. Without the person who invented the hammer, the person who invented the nail, the person who mined the oar, the person who cut the wood, the persons who formed the hammer and the nail, the nail would never have been hammered. The fact that we have developed a system of trade, does not obviate the fact that every person involved in the making of the hammer and the nail was essential to the end
It is not I who is messing up, but you. We human beings are fundamentally interdependent beings. None of us could survive our own births without the help of a community. All of our property, all of our skills and all of our knowledge are inseparably linked to our participation as part of a community. Independence is an illusion created by our egos. To deny this is comparable to a kidney claiming is independent of the heart and lungs.
Yes, we have established a system by which we trade our labor for goods and services created by others and that system has many advantages, but that system does not make us independent of our communities.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not that freedom is good. It's that I own my life. For someone else to steal that is wrong.
Then why is it wrong for someone else to steal your life?
There is no reason, it is simply "intrinsically wrong".
If "Intrinsic Value" does not exist, then your life only has no intrinisic value. If your life has no intrinisic value, then we can not say that it is intrinsically wrong for someone to steal your life. Such a judgement can only be made based on context. So tell me, what is the context in which it is wrong for someone to steal your life.
And for Pixiest sake, please recognize that I am not arguing that stealing someone life is right or that your life has no value, I am arguing that your claims that "Nothing has Intrinsic Value" and your claim that it is wrong for someone to steal your life are self contradictory statements. Please explain to me how they are not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember being immature enough to think that I earned the good things that came to me and that the bad things were "bad luck". And that the opposite was true for other people.
I try not to think that way anymore. I became a much better person once I realized that everything I have is a gift.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. That's where you keep messing up. If I make a hammer and you buy it from me and hammer a nail, I did not hammer that nail. Not in any way.
No, you did not hammer the nail. But without the hammer that you made, I could not have hammered the nail. Therefore the hammering of the nail can never be considered an act performed by an independent being.
Untrue. I don't remain connected forevermore to that hammer. Except historically. But that's a matter of information, and nothing else. Once I give you or sell you that hammer, I no longer have any connection to it. You are now the owner of a hammer. Not the owner of Lisa's hammer, but the owner of a hammer. Its history is of no relevance, and nothing you do with it has anything to do with me. If you build something with it, I may have the personal satisfaction of knowing that I contributed, but I have no claim, ever, over the thing you built. If your name is Maxwell Edison and you kill people with the hammer, I have no culpability whatsoever for those deaths. Not even if I made the damned thing out of silver.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Without the person who invented the hammer, the person who invented the nail, the person who mined the oar, the person who cut the wood, the persons who formed the hammer and the nail, the nail would never have been hammered.
Free rider problem. That's boring. I have information on my website. It is free for the taking. I've received e-mails from people thanking me. I appreciate that. Do they owe me thanks? No. I gave it away.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The fact that we have developed a system of trade, does not obviate the fact that every person involved in the making of the hammer and the nail was essential to the end
That's history. It conveys no rights or responsibilities or debts or duties. It's simply a curiosity. A piece of information.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It is not I who is messing up, but you. We human beings are fundamentally interdependent beings.
Human beings are fundamentally individuals.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: None of us could survive our own births without the help of a community. All of our property, all of our skills and all of our knowledge are inseparably linked to our participation as part of a community.
You may be a bug in a hive, or a Rabbit in a warren, but I assure you, you live in a world full of people who own their lives and who owe you not a damned thing.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Independence is an illusion created by our egos. To deny this is comparable to a kidney claiming is independent of the heart and lungs.
Socialist twaddle. I'm not part of a machine. I exist for me.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Yes, we have established a system by which we trade our labor for goods and services created by others and that system has many advantages, but that system does not make us independent of our communities.
I feel like I need to wash my eyes after reading something so villainous.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM said it. This is a semantical argument. Rabbit is using value to mean anything that's good. Lisa is using value to mean Monitary worth.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not that freedom is good. It's that I own my life. For someone else to steal that is wrong.
Then why is it wrong for someone else to steal your life?
Because it's mine. And the more you write, Rabbit, the more you show yourself to be anti-life. The anti-individual stuff is simply a special case of that.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is no reason, it is simply "intrinsically wrong".
Bloody hell. Don't ask a question if you aren't going to wait for an answer.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If "Intrinsic Value" does not exist, then your life only has no intrinisic value.
In the first place, while I may have been lax in specifying "there is no intrinsic value of an object", that is what I said initially. Go back and read. In the second place, it most certainly does have value to me. As yours does to you. Or, I should say, as the life of a person who is not anti-life does to that person. I wouldn't venture to guess in your case.
quote:If your life has no intrinisic value, then we can not say that it is intrinsically wrong for someone to steal your life. Such a judgement can only be made based on context. So tell me, what is the context in which it is wrong for someone to steal your life.
It's mine. I own it. I know that means nothing to someone who believes property is theft, but I don't believe such people really believe that. I think they give lip service to it, but will defend their property every bit as much as sane people do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM said it. This is a semantical argument. Rabbit is using value to mean anything that's good. Lisa is using value to mean Monitary worth.
Not necessarily. Value is that which one acts to gain or keep. Virtue is the means by which one gains it or keeps it. Knowledge is a value (to a rational person). Education is a virtue by which it is attained. It's not the only one. Observation is another one. Both education and observation can cost money. But they can be free, as well.
But yes, I've been careful to define what I mean by "value". And it's why I haven't discussed the idea of "intrinsic value", which isn't even a bad concept. It's not a concept at all. I'm saying there's no such thing as intrinsic worth.
But yes, both worth and value only have meaning in relation to their subject.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: everything I have is a gift.
I've always viewed that as the flip side of "We've all got it coming" from Unforgiven.
The proper question isn't "why do we have to die?" but "why did we get to live at all?" I certainly did nothing to deserve that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the more you write, Rabbit, the more you show yourself to be anti-life.
Can I ask that you show Rabbit a bit more courtesy, Lisa? I think we can safely assume that she's no more "anti-life" than you are.
If your definition of "pro-life" requires the recognition of property rights, it's fine to put it that way, like, "I consider your views to be inimical to life."
But since Rabbit clearly does not, any attempt to classify her as "anti-life" is at best going to be seen as insulting.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
