quote:It comes down to "having reason to believe". A person's beliefs do not grant him rights. If someone makes no provisions for himself because he's learned to rely on being taken care of by others, he's going to be in for a rude awakening.
And I'm honestly tired of the "most would argue". Who cares what most would do? If you argue it, then have the courage to say that you do. Don't just attribute it to others. A view gains nothing in the way of solidity merely because many people hold it.
In a quasi-democratic society, it is of the utmost importance what "most would do". And I rather resent the allegation of lack of courage. Continuing to press an opinion in these forums in the face of opposition requires a measure courage, whether you dislike my terms or not.
Democracy is a way of allowing people to choose between valid choices. If it permits people to choose between all choices, including vicious and immoral ones, it may technically be a democracy, but the fact that it has now become a tyranny trumps that.
And I didn't make a general comment about your courage. I said, and I repeat, that if you think something is the case, say that you think it's the case. I consider it cowardly to hide all of your assertions behind, "Most people say". What most people say does not determine what is. Or there'd be places in the US where pi is equal to three.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Certain basic beliefs are necessary for society to function, and for an individual to function. If I "have reason to believe" that my house won't be stormed by armed invaders, I can sleep at night and go on about my day.
That can be achieved equally well by having a society that merely prevents anyone from initiating force against anyone else. It doesn't have to come from one group of people saying, "Okay, who thinks that letting houses being stormed by armed invaders is okay? Hands? Hmm... looks like armed invaders storming houses is going to be against the rules, because the majority says so."
But if I'm accustomed to being able to run my convenience store in the neighborhood, I shouldn't have a right to try and use government coercion to keep big stores out. I can try to convince people, but ultimately, the fact that I'm accustomed to being able to do business doesn't grant me the right to do so. It only grants me the right to attempt to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Otherwise, I'm never going to do anything other than patrol my house with a rifle. That's not an effective way for an individual or a member of a society to function.
You're describing anarchy. I believe I've been more than clear that I advocate no such thing, and that allowing anyone to initiate violence against anyone else is always an violation of the victim's rights.
And since honest and good people can disagree on what constitutes initiating violence ("He started it!" "No, he did!"), we need government to be responsible for prevention of such acts and retribution where deemed necessary.
But no government -- ever, under any circumstances -- can have rights that do not belong, fundamentally, to the people. Because people is all we have. People make governments. Governments are there to serve people. People can't get around the basic immorality of mugging someone for "a good cause" by creating a government and asserting that it has the legitimate power to do that.
Sure, people can do that. If I have a gun and you don't, I can force you to lick my boots. But that doesn't make it right.
And to go back to one of the early examples I used, if you and I are walking down the street and see a rich man and a poor man, we are not entitled to mug the rich man and give his money to the poor man. Not even part of it. We can ask. We can cajole. We can engage in any non-coercive act of persuasion that we want. But coercion crosses the line. And the four people in this example don't gain or lose any basic rights or restrictions just because they are 4 million instead.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It isn't "expecting others to take care of me" to expect that I can go to a supermarket and buy food,
You can go to a supermarket and buy food if there is a supermarket. Ifthere is food in it. If the food is for sale, and you have the price and the proprietors have not qualified their offer of food for sale in a way that would exclude you.
They used to have signs on public beaches in this country as recently as the 1940s that said, "No Jews or dogs". That's foul. And on a public beach, it is, and should be, illegal. But on a private beach? It's just foul.
I'm gay, Sterling. And I'm Jewish. And I'm a woman. Any three of those characteristics, or combinations of them, are sufficient for some people to want to discriminate against me. I can tell you right now that there are people on this forum, nice people in most other ways, who would do their level best to have me fired from a teaching position, regardless of how good a teacher I might be.
So don't think I'm a straight white chick who is living high on the hog, and saying, "I got mine, so screw yourself." I'm not even sure how we're going to be able to survive financially to the end of the year. We may lose our house.
But I would never, ever, not in a billion years, not for the welfare of myself, my partner, nor even our five year old daughter, dream of suggesting that anyone else has an "obligation" to help us out. I'll ask. I have no pride issues on that count. If it gets bad enough, I'll certainly ask for help, wherever I think I can get it. But I'll ask. Because that's all I have the right to do.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Stealing, or looting, or hoarding from what is collectively available in a time of need is more harmful to the other members of the group suffering that need than it is beneficial to the individual thief/looter/hoarder. I would define that as immoral. But it does not implicitly use force or threat against any member of that group, and so it is not coercion.
It is coercion, because it is stealing from the owners of that food (or supplies or whatnot). Maybe they'd be willing to give the contents of their food to the needy in an emergency situation like that. Maybe they'd do it gratis, and maybe they'd do it in hopes of eventually being compensated by others. But they weren't given the choice. People decided that their need trumped morality.
Don't get me wrong. I've thought long and hard about the "John Q" type of quandary. What if there was a medicine that was needed by someone I loved, and all of my legitimate attempts to raise enough money to get it fell through? Would I steal in order to get that money? Would I steal the medicine itself at gunpoint?
I honestly don't know. Maybe, in extremis, I would do something like that. But after the fact, I would acknowledge freely that what I had done was wrong. And I would do my utmost to make amends. I certainly wouldn't try to justify it.
You don't like being accused of cowardice. Well, I'm telling you that we live in a society of cowards. A society in which most people who find themselves needing (in their minds) to do something wrong have to find a way to justify the act. A society full of people who can't say, "I did wrong. In the same situation, maybe I'd do wrong again. But I recognize that it was wrong, and I'm willing to pay the price. I was willing to pay it at the time I decided to do it."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "What people think has no effect on what is, though"
Well, no, this is demonstratably wrong. What people think OFTEN has an effect on what is. For example, the people of germany felt that the treaty of versailles was crushingly unfair. Thus, it was crushingly unfair, because they responded to it as if it were.
No. It was not unfair because they thought it was. What they thought doesn't enter into it.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Even if from an objective standpoint the treaty were fair, the fact that millions of people did not perceive it that way means it is, in fact, not fair.
Yes, the fact is that a lot of people thought it was unfair. That did not make it unfair. You can think that you can flap your arms and fly, and try jumping off the top of the Sears Tower on that theory, but that theory will only last until you hit the pavement. That's a bad theory.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: More fundamentally, I refer you to the shroedinger's cat thought experiment. A wave function does not collapse until it is observed, so perception, which informs thought, has a large effect on reality.
It's a thought experiment. One which, by definition, cannot be demonstrated. It is unfalsifiable, and therefore bad science.
It may be true. The multiple-world hypothesis may be the correct explanation. But:
(a) At this point, it cannot be proven; (b) It's irrelevant to the question
That idea that an observer collapses the wave function doesn't mean that what the observer wants has any effect on the wave function.
Meanwhile, back in non-fiction...
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Originally posted by Sterling: If the tree example fails, it's largely because the situation is too hypothetical and vague. But consider disputes about fishing waters, areas which are shared by many nations with different needs and goals. To those who fish on a subsistence basis, those who over-fish those areas and deplete the long-term population unquestionably do wrong, with no inherent coersion.
Says who?"
Well, says Sterling for starters.
This may come as a shock to you, Paul, but though I'm not sure how they do these things in your native tongue (whatever it may be), "Says who" doesn't indicate a request to know who makes such a claim. It indicates a request to know on what basis such a claim is made. Admittedly, the connotation of the question is a poor fit for the words used, but then, so is "You're pulling my leg."
Incidentally, that last phrase means, "You're not being serious." You don't have to thank me.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: More importantly, you didn't address why you think he's wrong.
So let me understand this. He makes a bald assertion. No attempt whatsoever to defend it, and I make an equally bald assertion that his assertion is wrong... and I have to address why I think he's wrong? I mean, never mind the fact that I've boiled what I've been saying down into a small number of very easy-to-understand principles, and that anyone who has been paying attention already knows why I think he's wrong. The more important point is that he hasn't given anything to be refuted. Just an assertion.
"I assert that the Great Red Spot on Jupiter is made of ketchup." But I don't, because that'd be dumb.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "A person's beliefs do not grant him rights."
This is true. But when a group of people gather together, and say "We will protect these rights," even if what they are protecting are not "fundamentally" rights, then that group of people have turned their beliefs into what are, functionally, rights... protected areas where people can perform as they choose without undo danger of interference.
And that's precisely what I'm objecting to. Because by definition, there is no pseudo-right you can grant anyone except by violating the real rights of someone else. It is impossible.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "The fact is that context matters. In most cases, however, I'd say that it is a morally positive/good thing to save the baby. A very good thing, in fact. Are you obligated to do so?"
Well, yes. You seem to assert that the right to life is an objective right.
"Seem to"? Then I haven't been clear enough. It is the fundamental and basic right that all other rights are mere derivatives of. I own my life, so anyone who tries to take my life, or any part of it, without my permission, is violating my rights. If you enslave me, you violate my right to use my own life. That's where the right of liberty comes from (even if the full import of what they were saying had escaped the notice of the US founders).
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: That means that you have a duty to protect the life of others, when possible.
No, Paul. That doesn't follow at all. You just made a grand leap without any justification whatsoever. This time, rather than just say, "You're wrong", which will only encourage you to come back and tell me I have to justify my statement (which you might do, despite the fact that you failed to justify yours), I'll explain it to you.
I have a "duty" not to harm others. I do not have a "duty" to help others.
Now, I find that it is more often than not in my interest to help others. I like the kind of world in which people help other people. And for me to refrain from ever helping others would be completely irrational. It would either imply that I see myself as being above everyone else, which I don't, or that I'm acting against myself. Which is what crazy people do.
In my personal opinion, it makes tons of sense for me to help others. But I'm not obligated to.
Furthermore, consider what the belief that coercing help is okay has done. When I help someone; when anyone helps someone else, there is a positive effect not only on the recipient, but on the giver. It isn't better to give than to receive; that's inherently silly. But helping others can have a very beneficial effect on the person doing it (just as harming others can have a detrimental effect on the one doing it).
When you rob people of the chance to help voluntarily... well, it's like never letting your kid make a mistake. You wind up with a kid who isn't capable of coping with his own mistakes.
So we have a society now full of people who think they need big daddy government to help them with everything. A stagnant and decadent society, not unlike that of Rome in its later days. A society full of credit addicts who know that bankruptcy is always a last option available to them. A society full of people who honestly don't consider themselves responsible for their bad choices.
Suing fast food restaurants for causing obesity, God help us. People who aren't bright enough to keep from holding a cup of steaming hot coffee between their sweatsuit clad legs while driving winning millions of dollars.
You've all probably seen the comical e-mails going around with lists of dumb warning labels. Here's a site full of them. Well, I'll tell you something, Paul. A society in which people have to be told that lubricant jelly isn't the kind you make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches out of is a society of dolts. Or of children.
And that's what forcing people to "help" has done for us. It's infantilized a generation of people with the highest technology in the history of mankind. Does that make you feel comfortable? It scares the hell out of me.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "There's no such thing as society."
This is objectively false. At a very simple level, a society is any group of people that live under the jurisdiction of a government.
People make governments. They don't fall from the sky like manna.
Sure, I'll concede that the term "society" could be used, validly, for what you describe. So long as it is absolutely voluntary and that its members have the right to leave whenever they want.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're using "society" as it's been used in this thread, and as it's used far too frequently elsewhere. I'm referring to "society" as some entity which is somehow entitled to engage in actions that none of its constituent members ever had. No such thing exists.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Beyond that, its false to imply that my actions have no effect on people whom I am not directly performing the action on. Take, for example, a person X living in a very nice neighborhood. All his neighbors have well maintained properties. Mr. X puts old pickup trucks up on blocks in his yard, does not mow the lawn, the paint on his house is peeling, and he feeds the crows. The value of the neighbors property will drop. And yet, Mr. X is doing nothing to those properties.
That sucks for his neighbors. Except of course that their property tax will probably drop because of it, but what the heck. Let's say it sucks. So long as it stays within his own property, you can try to convince him not to do that, but you don't have any right to prevent him.
Now, if you can show that his slovenliness has an actual likelihood of breeding disease or otherwise harming you... that's another story. If you can show that it already has harmed you, that's yet another one. If the smell is disgusting, you're well within your rights to demand that he act to keep the smell within his property. Rights cut both ways. His right to be a pig ends where your nose starts.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The interactions implicit in a group of people living near each other create a web of effects that can be considered to create a society.
They do not create legitimacy for immoral actions, such as forcing people to act the way you want them to. So long as they don't hit you, steal from you, defraud you... they have the right to be bastards.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "There's a piece of a newspaper in my bathroom right now. In that, there's an article that honestly turned my stomach. It referred to "the social contract that recognizes... the link between success and the society that makes it possible".
There's no such social contract. We are not cells in a great organism. We all live for our own purposes. To the extent that we come together for a joint purpose, it's by choice."
There IS a social contract recognizing the inherent link between success and the society upon which success is built. No one is successful independant of the people around him.
There can be no contract imposed upon people without their consent. Contracts are inherently agreed to by all parties. Otherwise they aren't contracts. They're bullying.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No. It was not unfair because they thought it was. What they thought doesn't enter into it."
"Yes, the fact is that a lot of people thought it was unfair. That did not make it unfair. You can think that you can flap your arms and fly, and try jumping off the top of the Sears Tower on that theory, but that theory will only last until you hit the pavement. That's a bad theory."
Fairness has a lot to do with how people react to something that effects them. If I do not perceive an action to be right, or just, and act accordingly, then whoever performed that action isn't acting "fairly" because perception is central to fairness. Just as perception is central to justice, love, hate, and a lot of other words... and situations. Perception causes reality, in a lot of cases. THe reality of WWII was caused, to a large degree, by the perception of an unfair versailles. All that matters, for human interaction, is the perception of fairness... not whether some totally objective observer says its fair or not, unless that totally objective observer also has the perceived authority to say that its fair and should be obeyed, and expresses his views.
"It's a thought experiment. One which, by definition, cannot be demonstrated. It is unfalsifiable, and therefore bad science.
It may be true. The multiple-world hypothesis may be the correct explanation. But:
(a) At this point, it cannot be proven; (b) It's irrelevant to the question
That idea that an observer collapses the wave function doesn't mean that what the observer wants has any effect on the wave function."
There's a lot fundamentally wrong with this statement, but most important to the discussion at hand is that it IS relevant. You're denying that reality and perception of reality are necessarily related. This is false...especially when talking about rights and similar abstracts. What we perceive is what we turn into reality. As in the Versailles example, how we live our lives is determined by what we perceive. Whether or not that conforms with some "abstract" reality is totally irrelevant to what we do with our lives. In specific relation to "rights," if we act as if certain things are rights, then they become as real in our lives as any rights that you say are objective.
"This may come as a shock to you, Paul, but though I'm not sure how they do these things in your native tongue (whatever it may be), "Says who" doesn't indicate a request to know who makes such a claim."
This may come as a shock to you, Lisa, but though I'm not sure how they do these things in your native tongue (Whatever it may be) a response to the question "Says who," with the reminder of who said it, post-ceded by the statement that one didn't address the statement made, is a gentle reminder that someone in fact said it, and the statement has gone unrefuted. Sterling made a statement that a specific action causes harm, and there is no coercion. You didn't address that, you just dismissed it with a snotty "says who." There's unquestionably harm if a group of people are deprived of their means of livlihood, and there is no coercion if there is no interaction.
"So let me understand this. He makes a bald assertion."
An assertion with background, so that the premises can be challenged, and conclusions, so the logic can be examined. You dismissed a non-bald assertion. He showed how harm is done, and showed how their is no coercion.
Or do you want a step by step analysis of how someone being deprived of their livlihood through a non-interactive process is harmful and non-coercive?
" But I don't, because that'd be dumb."
Just as it is dumb to assert there is no harm when someone is deprived of their livlihood? Just as it is dumb to assert there is coercion when two people do not interact?
"And that's precisely what I'm objecting to. Because by definition, there is no pseudo-right you can grant anyone except by violating the real rights of someone else. It is impossible."
I disagree. I can think of literally millions of "pseudo-rights" that do not infringe on the "real rights" of someone else, if I engage in them.
I have the right to wear a chicken, obtained by my own economic activity, on my head. This right alone provides millions of permutations that do not infringe upon anyone elses rights. If society chooses to protect that right, there is no infringement on your rights, or anyone elses.
See how this works? Someone makes a statement, and you provide a logical explanation or counter example as to why that statement is wrong. Unlike, for example "says who?"
"Seem to"? Then I haven't been clear enough."
YEs, seem to, because you seem to have no compunctions about violating this right in certain circumstances. A "right" trumps everything, other then defence of one's own rights... this includes trumping the right to pro-active defence of one's rights, because you can't assume someone will violate your rights without violating their rights.
"No, Paul. That doesn't follow at all. You just made a grand leap without any justification whatsoever."
Here comes the justification: If someone really has an objective right to something, then that right trumps everything except defence of our own rights. Thats what a "right" means. It means its all-important. It doesn't mean "Something to cherish when convienient." Someone else's right to life, since you say its the foundamental and basic right from which all other rights spring, trumps your right to (insert anything that is not immediate protection of your life).
Further, with ANY benefit comes responsibility. IT doesn't matter what that benefit is, whether it be a priveledge, or right, or protection. The right to life implies the duty to use that life wisely.
Here's the point: Compelling people to protect the right to life of others, under the doctrine you propose where there is nothing other then people, is coercion to protect the fundamental right to life which provides the foundation of your right to be free from coercion. If you don't protect life, then you aren't protecting your right to be free from coercion, because you allow the underpinings of that freedom from coercion to be destroyed, and in order to protect your right to be free from coercion, as well as their own right to be free from coercion plus their right to life, (a right which trumps your freedom from coercion, for as you say, the right to life is the fundamental right from which others are derived)people have the duty to coerce you so there is no further coercion or violation of the right to life.
Your explanation of why you don't have a duty to help others is, frankly, extremely weak, and has logic holes one can float a battleship through... since the only logic there is a slippery slope.
"People make governments. They don't fall from the sky like manna."
Yup, but once a government is formed, anyone living under that jurisdiction is part of the society formed by the creation of that government.
" I'm referring to "society" as some entity which is somehow entitled to engage in actions that none of its constituent members ever had. No such thing exists."
Except that conceding the point about society and government defeats that argument. Governments have the freedom to engage in activities others do not (as you've actually pointed out) by putting the sole use of retalitory coercion in its hands. People don't have the right to retaliatory coercion to begin with... only the right to protect from further violations, which is not always coercion.
"So long as it stays within his own property, you can try to convince him not to do that, but you don't have any right to prevent him."
I didn't say that I do. I said, rather, that his actions have effects beyond the things he acts on. And I am positing that such a thing is an example of how societies are formed.
"There can be no contract imposed upon people without their consent."
Sometimes, however, consent is "I still live here."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:People who aren't bright enough to keep from holding a cup of steaming hot coffee between their sweatsuit clad legs while driving winning millions of dollars.
Are you referring to a case that actually occurred, or is this rhetorical hyperbole?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
3rd degree burns in McDonald's coffee suit. Apparently McDonald's had been warned by medical burn experts and had settled 700 prior claims before that woman sued them after they refused to pay $20,000 when she was given 3rd degree burns (and needed skin grafts) after having McD's coffee spill on her. If I recall correctly, she was a passenger in the car. Not driving.
edit: sorry CT, I didn't see your post until after I posted. You're correct, I'm assuming that is the case being discussed. It has come up before and the same facts have been used to show how it is not a good example of bad tort law. I agree, when the facts are presented, that case does not fit the argument.
I posted the link to bankruptcy facts for the same reason. The detailed facts of the bankruptcy issue are far less supportive of the argument about "personal responsibility" than most people who use that argument assume.
Edited to add: Ah, Bob, I was assuming the actual details of that case were well-known. Perhaps they are not. Regardless, it is always good to review it, just as to review your information on the events preceding most bankruptcies.
posted
The pain meds are making things a teensy bit fuzzy, so I'm going to just address a couple of things. Deus volent, I'll get to the rest after Shabbat some time.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Or do you want a step by step analysis of how someone being deprived of their livlihood through a non-interactive process is harmful and non-coercive?
No one is entitled to a livelihood. They're only entitled to strive for one.
A right, by definition, means something that I can require from others. If I'm not entitled to require it from others, it's not a right. It's at most a gift.
I am entitled to require that you not bop me on the nose. I am entitled to require that you not steal my shoes. I am entitled to try and make a living. I am not entitled to make a living.
Pursuit of happiness is not the same thing as happiness. FDR created this monstrosity called an economic bill of rights [sic] which, God help us, even labeled recreation a "right".
So yeah, the people who lived in New Orleans could play King Canute all day and insist that they had a right not to be flooded, but they really didn't. They had a right to deal with the reality as best they could. They had a right to ask for help. But no amount of voting and screaming is going to make someone entitled to something that isn't theirs.
Say I'm a doctor and my livelihood requires sick people to treat. What do I do if no one is sick? Infect them?
It's just the most nutty thing in the world to say that someone is entitled to stick with a job and have that job protected from reality.
In the case that you gave, people may be losing something that they want. They aren't losing something that they're entitled to. It's sad, but to coerce some people in order to grant others what they want? That's called stealing.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "And that's precisely what I'm objecting to. Because by definition, there is no pseudo-right you can grant anyone except by violating the real rights of someone else. It is impossible."
I disagree. I can think of literally millions of "pseudo-rights" that do not infringe on the "real rights" of someone else, if I engage in them.
I have the right to wear a chicken, obtained by my own economic activity, on my head.
If you choose to enumerate every conceivable use of personal liberty as a separate right, you're completely off the wall.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: This right alone provides millions of permutations that do not infringe upon anyone elses rights. If society chooses to protect that right, there is no infringement on your rights, or anyone elses.
When you say "protect", what do you mean? If you mean protect the chicken wearer from people who want to rip the chicken off his head, sure. If you mean force someone to hire him when his wearing of a chicken on his head is repulsive to the employer, you're dead wrong. Because then you're infringing on the rights of the employer. If you mean expropriating my earnings to pay for this guy's chicken, why is he more deserving of a chicken he doesn't own than I am of what I do own?
I repeat, you cannot name a single thing that contradicts what I said. Invent a right that doesn't already exist (and being a subset of something that exists means it's covered), and you have to violate someone else's rights.
You have the right to anything you want -- and I mean anything you want -- so long as you don't initiate violence against someone else.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Seem to"? Then I haven't been clear enough."
YEs, seem to, because you seem to have no compunctions about violating this right in certain circumstances. A "right" trumps everything, other then defence of one's own rights... this includes trumping the right to pro-active defence of one's rights, because you can't assume someone will violate your rights without violating their rights.
If someone shoots a gun at me, I'm not required to wait until the bullet hits me. Everyone has the right to defend themselves from an initiation of violence on the part of another. In normal situations, we delegate that right to the government, for the reasons I stated earlier. Because if everyone engages in retaliatory violence on their own, subjectivity rules, and civilization is gone.
We can delegate our innate rights to the government. We can't give it rights that we don't have.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "No, Paul. That doesn't follow at all. You just made a grand leap without any justification whatsoever."
Here comes the justification: If someone really has an objective right to something, then that right trumps everything except defence of our own rights. Thats what a "right" means. It means its all-important. It doesn't mean "Something to cherish when convienient." Someone else's right to life, since you say its the foundamental and basic right from which all other rights spring, trumps your right to (insert anything that is not immediate protection of your life).
No. They have a right to insist that I not harm them. They have a right to insist that I not take their life. They do not have any right to call on me to preserve them. They can ask, but they can't demand. They have no ownership of me that would entitle them to do so.
If the only way I can save my life is to steal from someone, that doesn't give me any right to steal from them. Because while the right to life is the fundamental right, that doesn't imply any obligation on others.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Further, with ANY benefit comes responsibility.
I believe that should be "with great power comes great responsibility". And that's a bloody comic book.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: IT doesn't matter what that benefit is, whether it be a priveledge, or right, or protection. The right to life implies the duty to use that life wisely.
Crap. I have the right to jump off a cliff if I so desire. It's my life. The only legitimate judge of how I can best use that life is me.
(And yeah, I'm leaving out God for the moment, because ultimately, He owns us, and that trumps everything.)
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Here's the point: Compelling people to protect the right to life of others, under the doctrine you propose where there is nothing other then people, is coercion to protect the fundamental right to life which provides the foundation of your right to be free from coercion.
You misunderstood. Refraining from harm is not the same as helping. Refraining from help is not the same as harming. I owe nothing to anyone other than to leave them alone, unless I have freely taken such an obligation on myself.
Remainder of repetitive redundancy snipped. If you want, just copy what I wrote above and paste it, because it's the same answer.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A right, by definition, means something that I can require from others. If I'm not entitled to require it from others, it's not a right. It's at most a gift.
And why, exactly, are you "entitled" to receive being left alone from others? Exactly what is it that elevates this particular thing (being left alone) over everything else that could be required of another?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democracy is a way of allowing people to choose between valid choices. If it permits people to choose between all choices, including vicious and immoral ones, it may technically be a democracy, but the fact that it has now become a tyranny trumps that.
I think we're arguing from differing views of what constitutes morality, and what constitutes coercion. The problem of the "tyranny of the majority" is always with us, and probably always will be. I think Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government- except for all the other ones."
But society _does_ choose to define morality, and we can only hope (and in a democracy, do our best to bring about) that those who do the defining are doing so on the basis of both careful intellectual consideration and introspective consideration of their conscience, if such a thing exists.
quote:And I didn't make a general comment about your courage. I said, and I repeat, that if you think something is the case, say that you think it's the case. I consider it cowardly to hide all of your assertions behind, "Most people say". What most people say does not determine what is. Or there'd be places in the US where pi is equal to three.
And I got repeatedly criticized by a composition teacher in high school for stating things in the form "I think" or "I feel". I'm stating the facts as I know them, and as I believe most people perceive them; no, that doesn't inherently make me, or them, correct. If you have a problem with my phrasing, you're welcome to fight it out with my old comp teacher.
quote:That can be achieved equally well by having a society that merely prevents anyone from initiating force against anyone else. It doesn't have to come from one group of people saying, "Okay, who thinks that letting houses being stormed by armed invaders is okay? Hands? Hmm... looks like armed invaders storming houses is going to be against the rules, because the majority says so."
And do you intend to acheive this society by democracy? Or by coercion? If you have a third option, I'd love to hear it.
quote:But if I'm accustomed to being able to run my convenience store in the neighborhood, I shouldn't have a right to try and use government coercion to keep big stores out. I can try to convince people, but ultimately, the fact that I'm accustomed to being able to do business doesn't grant me the right to do so. It only grants me the right to attempt to do so.
I would disagree, but I think it's a matter of defining coercion once again. If a community decides that it doesn't want a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood, they may attempt to use the law in their area to prevent that store from coming in, or they might attempt to buy part of the property the potential store would build upon, or they might try to change the laws to prevent stores matching that description from fitting into the zone restrictions in their neighborhood. Any one of those might be described as "government coercion." But then, I would argue that selling below cost to drive out your competition is also coercion.
quote:You're describing anarchy. I believe I've been more than clear that I advocate no such thing, and that allowing anyone to initiate violence against anyone else is always an violation of the victim's rights.
Sadly, what I'm describing is neighborhoods that I know and people that I knew. I'm saying that we make certain assumptions in order to function as a society, and that some of those assumptions make us less capable of surviving as individuals if the infrastructure of that society is abuptly removed from us. And I'm saying that _since_ we make these compromises to our own security in order to make society function, our society _does_ have some responsibility to make certain our lives remain livable in the face of those compromises.
quote:And since honest and good people can disagree on what constitutes initiating violence ("He started it!" "No, he did!"), we need government to be responsible for prevention of such acts and retribution where deemed necessary.
But no government -- ever, under any circumstances -- can have rights that do not belong, fundamentally, to the people. Because people is all we have. People make governments. Governments are there to serve people. People can't get around the basic immorality of mugging someone for "a good cause" by creating a government and asserting that it has the legitimate power to do that.
Sure, people can do that. If I have a gun and you don't, I can force you to lick my boots. But that doesn't make it right.
With you so far.
quote: And to go back to one of the early examples I used, if you and I are walking down the street and see a rich man and a poor man, we are not entitled to mug the rich man and give his money to the poor man. Not even part of it. We can ask. We can cajole. We can engage in any non-coercive act of persuasion that we want. But coercion crosses the line. And the four people in this example don't gain or lose any basic rights or restrictions just because they are 4 million instead.
...And I suspect that here we part company. Because some people consider taxes equivalent to mugging the four million people.
How did that rich man get rich? How does he remain rich? Does he keep his money in a bank? Is that bank insured by the government? Does his business use public ports and roads? Does he rely on a communications system that is upheld by the public? Did he get a public education, and does he expect those who work for him to have a certain level of skill because of a public education? Does a public immunization program keep his workers working rather than at home sick, or caring for sick family?
There are countless things that an individual cannot do that a society can. Some would consider redistributing money so that these things can be achieved amounts to a massive mugging. I would say they probably allow the rich man to retain his wealth, and probably made it possible in the first place.
So I might just suggest to the rich man that a few pennies for the poor man might insure that A)he gets something to eat, B)he doesn't cough up tuberculosis on him as he walks down the street, and C) it would be cheaper than paying for an armed guard to insure the significantly larger number of poor people _don't_ in fact mug him and take his money. I might even use the word "obligation", and gently suggest that, whether or not it's moral per se, it's one more small part of keeping together the society that makes his wealth possible. Maybe that's coercion. I don't think it's immoral.
quote:You can go to a supermarket and buy food if there is a supermarket. Ifthere is food in it. If the food is for sale, and you have the price and the proprietors have not qualified their offer of food for sale in a way that would exclude you.
They used to have signs on public beaches in this country as recently as the 1940s that said, "No Jews or dogs". That's foul. And on a public beach, it is, and should be, illegal. But on a private beach? It's just foul.
I'm gay, Sterling. And I'm Jewish. And I'm a woman. Any three of those characteristics, or combinations of them, are sufficient for some people to want to discriminate against me. I can tell you right now that there are people on this forum, nice people in most other ways, who would do their level best to have me fired from a teaching position, regardless of how good a teacher I might be.
So don't think I'm a straight white chick who is living high on the hog, and saying, "I got mine, so screw yourself." I'm not even sure how we're going to be able to survive financially to the end of the year. We may lose our house.
But I would never, ever, not in a billion years, not for the welfare of myself, my partner, nor even our five year old daughter, dream of suggesting that anyone else has an "obligation" to help us out. I'll ask. I have no pride issues on that count. If it gets bad enough, I'll certainly ask for help, wherever I think I can get it. But I'll ask. Because that's all I have the right to do.
I'm aware you're not a "straight white chick", StarLisa. And I _am_ a straight white guy. Yet I _would_ accept, and even advocate, legal means that protected "someone like you" from discrimination, even if it meant lessening the accesses and freedoms of "someone like me."
If we get down to a certain level, the only one with any rights _or_ freedoms is the person with the largest stick. Both civilization and morality demand more. Civilization does, and morality should, dictate that a person has more worth than the stick they wield, whether that stick is physical force or financial clout or a horde of fanatical followers (which might provide either of the above.)
_Is_ it immoral, to curtail freedoms if failing to do so impedes others' basic survival? That seems to be a decision we make on a case-by-case basis, in the real world.
quote:It is coercion, because it is stealing from the owners of that food (or supplies or whatnot). Maybe they'd be willing to give the contents of their food to the needy in an emergency situation like that. Maybe they'd do it gratis, and maybe they'd do it in hopes of eventually being compensated by others. But they weren't given the choice. People decided that their need trumped morality.
Don't get me wrong. I've thought long and hard about the "John Q" type of quandary. What if there was a medicine that was needed by someone I loved, and all of my legitimate attempts to raise enough money to get it fell through? Would I steal in order to get that money? Would I steal the medicine itself at gunpoint?
I honestly don't know. Maybe, in extremis, I would do something like that. But after the fact, I would acknowledge freely that what I had done was wrong. And I would do my utmost to make amends. I certainly wouldn't try to justify it.
You don't like being accused of cowardice. Well, I'm telling you that we live in a society of cowards. A society in which most people who find themselves needing (in their minds) to do something wrong have to find a way to justify the act. A society full of people who can't say, "I did wrong. In the same situation, maybe I'd do wrong again. But I recognize that it was wrong, and I'm willing to pay the price. I was willing to pay it at the time I decided to do it."
Not a big believer in situational ethics, I see. I guess I can respect that. But for me, there are cases where I would accept that I would have to do what some people thought was wrong- maybe even what I thought was wrong- in order to prevent a greater wrong, and I would accept the cost to me. And there are other cases where despite what others might think, I would argue to my last breath that what I did was _not_ wrong under the circumstances.
I guess the situation of those who survived Hurricane Katrina is much on my mind: I wouldn't give a damn about stealing a loaf of bread to feed my family, if the alternative were that that bread was going to spoil on the shelf or be destroyed by rising floodwaters, for example, but that wouldn't make it any less stealing: it wasn't mine, it belonged to someone else, and I took it. But I wouldn't think that immoral.
Now, if there were a dozen loaves of bread on this hypothetical shelf, and I said "I'll take them all with me, because I don't know how long I'll be here", knowing that others would starve because of what I had failed to leave for them, that would be immoral to me.
In some ways, I suppose what I'd advocate is closer to the Kantian model: I can only endorse the action if I'd endorse others doing the same in the same situation. I just don't accept a hard-and-fast "coercion as the source of all evil" doctrine. Starving in the midst of plenty seems to me the greater ill, and such can exist without coercion (unless, again, we're using very different definitions of coercion. Argh!)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
