posted
You say that like stubbornness is a bad thing. It isn't. It's perfectly neutral.
Someone who insists on standing by his principles even if it is to his own detriment in the short term is stubborn.
Someone who is loyal to a friend despite what that might cost him is stubborn.
I'm not talking about the kind of muleheadedness that makes people impervious to reason, and I'm not talking about the inflexibility that you obviously perceive in me. I'm talking about a stick-to-it-iveness that goes far beyond the norm.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: Originally posted by Treason: Person B needs to wake up earlier. *Yells* "Stop sleeping you dummy! You're losing all your apples!" <grin> You laugh, but the next step down the chain of reasoning Sterling is suggesting is that Person C, who sees Person A eating those apples and fails to wake Person B up to get his "fair share" (God help us) is also "immoral".
<sigh>
I laugh because I thought it was a ridiculous analogy. (also because I didn't have the time nor the eloquence to debate.) Um, no offense intended to Sterling. I just think it wasn't well thought out.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I laugh because I thought it was a ridiculous analogy. (also because I didn't have the time nor the eloquence to debate.) Um, no offense intended to Sterling. I just think it wasn't well thought out.
Well, you're entitled; no offense taken. My point is that there are actions that do not involve coersion that would still be considered wrongdoing by a significant number of people.
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. Consider those who profit from looting and hoarding in times of war and crisis. In a condition with a limited amount of a resource which is necessary for survival, wrong can most definitely be inflicted without coersion.
Consider those regions in the southern United States that closed public schools rather than accept integration. They did not "coerce" the students, but their actions are still widely perceived as wrong in the present day.
If a person has reason to expect that a resource, be it food, water, or education, will be available, and thus makes no provisions to have said resource available, actions which create a scarcity of that resource are indeed harmful, and most would argue that those actions are wrong.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I laugh because I thought it was a ridiculous analogy. (also because I didn't have the time nor the eloquence to debate.) Um, no offense intended to Sterling. I just think it wasn't well thought out.
Well, you're entitled; no offense taken. My point is that there are actions that do not involve coersion that would still be considered wrongdoing by a significant number of people.
What people think has no effect on what is, though. A significant number of people think Jews worship the devil. They're idiots, but they believe it.
quote: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?
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Consider those who profit from looting and hoarding in times of war and crisis. In a condition with a limited amount of a resource which is necessary for survival, wrong can most definitely be inflicted without coersion.
Looting is a form of stealing. What's your point? Stealing is most certainly a form of coercion.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Consider those regions in the southern United States that closed public schools rather than accept integration. They did not "coerce" the students, but their actions are still widely perceived as wrong in the present day.
It's hard to even discuss what's coercion and what's not in the context of government run schools, because the entire framework is coercive and immoral.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: If a person has reason to expect that a resource, be it food, water, or education, will be available, and thus makes no provisions to have said resource available, actions which create a scarcity of that resource are indeed harmful, and most would argue that those actions are wrong.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that the school should have the license to behave as the school did. It's a private school and private schools should enjoy the free exercise of such powers.
That said, the school's decision doesn't strike me as a particularly Christian response for two reasons:
1) If the school loves the sinner, but hates the sin, is there something amiss with ousting a girl who has not participated in the sin?
2) Education is one of those areas where I'm slow to banish young people, especially if they are guilty only by association. There have to be parables or teachings in the bible about gathering lost sheep. Isn't there-- yeah, dkw, I'm talking to you-- isn't there an appropriate story that illuminates reasons why Jesus would not kick this little girl out of his flock?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The problem you are having is that you seem to consider compassion to be moral. starLisa seems not to. Given that, her arguements are perfectly consistent.
Try this example: You have a herd of milk cows. You have done everything well and are very prosperous, hence you have all the milk you need and even end up throwing some of it away. Now, one day you find a baby on your property. You don't coerce it, as a matter of fact, you don't do anything to it at all. The baby dies.
posted
Irami, the school isn't a church. It's purpose is specifically different than a church, as they've stated on their website. They exist to build on the education they get at home from their Christian parent(s). I'm not certain why people seem to have such a difficult time wrapping their minds around this, but it seems obvious to me that if your intended audience is specifically Christian, you might have a different approach than when your intended audience is to seek and save the lost.
For heaven's sake, the girl isn't kicked out of Christianity. She's still part of His flock, if she ever has been. She's not guilty -- this isn't about her having done anything wrong, obviously. It's about the school recognising that they are not equipped or prepared to deal with issues that could (and probably did) come from her family situation. A family situation that almost certainly had to have been concealed from the school at admission.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami – dozens. But WWJD isn’t what the school is basing their decision on. They are operating under the belief that it is hard to be a Christian in today’s society and that the best way to support people making the attempt is to provide a school that is segregated from outside influences.
I don’t personally think it’s a theologically sound choice, but others disagree.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Then it's an unfortunate situation, and if the parents concealed their arrangement at the girl's admission into the school, then the parents may have brought it on themselves.
___
That said, I think that this school blows. It's like getting kicked out of the KKK because you don't hate Jews enough. And while the KKK has its rules and its internally consistent reasons for its rules, it doesn't make the group-- in total-- blow any less. _____
The school is perfectly within its boundaries, I just don't appreciate its boundaries. Here's hoping that there is a decent public school in the girl's neighborhood. She can be a part of my public, even if she can't be a part of that particular private school.
posted
dkw, I don't entirely agree with your assessment. I think it's hard to raise children today. I that the public schools range from outright to subtle in undermining the values that many Christian families try to pass on to their children. Considering the number of hours kids spend in school, it's reasonable to want to be supported by the school you send your children to.
I definitely don't think it's theologically sound for Christians to shelter themselves away from a hostile world -- I do think it's theologically sound to do our best to raise our children up in the way he should go so we can increase our odds of him following the Lord the rest of his days.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This occurrence illustrates the issue which any subculture experiences when their values clash with those of others. Accusations of intolerance, arrogance, bigotry and so on.
But of course if any subculture is to long exist it must have ways of enforcing its values, at least within its own group.
The challenge of a multicultural democracy is in finding ways of allowing this while at the same time balancing with the sensibilities of a larger group.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, in what way is this like getting kicked out of the KKK because you don't hate Jews enough? I'm really curious, because at no point do they say or even imply that she had to hate homosexuals to be a part of the school.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This occurrence illustrates the issue which any subculture experiences when their values clash with those of others. Accusations of intolerance, arrogance, bigotry and so on.
And some of those accusatiions are right on.
quote:The challenge of a multicultural democracy is in finding ways of allowing this while at the same time balancing with the sensibilities of a larger group.
No, the challenge put to a multicultural democracy is to know what parts of a subculture are morally defensible, and what parts should be publically derided.
______
Jeni,
It did imply that God's dislike of homosexuals is so potent that their children can't be suffered at this school. It's elevating the sexual preference of the girl's parents to a deal breaker. What if the parents had been a man and a woman, but had had a recent abortion? Or what if the father were just indicted for some heinous white collar crime? What about a sexual offense? Would the school kick the girl out then? I hope not, and really, I don't think that they would. But yet, this, of all possible sins of the parents, warrants retribution to the girl met out by the school because it's just too dysfunctional.
posted
Irami- why are the pariahs of your moral code more odious than those off a different moral code?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And some of those accusatiions are right on.
But from the point of view of those who believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be practiced in their subculture, your declarations of the supremacy of inclusion and diversity are high-handed and arrogant, in the exact same way that you believe that their exclusion is high-handed and arrogant. When moral codes clash who gets to be the final arbiter?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I have keener insight and wisdom-- at a deeper level-- than Nazies, terrorists, clansmen, and possibly the administrators of this school.
I'm not mad-- at this point-- for the administrators for thinking that homosexuality is wrong. I am mad at them for elevating it to such a wrong that this girl is asked to leave the school for this particular wrong perpetrated by her parents.
If the parents were caught abusing the girl's younger sibling, I wonder if they would ask the girl to leave?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The problem you are having is that you seem to consider compassion to be moral. starLisa seems not to. Given that, her arguements are perfectly consistent.
You mistake me, boots. There is a difference between an act that is morally positive/good, and something that can morally be required of someone. Those are entirely different things.
Benevolence is a good thing. Forcing others to be benevolent whether they want to or not is a bad thing. Does that make it a little more clear?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Try this example: You have a herd of milk cows. You have done everything well and are very prosperous, hence you have all the milk you need and even end up throwing some of it away. Now, one day you find a baby on your property. You don't coerce it, as a matter of fact, you don't do anything to it at all. The baby dies.
Moral or not?
I don't know. What did you do when it happened?
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? I'm not sure why the fact that it's a baby should matter.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It did imply that God's dislike of homosexuals is so potent their children can't be suffered at this school. It's elevating the status the girl's parents to a deal breaker. What if the parents had be an man and a woman, but had had a recent abortion? Or what if the father were just indicted for some heinous white collar crime? What about a sexual offense? Would the school kick the girl out then? I hope not, and really, I don't think that they would. But yet, this, of all possible sins of the parents, warrants retribution to the girl met out by the school because it's just too dysfunctional.
First, an abortion is a one time event, it's not a lifestyle. I happen to know a man who was indicted for a white collar crime and went to federal prison. He was a well known, dedicated member of our church. He repented to all of us, and offers his testimony of wrong doing if asked. These are poor choices a person might make.
Let's make this personal, shall we? I used to have an open marriage, where I slept with men other than my husband. If I were to go back to that lifestyle (assuming my current husband approved and stayed married to me), I would fully expect to come under the censure of both my church and my son's school as living a lifestyle incompatible with my Christian testimony. If I continued, I could reasonably assume that my son might be dismissed from the school, especially considering that this is his first year there.
The difference is unrepentant sin. If you believe that homosexual sex is a sin, then a long standing homosexual couple is in unrepentant sin, and therefore teaching by example a lesson incompatible with the philosophies the school espouses. It's not about hate, it's about loving enough to say that what is going on is wrong and that they could not support it as an institution.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeni, it is, as I said, a theological difference. I couldn’t teach my (hypothetical) children what I consider to be core Christian values by sending them to an exclusive school. Other Christians consider different values than I do to be “core.” For them, such a school may fit with their theology. For me, it would not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Benevolence is a good thing. Forcing others to be benevolent whether they want to or not is a bad thing.
I suppose this raises a question. Assume someone leaves a baby on your back stoop; no one else sees it, since you have a fence.
You do nothing, stepping over the baby when necessary to get in and out of your home, and the baby eventually dies.
Are you guilty of any crime? Should you be?
I refer you to my previous post in which I differentiated between things that are morally good or bad, and things that may legitimately be forced on people.
Taking a rifle up to a high tower and starting to shoot at people is bad, and it is legitimate to force someone not to do that.
Walking by someone starving without helping can be morally bad in certain cases, but it isn't legitimate to force you to help.
Helping is not the same as refraining from harming. Harming is not the same thing as refraining from helping.
It's legitimate to force someone not to harm someone else. It is not legitimate to force someone to help someone else.
Someone who does what you describe is a pig. And a moral leper. At least in any normal situation I can think of. But I'm not sure I could justify punishing someone who did that other than by voluntarily ostracizing him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Someone who does what you describe is a pig. And a moral leper. At least in any normal situation I can think of. But I'm not sure I could justify punishing someone who did that other than by voluntarily ostracizing him.
But why not? At what point does disinterest/self-interest become so damaging to society that it is considered nearly as bad as murder?
For example, teachers and child care specialists are required by law to report mysterious bruises. Should they be? If not, and if more children are then abused successfully as a consequence, has this "freedom" not harmed society?
If someone can legally step over someone else's starving body -- a baby or not -- at what point does a society say, "Okay, that's enough. You -- or these other designated agents of society -- have to help this person?"
Or is it indeed more moral to let someone die unwilling in misery than to force someone unwilling to help them live?
------
Consider that story from about a year back of the young woman who hit a pedestrian with her car, impaling him on her windshield, and then drove home and locked the car in her garage for a few days while he died -- screaming all the while for help. Is she only guilty of manslaughter, or did at some point her negligence actually cross the line into murder?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Government is not charged with legislating right and wrong, or good and bad. It should not be enforcing morality by law.
Hence, it doesn't matter how morally bad a person's selfish behavior is - he is still entitled to do it without government-imposed punishment if it is within his rights as a human being or citizen.
After all, to a great many Americans, one of the greatest moral harms you can do is turn someone away from God or lead them to eternal damnation - greater perhaps than even murder. Nevertheless, since it is within our agreed-upon rights to practice differing religions or no religion at all, this harm should never be enforced by legislation, no matter how harmful it truly is.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: At what point does disinterest/self-interest become so damaging to society that it is considered nearly as bad as murder?
There's no such thing as society.
Suppose you and I are walking down the street, and we see a rich man and a poor man. Would it be acceptable for us to pull a gun on the rich man, force him to give us money, and then give that money to the poor man?
After all, there are two of us, and only one of him. Majority rules, right?
Or maybe three or for people aren't enough to be considered a "society". What is the magic number then, Tom? Is it 100? Is it 100?
At what point do we get some critical mass of people who suddenly morph into a separate entity that is entitled to force that rich man to give us his money so that we can give it to that poor man?
I contend there is no magic number. I say it never happens. I say that persuasion is moral, and coercion is immoral. And that the only reason people prefer coercion is the immature urge for immediate gratification. Coercion, after all, is far more efficient. In the shurt term.
You are assuming an entity called society that possesses perogatives that the individuals within it do not possess, and I say that's bunk. If one person isn't entitled to rob Peter to pay Paul, then neither are a million people.
If all the do-gooders who are so eager to force people to help other people would devote half that energy to helping other people, the world would be a far better place. And the reason they don't is simple. It's envy and resentment. It's "misery loves company". It's a childish attitude of "If I have to help, then by God I'm going to make everyone else help."
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.
Majority rule is a good way (not the only way, but possibly the best way) to decide between two legitimate alternatives. It will never be a justification for a majority to coerce a minority.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Consider that story from about a year back of the young woman who hit a pedestrian with her car, impaling him on her windshield, and then drove home and locked the car in her garage for a few days while he died -- screaming all the while for help. Is she only guilty of manslaughter, or did at some point her negligence actually cross the line into murder?
I forgot to mention this, but it's separate from the rest of your post, so I'm glad to answer it separately.
She hit him. Intentionally or not, she hit him. At that point, he was no longer free. She had taken away his ability to help himself. Every inch she drove after that was intentional harm. Not negligence, but attempted homicide. Not just murder, but premeditated murder.
She didn't lock the car in her garage. She locked him in her garage. Had she gotten home and then helped him, she still would have been guilty of attempted homicide.
I think that all cases of "vehicular manslaughter [sic] while under the influence", btw, should be treated as murder. I know that this woman was apparently not drunk or stoned, but too much law is actually there to exempt people from responsibility for their own actions.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:if it is within his rights as a human being or citizen.
It would seem that legislating those rights is legislating morality, Tres.
There's a difference between recognizing rights that already exist and asserting rights which do not exist.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or maybe three or for people aren't enough to be considered a "society". What is the magic number then, Tom? Is it 100? Is it 100?
At what point do we get some critical mass of people who suddenly morph into a separate entity that is entitled to force that rich man to give us his money so that we can give it to that poor man?
See, this is what I don't get about you. On one hand, you say there's no such thing as society; on the other hand, you say a state of war can exist, even undeclared, between individuals acting as agents of a larger state, even if that state does not formally exist.
Clearly at some point the "state which does not formally exist" coalesces into something, right? Why is that point any less arbitrary than the point at which a society is born?
quote: She hit him. Intentionally or not, she hit him. At that point, he was no longer free. She had taken away his ability to help himself.
I submit that, in occasionally less tangible and immediate ways, many individuals take away the ability of other individuals to help themselves all the time, and one of the functions of law is to help those who have that ability taken from them.
Keep in mind that I'm a borderline libertarian, myself; I teeter on that edge pretty easily. But what keeps me from leaping over that line without reservation is the domination of the Libertarian Party by null-moral Objectivists and gun-nut conspiracy theorists, both of whom suffer from a strange kind of bias that, in the extreme, posits that violence (read: coercion) is ultimately the only form of real currency.
--------
quote: There's a difference between recognizing rights that already exist and asserting rights which do not exist.
The only difference between a right that exists and a right that doesn't exist is a piece of paper saying so. Far more than "society," rights are a convenient fiction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Government is not charged with legislating right and wrong, or good and bad. It should not be enforcing morality by law.
Says who? Because if this is the case, I'm sure that there are some people who want their tax dollars back for every program from public education to FEMA, because all of those programs are about morality, not to mention museums and all of those expensive military funerals and ceremonies, and the Olympics. If the government isn't concerned with character, then we can cut all of that pretense out and run the country on the cheap.
quote:Because if this is the case, I'm sure that there are some people who want their tax dollars back for every program from public education to FEMA, because all of those programs are about morality, not to mention museums and all of those expensive military funerals and ceremonies, and the Olympics.
*whisper* Irami, Lisa's an Objectivist. She's one of those people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or maybe three or for people aren't enough to be considered a "society". What is the magic number then, Tom? Is it 100? Is it 100?
At what point do we get some critical mass of people who suddenly morph into a separate entity that is entitled to force that rich man to give us his money so that we can give it to that poor man?
See, this is what I don't get about you. On one hand, you say there's no such thing as society; on the other hand, you say a state of war can exist, even undeclared, between individuals acting as agents of a larger state, even if that state does not formally exist.
You don't get it. That's true. There is a difference between responding to a threat as though it comes from a single source and saying that it is a single source.
There shouldn't be war. If a group of people attack, we aren't responsible for treating them as individuals.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Clearly at some point the "state which does not formally exist" coalesces into something, right? Why is that point any less arbitrary than the point at which a society is born?
False premise; false conclusion.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:She hit him. Intentionally or not, she hit him. At that point, he was no longer free. She had taken away his ability to help himself.
I submit that, in occasionally less tangible and immediate ways, many individuals take away the ability of other individuals to help themselves all the time, and one of the functions of law is to help those who have that ability taken from them.
You can submit that, but it doesn't have any strength. You can't take away something from someone unless that someone already has it. Not giving something does not equate to taking something away.
There's a reason why we talk about the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and not a right "to be happy". There's no guarantee of success. There are other people out there who are far more innovative and productive than I am. They are entitled to their successes.
The issue is justice; not fairness. Fairness is a cheat. Is it fair that I'm better at writing than my partner? Is it fair that my brother is better at focusing than me? Is it fair that I can't play the piano, while there are virtuosos out there?
We're all born differently, and we all live different lives. And some suck and some are great and some are just... lives. And if you find it appropriate to help someone, go ahead and do it. More often than not, you won't regret it. But forcing people... that's bad.
I generally give a buck to panhandlers in the Loop. Not always, but sometimes. If they're smoking, they don't need my money. I skip them.
One day, this guy is standing there looking fairly disreputable, and saying softly, "Help the homeless". So I give him a dollar. And he says, "Would you be willing to take a resume?"
Now how the hell about that? Here's this inner city guy, living at the Y, and I look at his resume, and he's been taking courses in computers and paralegal training. He's got a paralegal certificate, too. So I take his resume home and fix it up for him to make it look more presentable, and I e-mail it back to him. And carry a hardcopy with in case I run into him, which I do.
I've been homeless and unemployed. It sucks. But I never felt that anyone owed me help.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Keep in mind that I'm a borderline libertarian, myself; I teeter on that edge pretty easily. But what keeps me from leaping over that line without reservation is the domination of the Libertarian Party by null-moral Objectivists and gun-nut conspiracy theorists, both of whom suffer from a strange kind of bias that, in the extreme, posits that violence (read: coercion) is ultimately the only form of real currency.
Funny how you can accuse people who are opposed to coercion of coercion. I think they call that transference. Or the "I'm rubber, you're glue" syndrome.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There's a difference between recognizing rights that already exist and asserting rights which do not exist.
The only difference between a right that exists and a right that doesn't exist is a piece of paper saying so. Far more than "society," rights are a convenient fiction.
You can squeeze your eyes (and mind) shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell, "La la la!" to keep from seeing or hearing something, but it still exists despite your efforts to not perceive it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Government is not charged with legislating right and wrong, or good and bad. It should not be enforcing morality by law.
Says who? Because if this is the case, I'm sure that there are some people who want their tax dollars back for every program from public education to FEMA, because all of those programs are about morality, not to mention museums and all of those expensive military funerals and ceremonies, and the Olympics. If the government isn't concerned with character, then we can cut all of that pretense out and run the country on the cheap.
From your mouth to God's ears.
Some of those things are good things. And there are a lot of people who are in favor of them. They just don't have any right to force others to join in.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because if this is the case, I'm sure that there are some people who want their tax dollars back for every program from public education to FEMA, because all of those programs are about morality, not to mention museums and all of those expensive military funerals and ceremonies, and the Olympics.
*whisper* Irami, Lisa's an Objectivist. She's one of those people.
Post-Objectivist, really. I have a lot of disagreements with the Objectivist focus on things as opposed to people. They give lip service to benevolence as a virtue, but it certainly doesn't seem that they take it seriously.
You should read David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, what is the justification for the government becoming involved in enforcing contractual obligations between consenting parties? Why should my resources be used to ensure that someone else can receive their contractual benefits?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because if this is the case, I'm sure that there are some people who want their tax dollars back for every program from public education to FEMA, because all of those programs are about morality, not to mention museums and all of those expensive military funerals and ceremonies, and the Olympics. If the government isn't concerned with character, then we can cut all of that pretense out and run the country on the cheap.
The government is charged with acting morally - but not legislating morality, a.k.a. forcing individuals to act morally too.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: There shouldn't be war. If a group of people attack, we aren't responsible for treating them as individuals.
So one of the conditions that DOES form a "society" is the decision of a group to attack another group? We can dismiss speaking of a group as a collection of individuals -- or treating them that way -- once they attack people?
Under what other circumstances would you say that we can deal with people as groups?
quote: You can submit that, but it doesn't have any strength. You can't take away something from someone unless that someone already has it. Not giving something does not equate to taking something away.
Do you believe that the only way to take something away from someone involves force or coercion? That if nothing is coerced, nothing can be lost?
quote: You can squeeze your eyes (and mind) shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell, "La la la!" to keep from seeing or hearing something, but it still exists despite your efforts to not perceive it.
Similarly, if it doesn't exist, insisting that it does doesn't magically make it real. The reason Jefferson had to enumerate a list of rights in the Declaration of Independence was precisely because people are not self-evidently endowed with any rights; if it were self-evident, you wouldn't have to mention them. No one has an inherent right to anything beyond that which they can grab for themselves. We manufacture and imagine rights that we would like people to have, and then call them "rights" to make them sound more important than "privileges." That doesn't make them any more real on a cosmic scale, though.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: starLisa, what is the justification for the government becoming involved in enforcing contractual obligations between consenting parties? Why should my resources be used to ensure that someone else can receive their contractual benefits?
Good question. Think it through. The question even goes beyond that. Why, if someone steals from me, can't I just hire someone to go and take it back? Private police and all that.
The answer is that the sole justification for government at all is to have an objective body that will carry out those tasks. That we delegate our right to retaliatory coercion to. Otherwise, my private cops and your private cops get to shoot it out. That's anarchy, and it's essentially a barbaric situation where those who want to coerce others can do so by strength of arms.
If everyone could be relied upon to respect the rights of others, we wouldn't need government to take that role. But people aren't perfect.
Also, people can have legitimate differences of opinions. How can these get resolved without violence? By mediation. Whose mediation? Again, there needs to be an objective body to fulfill that role.
And I have to object to your use of the meaningless phrase "contractual benefits". If two (or more) parties enter freely into a contract, they each have a responsibility to carry out their obligations in that contract, and are entitled to see that the other party or parties do as well. "Benefits" is a bad term for that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good question. Think it through. The question even goes beyond that. Why, if someone steals from me, can't I just hire someone to go and take it back? Private police and all that.
You've made too big a leap here. Even if I grant the conclusory statement that the sole justification of government is as you state it, enforcing contracts doesn't automatically follow from that.
If someone fails to deliver the contractual benefits to the other party, the government could adopt a "too bad" attitude. If the deprived party attempts to use force to take those benefits, the government could stop him from doing so. There is no requirement that the government use its coercive power (and our taxpayer resources) to guarantee the contractually agreed on distribution of resources.
quote:The answer is that the sole justification for government at all is to have an objective body that will carry out those tasks. That we delegate our right to retaliatory coercion to. Otherwise, my private cops and your private cops get to shoot it out. That's anarchy, and it's essentially a barbaric situation where those who want to coerce others can do so by strength of arms.
Again, the government can ban private enforcement without providing enforcement of contractual disputes. It could ban all forms of violence, punishing parties who seek private enforcement.
quote:If everyone could be relied upon to respect the rights of others, we wouldn't need government to take that role. But people aren't perfect.
Also, people can have legitimate differences of opinions. How can these get resolved without violence? By mediation. Whose mediation? Again, there needs to be an objective body to fulfill that role.
But why should the government care about how the disputes are resolved? Why should force be used to protect only those private rights that you have recognized? What is the principle of exclusion for other rights?
quote:And I have to object to your use of the meaningless phrase "contractual benefits". If two (or more) parties enter freely into a contract, they each have a responsibility to carry out their obligations in that contract, and are entitled to see that the other party or parties do as well. "Benefits" is a bad term for that.
Why? Parties enter into contracts precisely because both parties will receive benefits from it. People don't voluntarily enter into a contract because they want obligations. They enter into them because they believe they will receive benefits.
Negotiation is the allocation of the contractual surplus (that value which exists only if the contract is executed) between the parties. If there is no contractual surplus, perfectly informed, rational parties will not enter into the contract.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: There shouldn't be war. If a group of people attack, we aren't responsible for treating them as individuals.
So one of the conditions that DOES form a "society" is the decision of a group to attack another group?
No. Consider light. Is it made up of particles or waves? The fact is, we can treat light as though it is made up of particles, rather than waves, in certain contexts. And we can treat light as though it is made up of waves, rather than particles, in other contexts.
Neither of those is a determination that light is made up of waves or of particles.
This is actually one of the major flaws in Objectivism, and the primary cause of Objectivist Personality Disorder. Rand wrote that you can't fault a cloud for raining on you or a dog for biting you, but you can fault a person for behaving irrationally. You can fault a person for not understanding that coercion is wrong, even though that person may have grown up being indoctrinated with that idea.
Why? Because human beings are capable of overcoming their training. So if they don't, they're culpable. Back in the 60s, she and her group of groupies used to accuse people of "social metaphysics", by which they meant treating people as forces of nature. They were okay with someone not jumping off a building, because gravity is a given. But they weren't okay at all with people working within the system, because that implied a kind of acceptance of bad premises.
It was sick. A kind of McCarthyism. It ate her movement up from within. And it was all because she couldn't comprehend that in some cases, even though people have free will and can choose to make better choices and have better premises, sometimes it's necessary to treat them as though they are givens. And not insist that either they change or be labeled "evil".
And you're making the same mistake here. Try to grasp the difference between "is" and "as though".
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Under what other circumstances would you say that we can deal with people as groups?
When they define themselves as external. When someone stands up in court and says, "I don't recognize your authority to try me, because you aren't my government", they are, by their own choice, setting themselves as outside parties. At that point, if they say they've acted as part of a group, and that group agrees with this externalization, it can be treated as though it is an entity.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You can submit that, but it doesn't have any strength. You can't take away something from someone unless that someone already has it. Not giving something does not equate to taking something away.
Do you believe that the only way to take something away from someone involves force or coercion?
Your wording is vague. I can give something away freely. But the term "take" implies that it's against my will. If so, it involves force and/or coercion. By definition.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That if nothing is coerced, nothing can be lost?
Of course not. I bought a lottery thing this morning. That's $2 down the drain. No coercion, but I lost $2. Of course, I didn't really "lose" it. I exchanged it freely for the chance to win $50K a year for life. Perhaps it was a bad choice on my part, but I'm entitled to be stupid.
Other than that, yes. Without coercion, nothing can be taken away from someone against their will, unless they've willingly agreed (by entering into a contract) to forfeit that thing.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You can squeeze your eyes (and mind) shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell, "La la la!" to keep from seeing or hearing something, but it still exists despite your efforts to not perceive it.
Similarly, if it doesn't exist, insisting that it does doesn't magically make it real. The reason Jefferson had to enumerate a list of rights in the Declaration of Independence was precisely because people are not self-evidently endowed with any rights; if it were self-evident, you wouldn't have to mention them.
It is self-evidence to any sane and moral person that grabbing a baby and stepping on it is immoral. But there are people who lack morality and/or sanity. They need to be informed of their error. That's how things change.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No one has an inherent right to anything beyond that which they can grab for themselves.
The words of a barbarian. A thug who thinks that might makes right. I'm going to assume that you're neither, and that you're playing devil's advocate.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: We manufacture and imagine rights that we would like people to have, and then call them "rights" to make them sound more important than "privileges." That doesn't make them any more real on a cosmic scale, though.
quote:Good question. Think it through. The question even goes beyond that. Why, if someone steals from me, can't I just hire someone to go and take it back? Private police and all that.
You've made too big a leap here. Even if I grant the conclusory statement that the sole justification of government is as you state it, enforcing contracts doesn't automatically follow from that.
If someone fails to deliver the contractual benefits to the other party, the government could adopt a "too bad" attitude.
Not legitimately. That's stealing. As soon as I am entitled to something by the terms of a contract, freely entered into by all parties, it belongs to me. Withholding it is theft. No different than sneaking into my home and pillaging.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If the deprived party attempts to use force to take those benefits, the government could stop him from doing so.
Right. Because in civilization, we agree to delegate that right to the government. Otherwise it isn't civilization.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There is no requirement that the government use its coercive power (and our taxpayer resources) to guarantee the contractually agreed on distribution of resources.
The government is indeed required to prevent theft and to rectify it once it's happened.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The answer is that the sole justification for government at all is to have an objective body that will carry out those tasks. That we delegate our right to retaliatory coercion to. Otherwise, my private cops and your private cops get to shoot it out. That's anarchy, and it's essentially a barbaric situation where those who want to coerce others can do so by strength of arms.
Again, the government can ban private enforcement without providing enforcement of contractual disputes.
"We could do that. But it would be wrong."
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It could ban all forms of violence, punishing parties who seek private enforcement.
And it should do just that.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:If everyone could be relied upon to respect the rights of others, we wouldn't need government to take that role. But people aren't perfect.
Also, people can have legitimate differences of opinions. How can these get resolved without violence? By mediation. Whose mediation? Again, there needs to be an objective body to fulfill that role.
But why should the government care about how the disputes are resolved?
Because theft is an abrogation of the rights of one party at the hands of another.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Why should force be used to protect only those private rights that you have recognized? What is the principle of exclusion for other rights?
I'll skip the questions you're asking which are based on false premises. I hope you don't mind. After all, I've essentially answered them already.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And I have to object to your use of the meaningless phrase "contractual benefits". If two (or more) parties enter freely into a contract, they each have a responsibility to carry out their obligations in that contract, and are entitled to see that the other party or parties do as well. "Benefits" is a bad term for that.
Why? Parties enter into contracts precisely because both parties will receive benefits from it.
Benefits implies a lack of entitlement. The basic definition of a right is what I'm entitled to demand of someone else.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: People don't voluntarily enter into a contract because they want obligations. They enter into them because they believe they will receive benefits.
No. They enter into a contract because they are willing to make that exchange. If you offer me a book in exchange for $7, and I accept, and you give me the book, and I don't give you the $7, I've stolen from you. I agreed to be obligated to give you $7 when you give me that book. I reneged. I stole. The government needs to stop me from doing that.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Negotiation is the allocation of the contractual surplus (that value which exists only if the contract is executed) between the parties. If there is no contractual surplus, perfectly informed, rational parties will not enter into the contract.
Then don't enter into the contract. If you do, you are obligated to abide by it by your free choice.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not legitimately. That's stealing. As soon as I am entitled to something by the terms of a contract, freely entered into by all parties, it belongs to me. Withholding it is theft. No different than sneaking into my home and pillaging.
Sure. Now let's look at some realistic hypotheticals. Few actual cases deal with person A payng and person B not delivering at all. It involves disputes about the meaning of terms that are ambiguous, or about occurances not expressly dealt with in the contract. An enormous amount of resources are spent creating default enforcement rules and adjudicating them. I know why I support this, but none of my reasons are acceptable in the framework you have presented for justifying government action.
quote:I'll skip the questions you're asking which are based on false premises. I hope you don't mind. After all, I've essentially answered them already.
I do mind. If you simply want to state, "This is the truth," then put out a manifesto. If you want to discuss your beliefs, which I'm assuming you do based on your posting of this on a discussion board, then discuss them.
And no, you haven't answered the question. You've states that only these rights are worthy of enforcement. You have not articulated a reason for why a particular right belongs on that list or doesn't.
quote:Benefits implies a lack of entitlement. The basic definition of a right is what I'm entitled to demand of someone else.
You have an enforceable, legal right to the benefits of the deal. They are distinct concepts and conflating them makes the discussion muddled.
quote:No. They enter into a contract because they are willing to make that exchange.
And they are willing to make that exchange because they obtain benefit from doing so.
quote:If you offer me a book in exchange for $7, and I accept, and you give me the book, and I don't give you the $7, I've stolen from you. I agreed to be obligated to give you $7 when you give me that book. I reneged. I stole. The government needs to stop me from doing that.
Again, most contractual litigation involves situations that can't be summed up in 5 sentences with an obvious "right" outcome.
quote:Then don't enter into the contract. If you do, you are obligated to abide by it by your free choice.
So you agree with me that people enter into contracts because they will benefit? I haven't once advocated people reneging on their promises, so why do you respond this way?
You keep saying government shouldn't enforce morality. But you keep advocating government actions to prevent wrongdoing. Which is it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The words of a barbarian. A thug who thinks that might makes right. I'm going to assume that you're neither, and that you're playing devil's advocate.
No. I believe there are no inherent human rights. I believe that we as a people -- as a society -- have resolved to pretend that certain rights exist, and have come together to enforce the recognition of those rights. But there's nothing in nature that suggests that any one individual is truly entitled to anything.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Topping for two reasons: a) I want to be able to find it tomorrow when I have time for this thread b) Hoping other participants will continue the discussion.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem you are having is that you seem to consider compassion to be moral. starLisa seems not to. Given that, her arguements are perfectly consistent.
I think the greater problem is that we appear to have different definitions of coercion.
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.
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. 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.
It isn't "expecting others to take care of me" to expect that I can go to a supermarket and buy food, that the currency I've been issued will have value when I do so and that there will be food in stock when I go to do so. But that could change in a moment. I could probably live on the food I have stored at my home for a time. I could probably survive on the contents of my garden for a time. I might be able to rig some simple ways to trap or hunt game, though in my area, I suspect I would get extremely tired of living on squirrels and the occasional wayward housepet. Living as we do may have compromised our ability to survive without that infrastructure, but it also makes life as a society with our level of population possible. We "believe" that our basic infrastructures will continue to function, and as such, we continue to support them, and they do continue to function, by and large.
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. I believe there are no inherent human rights. I believe that we as a people -- as a society -- have resolved to pretend that certain rights exist, and have come together to enforce the recognition of those rights. But there's nothing in nature that suggests that any one individual is truly entitled to anything.
Well put.
I'll further argue that Tom's(and my) view is horribly unfashionable and not supported by the last 250 years of western political dogma.
The pervading story in our world is that everyone has a right to everything, including all material "property," but living in that world is a nervous anxious mess, so give over our rights to the government, that is, The government oversees my relinquishing my right to the car parked in front of Tom's house and Tom lays down his right to the bike in front of mine. The imminent threat of retribution by the government for any trespasses is the power that allows me to trust that Tom won't steal the bike, and allows Tom to trust that I won't take that car.
But when the government fails as a enforcer, all bets are off and we relapse into a war of all against all. Most people would point to the looting in New Orleans as an example.
I'm not compelled by this conception of rights, but it does latently hold sway in the vast majority of our political discourse, and it's one of our legal foundations-- a logical extension of our English cultural heritage-- and a reason why contracts are such a big darn deal in America, because contracts express the laying down of ones rights.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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. 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.
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.
"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. More importantly, you didn't address why you think he's wrong.
"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.
"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. That means that you have a duty to protect the life of others, when possible. Failure to do so means you've failed to uphold on objective right. If you're not obligated to do so, then the right to life can't be construed as an objective right.
"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. 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. 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.
"If all the do-gooders who are so eager to force people to help other people would devote half that energy to helping other people, the world would be a far better place. And the reason they don't is simple. It's envy and resentment. It's "misery loves company". It's a childish attitude of "If I have to help, then by God I'm going to make everyone else help.""
So nice of you to attribute false motives to people you clearly don't understand.
"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. What we do with that recognition of fact is a different matter, but by electing representatives that have chosen to write laws that implicitly state that its not possible to be successful without others, and therefore we owe something to others for allowing us to be successful, and then operating within the jurisdiction of those laws, we acknowledge that there is, indeed, a social contract.
To some extent, we are cells in a great organism. Especially economically. An economy doesn't work without mutually beneficial interactions.
"There's a difference between recognizing rights that already exist and asserting rights which do not exist."
Except how do we know which rights exist, and which do not? There's no evidence anywhere that there's even such a real thing as a "right," let alone evidence that certain things are rights and certain things are not, and that we can know which ones are or are not. And if we assert that we can rationally know what is a right and what is not, we have to be prepared to acknowledge that rational thought does not necessarily lead two people to the same place, so we need to be prepared to defend our assertion of what is a right and what is not with rational arguments that can be persuassive to people with differing ideas of what is and is not a right.
"You can submit that, but it doesn't have any strength. You can't take away something from someone unless that someone already has it."
Not necessarily true, especially under a doctrine of rights.
"Funny how you can accuse people who are opposed to coercion of coercion. I think they call that transference. Or the "I'm rubber, you're glue" syndrome."
Ignoring obvious coercions does not make those coercions go away.
"You can squeeze your eyes (and mind) shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell, "La la la!" to keep from seeing or hearing something, but it still exists despite your efforts to not perceive it."
Likewise, you can blindly assert something exists, and shout "la la la" at people saying the opposite, but that doesn't make it exist.
"The answer is that the sole justification for government at all is to have an objective body that will carry out those tasks. That we delegate our right to retaliatory coercion to."
Well, no. THere are lots of justifications for government. This happens to be the only one you accept. Doesn't necessarily make it so. If we assert a right to life, property, and pursuit of happiness, it follows very rationally that governments job might be to PROTECT those rights... not just retaliate coercively. Protection can involve prevention, or even pre-emption. Not always, but it can.
"The words of a barbarian. A thug who thinks that might makes right. I'm going to assume that you're neither, and that you're playing devil's advocate."
So, again, how do you determine what an inherent right is? How do you distinguish it from simply an asserted right?
"Nope. You're quite wrong."
You're quite wrong here. Historically speaking, there's never been a situation in which rights are protected unless people form together to protect rights that the group of people decide need protecting.
I guess thats all for now
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The words of a barbarian. A thug who thinks that might makes right. I'm going to assume that you're neither, and that you're playing devil's advocate.
No. I believe there are no inherent human rights. I believe that we as a people -- as a society -- have resolved to pretend that certain rights exist, and have come together to enforce the recognition of those rights. But there's nothing in nature that suggests that any one individual is truly entitled to anything.
So whoever has the biggest mob gets to decide what's right and wrong. What's good and bad.
That's an incredibly sad way of looking at the world. But it does serve as an excellent justification for those who think they know better than everyone else what's good for them
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(also because I didn't have the time nor the eloquence to debate.)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
