quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If a goal can't be reached overnight, or is difficult to achieve, then we make a virtue of a necessity and say, "What the hell, just tax as much as you like, for whatever you like!"
I never expressed a position like the one you quoted. I'm not against private funding because of practicality, I'm against it because I think it would fail in reality.
<blink>
Uh... Threads, what do you think "practicality" means? You realize that you just said, "I'm not against it because of practicality. I'm just against it because of practicality."
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Instead of having the government abuse its power, giant corporations would rape the common citizen.
Leaving aside your offensive misuse of the word "rape", I've said time and again that the very existence of a "corporation" with government protection that identifies it as a "legal individual" is an offense to the idea of the individual. I've also said that it's the responsibility of the government to protect the individual from the initiation of force by others. That includes companies and corporations.
Basically, what you're saying seems to come down to the idea that government support of giant corporations (which allows them to be giant corporations) can only be fixed by more government intervention.
The answer to the problems caused by government meddling in our lives is not more of the same. It's less.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? Why is it legal and ethical for some people to impose rules and enforce them on others? Why is that any different at all from 10 people robbing 9 people?
Because some of us recognize that we don't have some sacred right to have things go precisely our way all of the time if we want to be part of something larger than ourselves.
That's a complete non sequitur, Rakeesh. It's an interesting statement, and one I disagree with, but whether I agree with it or not, it has no relation whatsoever to the question I asked. Why do your delegates have the power to do that which you don't, personally, have the power to do?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:All of that is based on your false argument that there's an implicit agreement to surrender your ownership of your life, of your freedom, and of anything you have earned or otherwise freely received, to the government.
If you want to talk about false arguments, let's examine your claims of government ownership of your life, freedom, and anything you've earned or freely received.
You're equating anything involuntary with slavery. Which is outrageous hyperbole, made in an effort to inflate your argument past its own diminutive merits by adding emotional oomph.
You're part of a group, you have choices and options, and the rules and restrictions (such as being forced to use untrustworthy US currency) upon you are much fewer than the rights and freedoms you have. If that's slavery, what did black people have in the USA two hundred years ago? Hyper-slavery or something?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lem: I absolutely agree with Lisa in this point. My contribution is a link to the Philosophy of Liberty. This flash animation does a far better job of expressing my thoughts then I could do this late at night.
It matches my value system almost perfectly. Plus I like the music.
I agree on both counts. That music is lovely. And the animation... I couldn't have said it better.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a complete non sequitur, Rakeesh. It's an interesting statement, and one I disagree with, but whether I agree with it or not, it has no relation whatsoever to the question I asked. Why do your delegates have the power to do that which you don't, personally, have the power to do?
*shrug* The answer is necessarily a bit unpleasant. Mostly because I like to live in a society wherein more is accomplished than I can do by myself, thus some means of collecting and concentrating power is necessary. And because you can leave.
Yeah, leaving is onerous, but so is fundamentally (and for the worse in my opinion) changing our society and government. I wouldn't 'steal' from you if you weren't here. Generally most of us are happy with our system. Why should we change it to suit you?
Yes, I know, you claim that it's stealing and slavery, outrageous moral and physical violations. But those claims only work if you buy into the earlier assumptions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Contracts being agreed to by both sides is largely irrelevant, especially when that's not the only way the private group would use force.
In particular, they'd likely have in their contract agreements to enforce their trespassing clauses on land they own in particular ways -- that being a common way geographically cohesive groups behave. Large enough private groups of this kind would start to be known as, oh, 'towns' and 'cities'. As they're all the people in the area, presumably they would make the trespassing laws (or we could wait until the amalgamation of contractual agreements between smaller groups has reached the 'state' level; it doesn't much matter).
Suddenly the 'trespassing' laws require everyone who is trespassing to either leave or assent to the contract. The contract includes acquiescence to the edicts passed by a central body -- the new method of creating laws.
Ta-da, you have a society that works almost exactly like what we have today, on a basis of nothing but enforcement of contracts and private property rights. Heck, we even incorporated the lawmaking body into the contractual agreement system, something not commonly done in libertarian hypotheticals. Yet the resulting society does not look very libertarian.
Which step along this way would be offensive to libertarian sentiments? The only one I can find that's suspect is the redefinition of trespassing penalties, but that's a pretty reasonable way of casting them: on private property, follow the rules or get off.
While there are some odd cases this might be a little different (children; adults might be more frequently given an option to leave instead of endure a punishment; regions would probably be a little more patchwork),
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb] One more time: You bought the house (and land) from someone. He got it from someone who got it from (...) the first man to work the land, who thereby got legal title to it in even the most extreme libertarian theory. He also imposed some conditions on later use of the land, which again was his right, since it was his property.
So I guess Russia has the right to impose taxes on Alaskans? And France still has the right to veto any action that is taken in Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas?
No, because France has recognised that it no longer has jurisdiction over those areas; and the sale of Alaska was certainly completely voluntary, there wasn't even a war on at the time. Please try to pay attention to what I am saying, not a straw man.
Touching the Indians, there was certainly injustice done. However, short of rolling everyone in the world back to that rift valley and starting the migrations over again, I don't quite see what can be done about this. At some point you just have to treat the past as legitimate, and deal with it as though they were all voluntary transactions, at least for purposes of law. Otherwise you end up evicting both Jews and Palestinians from Israel - to take just one example - and giving it to the descendants of the Amalekites, if you can find any.
quote:It's that government exists to prevent one or more persons from taking that which belongs to one or more other persons (be it life, liberty or property) against their will.
Well, in the first place, I do not agree with your theory of government. Government exists as a means of avoiding the free-rider problem in public works, chiefly infrastructure and defense. But in any case, even under your theory, there is a deal being made: If you want to live under these laws, you have to live under these laws. It's almost a tautology. We, the rest of the population, are willing to enforce your contracts for you, and have set up such-and-such institutions for doing so. In exchange, you must abide by these other rules, or no deal. You are permitted to leave, to go to jail, or to follow the rules. You may also petition to change the rules, because this is a democracy. Take your pick.
'Slavery' is just rhetoric. A slave does not have the right of exit, a taxpayer does. This is likewise the distinction between a slave and an employee, who is 'forced' by his belly to work for pay, but who can leave and go elsewhere. Let us try to keep the rhetoric dialed down to a reasonable level.
As for the existence or otherwise of implicit obligations, I would like to suggest the following experiment: Try ignoring those implicit obligations by, say, not paying your taxes, and see what happens. You will find that they have a very real existence, indeed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me also try to be more clear about the sale-of-land-with-rules bit. If I own some land, I can sell it to you, yes? And nothing prevents me from putting limits on what you use it for afterwards. For example, I could sell you the land, but not the mineral rights. Or I could sell you the land on condition that you maintain a garden on part of it. Or I could even sell you the land on condition that every year you dress up in a clown suit and pass out eggs to the children of the neighbourhood, although possibly that one wouldn't be enforced by our courts. And having bought the land with these conditions, you cannot sell it on without them. It would be like selling mineral rights you didn't buy. Now, my contention is that the first people here - whoever you consider to be the first legit owners - always sold their land "on condition that you obey the laws of State X". Indeed, without this condition the contract would be worthless, because it wouldn't have an enforcing authority.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No, because France has recognised that it no longer has jurisdiction over those areas; and the sale of Alaska was certainly completely voluntary, there wasn't even a war on at the time. Please try to pay attention to what I am saying, not a straw man.
Exactly my point on both counts. Thanks. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's that government exists to prevent one or more persons from taking that which belongs to one or more other persons (be it life, liberty or property) against their will.
Well, in the first place, I do not agree with your theory of government. Government exists as a means of avoiding the free-rider problem in public works, chiefly infrastructure and defense.
No, of course it doesn't. But damn, if it did, that'd be reason enough to overthrow it. The idea that people can be controlled simply because those who do things begrudge the advantage it might give to them is honestly sick.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But in any case, even under your theory, there is a deal being made: If you want to live under these laws, you have to live under these laws. It's almost a tautology.
It might be if that was what was being said under my "theory". But it isn't.
Understand, KoM, rights exist without any government at all. A government can defend those rights, and a government can trample all over those rights. It cannot create rights. A right is not something someone grants you; it exists prior to that.
You're taking government as a primary, and it isn't. You're assuming, "Okay, there's government. Now let's see what it can do." No. The existence of government, of a body that is entitled to govern us, to say yay or nay to anything we may do, is not a primary. A case needs to be made for it.
When that case is made for it, it can be argued that the individuals who create it to govern them are entitled to delegate some of their rights to it. There's no logic to saying that they can create rights for this thing called government that they themselves do not possess.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: We, the rest of the population, are willing to enforce your contracts for you,
No. A person who violates a contract is initiating force against the other side. That is wrong in the same manner, albeit possibly different in degree, as murder and theft. All are of the same character, even if their magnitude differs.
Government can only be reasonably argued to have a right to exist for the purpose of preventing such violations of individual rights. Government isn't "doing us a favor" by enforcing contracts. It is merely performing the task which is its sole raison d'etre.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: and have set up such-and-such institutions for doing so. In exchange, you must abide by these other rules, or no deal. You are permitted to leave, to go to jail, or to follow the rules. You may also petition to change the rules, because this is a democracy. Take your pick.
Again, no. Just as you have no right to lock me in my basement, a government has no right to send me to jail unless it's to prevent me from harming others or to penalize me for having done so. Saying that non-obedience to the government harms others is circular reasoning of the worst kind, and again, it sets up government as a primary, which it is not. It exists to serve the people who set it up. The moment government is anything but a servant of individuals, protecting the rights of individuals, it becomes a tyranny that forfeits any right to exist.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: 'Slavery' is just rhetoric. A slave does not have the right of exit, a taxpayer does.
That's no distinction when there's no place to go. And I'll repeat that the forceable taking of a person's life, a person's liberty or a person's property are all identical in character. You can say that they're different in magnitude, and you'd be right. But that's just haggling over the price.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: This is likewise the distinction between a slave and an employee, who is 'forced' by his belly to work for pay,
A common argument, and a silly one. It's an abuse of language. There is a difference between being "forced" by ones feelings or needs and being forced, literally, by an external force saying, "Do this or suffer the consequences".
The needs or wants of one person do not constitute an obligation on another. All anyone has a right to demand of anyone else is that they not molest them. When it comes to aid, they can ask, but they cannot demand as a right.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: but who can leave and go elsewhere. Let us try to keep the rhetoric dialed down to a reasonable level.
It isn't rhetoric. Maybe I was unclear and you didn't understand it, and therefore concluded that I was engaging in rhetoric. I'll be more explicit. If I steal from you, I have committed an act that is distinguishable from killing you only in its magnitude and my inability to make reparations in kind. If I punch you in the face, I have committed an act that is distinguishable from robbing your house only in magnitude. These acts are the same in character. All of them mean that I am committing an act of violence against you and your life.
That's not rhetoric. It's the plain truth.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Indeed, without this condition the contract would be worthless, because it wouldn't have an enforcing authority.
Saying that contracts are worthless without an enforcing authority is like saying that murder is only wrong because it's against the law. It's a barbarous statement.
Remind me never to enter into an agreement with you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Indeed, without this condition the contract would be worthless, because it wouldn't have an enforcing authority.
Saying that contracts are worthless without an enforcing authority is like saying that murder is only wrong because it's against the law. It's a barbarous statement.
No, it is like saying that a law against murder is worthless without police. Unlike you, I don't assume that the Platonic existence of some aprticular morality will automatically make everyone obey it.
quote:If I steal from you, I have committed an act that is distinguishable from killing you only in its magnitude and my inability to make reparations in kind.
Fair enough, but you're missing my point: We generally use the word 'slavery' to denote a particular magnitude and kind of the use of force. So your statement that taxes are slavery is the same as the statement "stealing is killing". It is an inaccuracy motivated by your desire to use others' emotional reaction to the word. Rhetoric.
quote:A common argument, and a silly one. It's an abuse of language. There is a difference between being "forced" by ones feelings or needs and being forced, literally, by an external force saying, "Do this or suffer the consequences".
Yes, I think that's what I said. Perhaps you should read it again?
quote:That's no distinction when there's no place to go.
Granted, but there are plenty of places to go. You just don't like any of them.
quote:Just as you have no right to lock me in my basement, a government has no right to send me to jail unless it's to prevent me from harming others or to penalize me for having done so.
...or you agreed to that as punishment for the breach of certain rules. Which I contend that you did. Next you'll be saying a landlord can't evict you for non-payment of rent.
quote:No. A person who violates a contract is initiating force against the other side. That is wrong in the same manner, albeit possibly different in degree, as murder and theft. All are of the same character, even if their magnitude differs.
Government can only be reasonably argued to have a right to exist for the purpose of preventing such violations of individual rights. Government isn't "doing us a favor" by enforcing contracts. It is merely performing the task which is its sole raison d'etre.
Mere re-iteration of an axiom on which we disagree is not going to get you anywhere; you'll have to argue in favour of the axiom. But even at that, just stating that "X is wrong" is not a very effective form of protection from X, is it now? If you like, you can read "enforce your contracts" as "protect you from harm".
Let me try to rephrase. Stipulate that I, personally, own a certain chunk of land. I am willing to let you live on it, and also to help you protect yourself from harm imposed by others. In exchange you must agree to follow certain rules, including paying me in proportion to your income, and so on. Your children are likewise permitted to live here, but must leave if they don't agree with the rules. The rules can change under certain circumstances, generally by majority vote of the tenants. This is acceptable, no? I'm the landowner, I can do what I like.
Now, for me personally, substitute "A group of people calling themselves the United States of America". What changes? Nothing, presumably. So then we are left with whether the United States group has legitimate ownership of the land. I think it does, for the reasons I've outlined earlier.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Government can only be reasonably argued to have a right to exist for the purpose of preventing such violations of individual rights. Government isn't "doing us a favor" by enforcing contracts. It is merely performing the task which is its sole raison d'etre.
That's not the only reasonable argument for a government's right to exist. As usual, you're arguing as though the assumptions necessary for your beliefs are facts instead of opinions, and demanding that the world conform to your opinions.
Not that you'll care - again, because you believe as a member of a group, you have the right to insist the group does exactly what you say it should - but you're in an incredibly tiny minority who thinks that the only reason for government is to protect against degrees of theft.
You can believe in whatever rights you want to believe in. That has nothing to do with the rights we as a society believe in. If you want your list to match society's list, well, it's unreasonable to constantly demand that society change its list when by and large society is happy with its list.
If you want to go somewhere where your list is the list society believes in, you can either work to change society's list (instead of foolishly demanding society simply meet your demands), or you can go somewhere else where society's list matches yours.
Can't find such a place? There's plenty of unoccupied space on the planet. You can go there. Yeah, it'll be hard. Tell me, where is it written that life is fair?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why you're arguing with them anymore, Lisa. You made a point earlier about the whore haggling over the price. The same goes for thievery as prostitution. Once someone has found that they can benefit from doing something immoral (not that I'm implying that prostitution is immoral), the most reprehensible actions become trivially easy to justify, and the most self-evident moral axioms become impossible to understand.
You might find it hard to believe that the guy who steals your car or cracks your head open with a bottle for looking at his girlfriend can sleep at night. Not only does that guy have no problem with it, but once you add a few layers of beaurocracy between the criminal and the victim, the crime becomes exponentially easier to live with.
Taxes, war, state-sponsored religion, capital punishment... you could probably get most people behind cannibalism if human flesh came neatly packaged and available with food stamps.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Theft is in the same continuum as physical violence" only holds if we grant an intrinsic right (not legal) to own property. Such a right may exist, but I think more than stating it does is required to demonstrate it.
It certainly isn't a "self-evident moral axiom."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: "Theft is in the same continuum as physical violence" only holds if we grant an intrinsic right (not legal) to own property. Such a right may exist, but I think more than stating it does is required to demonstrate it.
It certainly isn't a "self-evident moral axiom."
It is. To say otherwise would imply the converse. That others have a right to that which you create and/or earn. That's what would need to be proven to deny the right of private property. And it can't be. You're placing the burden of proof on the wrong side.
The right to property is every bit as much a self-evident moral axiom as the right to ones own life is. Do you deny that people have a right to their own lives as well? Because if you don't, then how can you deny that a right to the product of that life?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I don't know why you're arguing with them anymore, Lisa.
Because there are people here who are honestly interested in the topic, and who have open minds.
Because the fact that someone argues with what I'm saying right now doesn't mean that they might not walk away considering it, and it might make a difference at some time in the future.
Because I happen to think that the vast majority of the people on Hatrack are intellectually honest the vast majority of the time.
And because it's never a waste of time to speak the truth.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Baron, you're making the very assumptions that Rakeesh is criticizing in the previous post. Declaring the particular morals that you believe in to be "self-evident" and "trivially easy to justify" doesn't lend any support to your case. Clearly the majority of people don't accept that your morals are the truths. You can complain as much as you want about the immorality of taxes but your complaint is pretty much meaningless to people, like myself, who don't accept the basic premises on which your complaint is justified. (EDIT: I meant "you" to be generic, not you personally)
I view society as a contract between its citizens. Ideally we could all pick and choose which contract we like best and join a society that follows that contract (of course this is not currently possible). While I don't believe that there is anything that has to be in that contract as a matter of absolute morality (an idea that I find nonsensical), I acknowledge that there are aspects to the contract that are likely necessary to the functioning of any modern society. Regardless, there are certain rights that I want to see protected in the society in which I live. I'm not going to attempt to enumerate them all (I will most likely forget to include something) but I do feel that the Constitution of the United States comes the closest to providing them out of all the countries. There are still plenty of things that have I problems with but I think that's true of everybody who lives here.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:To say otherwise would imply the converse. That others have a right to that which you create and/or earn. That's what would need to be proven to deny the right of private property. And it can't be. You're placing the burden of proof on the wrong side.
What proofs? We are dealing in axioms. To me it is not unreasonable to say that others may sometimes have a moral right to what you produce. For example, if a child were starving, I would say that he had a moral right to steal some bread from me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Indeed, without this condition the contract would be worthless, because it wouldn't have an enforcing authority.
Saying that contracts are worthless without an enforcing authority is like saying that murder is only wrong because it's against the law. It's a barbarous statement.
No, it is like saying that a law against murder is worthless without police. Unlike you, I don't assume that the Platonic existence of some aprticular morality will automatically make everyone obey it.
You're very misanthropic. Does that enhance your life? Make you happy?
In point of fact, I think that the vast majority of people will refrain from murder because it's immoral. Even if they think they could get away with it. The same is true of theft.
Moreover, I'd say the same is true of abiding by the terms of a contract entered into freely. I think that violations of these things are the exception, rather than the rule. And I think that atheist or not, you seem to have internalized a kind of "original sin" outlook, where given a choice, people will do wrong. That's a really sad worldview. And I'm not saying that as a slam, like "that's pitiful", but exactly how I phrased it. It's sad, and it makes me sad, and I can't imagine that it doesn't make you sad.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:If I steal from you, I have committed an act that is distinguishable from killing you only in its magnitude and my inability to make reparations in kind.
Fair enough, but you're missing my point: We generally use the word 'slavery' to denote a particular magnitude and kind of the use of force.
Do "we"?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So your statement that taxes are slavery is the same as the statement "stealing is killing". It is an inaccuracy motivated by your desire to use others' emotional reaction to the word. Rhetoric.
Nope. It should be obvious by now that I disagree with your assumptions of how words are "ordinarily used", and what "implicit rules" exist in contracts. You make a lot of assumptions, and I don't think any of them stand up to any kind of scrutiny. They're lazy thinking, KoM.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Just as you have no right to lock me in my basement, a government has no right to send me to jail unless it's to prevent me from harming others or to penalize me for having done so.
...or you agreed to that as punishment for the breach of certain rules. Which I contend that you did. Next you'll be saying a landlord can't evict you for non-payment of rent.
Except that you know, if you're being honest, that I wouldn't say any such thing. You're making a bad comparison. You've invented an "implicit agreement" that simply doesn't exist. You can't use that as a jumping board to get to all sorts of conclusions. Or rather, you can, but there's no validity to it. You're wasting your time. You haven't even attempted to explain why you think such an implicit agreement exists. For a man who goes on about "invisible friends", it's kind of funny watching you appeal to "invisible agreements".
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Government can only be reasonably argued to have a right to exist for the purpose of preventing such violations of individual rights. Government isn't "doing us a favor" by enforcing contracts. It is merely performing the task which is its sole raison d'etre.
Mere re-iteration of an axiom on which we disagree is not going to get you anywhere; you'll have to argue in favour of the axiom. But even at that, just stating that "X is wrong" is not a very effective form of protection from X, is it now?[/QUOTE]
Actually, yes, it often is. Of course there are brutes and barbarians in the world who won't listen to that, but again, I think they're the exception.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If you like, you can read "enforce your contracts" as "protect you from harm".
Let me try to rephrase. Stipulate that I, personally, own a certain chunk of land. I am willing to let you live on it, and also to help you protect yourself from harm imposed by others. In exchange you must agree to follow certain rules, including paying me in proportion to your income, and so on. Your children are likewise permitted to live here, but must leave if they don't agree with the rules. The rules can change under certain circumstances, generally by majority vote of the tenants. This is acceptable, no? I'm the landowner, I can do what I like.
Now, for me personally, substitute "A group of people calling themselves the United States of America". What changes? Nothing, presumably. So then we are left with whether the United States group has legitimate ownership of the land. I think it does, for the reasons I've outlined earlier.
The United States isn't the landowner, however. In this case, I am.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moreover, I'd say the same is true of abiding by the terms of a contract entered into freely. I think that violations of these things are the exception, rather than the rule. And I think that atheist or not, you seem to have internalized a kind of "original sin" outlook, where given a choice, people will do wrong.
For me it's closer to "where given a choice, some people will do wrong, and those people will benefit at the cost of those who do not". Absent a framework of enforcement, the evil are at an advantage over the good.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not that you'll care - again, because you believe as a member of a group, you have the right to insist the group does exactly what you say it should
Savor the irony. On the contrary, Rakeesh. Saying that the group shouldn't do something is not the same as saying that the group should do something. Yes, I insist that the group not molest me or anyone else. That's not demanding that they do something. It's just saying, "Leave me the frak alone!"
The burden of proof is on you to say why they should be able to ignore that and do what they want with me, with my life, with my property, with my time, and with my freedom. Who had the right to give them that perogative? Since no other individual has the right to own me in such a way, the burden of proof is on you to show why a group of people who lack that right as individuals suddenly gain it as a group.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since no other individual has the right to own me in such a way, the burden of proof is on you to show why a group of people who lack that right as individuals suddenly gain it as a group.
Because there are shared interests and responsibilities. If four people are stuck in a life boat and three want to head one direction while the fourth does not, the fourth is welcome to stay behind, but they are going to lose the benefit of the lifeboat.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The burden of proof is on you to say why they should be able to ignore that and do what they want with me, with my life, with my property, with my time, and with my freedom. Who had the right to give them that perogative? Since no other individual has the right to own me in such a way, the burden of proof is on you to show why a group of people who lack that right as individuals suddenly gain it as a group.
No, the burden of proof is on you to say why you have inalienable rights in the first place. I think you will fail. Rights and morals are not falsifiable and I don't even see how they could literally exist in an absolute sense.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In point of fact, I think that the vast majority of people will refrain from murder because it's immoral. Even if they think they could get away with it. The same is true of theft.
So do I. You should pay more attention to my precise words. A law against murder will only bind those who are exceptions to that rule. That is why it is useless without enforcement. A moral precept against murder is not useless, and many people share it. But that is not the same thing as a law.
Another point is that by your standards, the entire population of the world barring some isolated tribes in the Amazon is apparently engaging in theft through taxation. So perhaps you ought not to make the assertion so blithely that people will avoid it.
quote:The United States isn't the landowner, however. In this case, I am.
You are ignoring the point I am making, which is that it is legitimate to impose rules on buyers of land. You haven't owned that land since the beginning of time, presumably. Trace it back far enough and the ultimate seller is some guy who said "as long as you obey US law", and that constraint still applies.
quote:You've invented an "implicit agreement" that simply doesn't exist.
Well, I think it exists, and consider us both bound by it. If you don't, then that's just the point at which we have to settle our dispute by force. And please note: We will both consider the other to be one initiating that force. So perhaps you could avoid your usual name-calling?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If four people are stuck in a life boat and three want to head one direction while the fourth does not, the fourth is welcome to stay behind, but they are going to lose the benefit of the lifeboat.
Ha! Very well put indeed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If four people are stuck in a life boat and three want to head one direction while the fourth does not, the fourth is welcome to stay behind, but they are going to lose the benefit of the lifeboat.
Ha! Very well put indeed.
So not only does the fourth person have to go with the other three, they can vote to make him be the one who does all the rowing too.
Now it's the perfect metaphore for our tax structure.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The burden of proof is on you to say why they should be able to ignore that and do what they want with me, with my life, with my property, with my time, and with my freedom.
Why is property on this list? Your previous response to my post didn't address this question; you simply stated that in order for you to not have the right to keep your property, others would have to have the right to take it. That seems to me to be a tautology; you didn't explain why they don't have that right, or why they shouldn't. I don't see any reason why that would be the default position, and the only reason you've provided is that the right to property is a self-evident moral axiom, which isn't very convincing.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So not only does the fourth person have to go with the other three, they can vote to make him be the one who does all the rowing too.
Now it's the perfect metaphore for our tax structure.
First of all, sure, the fourth person has to go with the other three. It's ridiculous to assume it should be otherwise.
Second, if the fourth guy happens to be a professional bodybuilding crew athlete who has vastly more rowing capability than the other three do? Yeah, he should be and can be doing more rowing than the other three guys.
And if he doesn't like it he can either try to persuade the other three to his point of view, or take up professional long-distance swimming instead.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
rak: Doesn't matter with Twinky and KoM's systems. KoM recognizes no objective Good and Twinky doesn't recognize a right to the fruits of ones own labour. In both systems, they can force #4 to do what they say regardless of her ability and regardless of what she says.
Certain, Hastur-like, frequent posters would go further, saying that #4 doesn't even have the right to get out of the boat because they've taken advantage of the existence of the boat up until this point. This, in my opinion is even less friendly than KoM's "If you don't like it, then Die" attitude. At least KoM recognizes the right to die rather than serve as a slave.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I do believe in an objective good, and I do recognize the right an individual has to the fruits of their own labor. (For the record, I don't know if KoM doesn't recognize any objective good, and to be specific Twink was just asking that the supposedly-inalienable right to the fruits of one's labor be supported by something other than repetition).
The problem is not necessarily that the three can force the fourth to do something 4 doesn't want to do. That's potentially a problem, true, but it's not the only problem. The problem is also that the fourth insists that their individual rights exceed in importance and value everything else.
That's just not true. I'm perfectly fine with property rights, but if I own a plot of arable food-producing land and suddenly starvation breaks out in my neighborhood? I don't believe I have the right to keep producing cotton to make super-spiffy handkerchiefs for my sensitive nose for when I have colds. I have a responsibility to start producing food, and help those starving people. Even though it's my land.
In other words, my supposed right to the fruits of my own labor is not the only factor under consideration. I am not an island, and in addition to rights I have responsibilities. So do you. So does Lisa.
And just like you two don't care whether or not I acknowledge your right to the fruits of your labor and insist that you have that right anyway? I don't particularly care if you don't acknowledge your greater responsibilities and that you should not be compelled to live in some small part up to them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rak: Regardless if you're starving, you do not have the rights to my labour. If I give it to you of my own free will, that's one thing. But you don't, by virtue of your own Need, have a right to what I earn.
quote: The problem is also that the fourth insists that their individual rights exceed in importance and value everything else.
No, this is where the analogy breaks down. Life isn't a liferaft. The cases where Everyone Must or It Works for No One are VERY few. In fact, I've addressed it in this thread (ref: Fire Departments.)
You can HAVE a robust charity system without making it the law of the land. Those who wish to give, CAN! No one is stopping them! Those who don't wish to give.. well, under current law, they MUST. They have no choice or men with guns will kidnap them and possibly shoot them if they put up any resistance. But morally, they should never be forced. That IS stealing. That IS slavery. And no amount of gilding it will MAKE it right.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rak: Regardless if you're starving, you do not have the rights to my labour. If I give it to you of my own free will, that's one thing. But you don't, by virtue of your own Need, have a right to what I earn.
Actually I agree with that, but like I said, your rights are not always the only consideration. If your neighbor is starving, and you are gorging on a buffet every night and throwing away lots of half-eaten food...well, as far as I'm concerned (me being society), you're gonna be giving your neighbor some food. Tough s@#t if you're upset your rights are being violated. Me as society, I am more willing to tolerate your mild violation of property rights than I am the guy starving to death while there's food in plenty.
quote:You can HAVE a robust charity system without making it the law of the land. Those who wish to give, CAN! No one is stopping them! Those who don't wish to give.. well, under current law, they MUST. They have no choice or men with guns will kidnap them and possibly shoot them if they put up any resistance. But morally, they should never be forced. That IS stealing. That IS slavery. And no amount of gilding it will MAKE it right.
Let's get one thing clear right now: it's not slavery, no matter how often you or Lisa repeat it. Slaves don't get to leave. Furthermore slaves don't get to routinely petition their master for an improvement in their working conditions, and if enough slaves do so, the master actually improves those conditions.
It's not slavery. Maybe it's stealing. I'm not prepared to grant that, but I am prepared to grant that there's a case to be made for it. But it's not slavery.
As to having a robust charity system without making it the law? Well, maybe you're right. I don't know. You certainly don't either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: rak: Doesn't matter with Twinky and KoM's systems. KoM recognizes no objective Good and Twinky doesn't recognize a right to the fruits of ones own labour. In both systems, they can force #4 to do what they say regardless of her ability and regardless of what she says.
Actually it was me who supposedly "recognizes no objective Good" and it's not a matter of recognition. How can a moral even be objectively true? In what sense do "Good" and "Evil" exist? I don't think you can answer those questions. I've never heard anything more than "just because." Absolute morality seems like such a silly concept to cling onto because it gives us nothing. Try telling a murderer that what he did was "objectively" wrong. Do you think he'll care? Your supposed "objective" morals didn't stop him from doing ****. The only thing you gained was the ability to call him "evil" and get a bunch of people who share your morals to nod their heads and agree. It's a useless concept (unless you believe that people need to be scared into following the rules, a silly idea that I'll address if anybody really believes it).
How about this, murder is "wrong" because nobody wants to be murdered and the only way to fulfill that constraint is to ban murder. Ditto for robbery. There, I didn't need to include any silly mumbo-jumbo about "good" and "evil" and I still managed to establish why banning murder and banning robbery are in the best interests of groups of people wishing to live together.
Of course, I'm only saying this because I want to force other people to do what I want them to do. Give me a break Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since no other individual has the right to own me in such a way, the burden of proof is on you to show why a group of people who lack that right as individuals suddenly gain it as a group.
Because there are shared interests and responsibilities. If four people are stuck in a life boat and three want to head one direction while the fourth does not, the fourth is welcome to stay behind, but they are going to lose the benefit of the lifeboat.
Bad metaphor. A better one would be three individuals wanting a lifeboat and deciding that they, and a fourth person who has no interest in a lifeboat, have to build one. Or buy one.
But flawed as it is, let's use it for a minute. I mean, after all, I don't have a problem with the idea that the fourth man can't force the boat to go his way, so it's a mismatch for what I've said. As far as I'm concerned, the three can row their hearts out. If the fourth doesn't agree, he shouldn't have to row, but he can't force them to row the other way, because they're as free as he is.
But it's not a mismatch for KoM. KoM says that governments exist to solve the free rider problem. So he'd say that not only does the fourth person in your metaphor have no choice about which way the boat goes (which I'm actually fine with), but they have the right to either force him to help row, or beat him until he does, or throw him overboard to die.
And someone questioned my ethics?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The United States isn't the landowner, however. In this case, I am.
You are ignoring the point I am making, which is that it is legitimate to impose rules on buyers of land. You haven't owned that land since the beginning of time, presumably. Trace it back far enough and the ultimate seller is some guy who said "as long as you obey US law", and that constraint still applies.
No. Once again you're inventing something that never happened. No one ever said any such thing.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:You've invented an "implicit agreement" that simply doesn't exist.
Well, I think it exists, and consider us both bound by it.
You can't bind me by something you created out of thin air. Something you merely imagined. You can't just say, "It exists", despite the utter lack of any evidence that it does.
I continue to be astounded at the inconsistency of the militant atheist who thinks people should be bound by an imaginary clause.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If you don't, then that's just the point at which we have to settle our dispute by force. And please note: We will both consider the other to be one initiating that force. So perhaps you could avoid your usual name-calling?
I'm not name-calling. And who is initiating that force isn't a matter of opinion. If I smacked you in the head and said that God told me you were thinking bad thoughts at me and that my smacking you was a legitimate retribution, you'd never accept it. Because you'd see it as an invention. You'd say, quite rightly, that you don't have to accept my bald assertion that I had a justification and was therefore only striking back.
Hypocrisy has a bad name. Because usually it's aimed at people who are honestly trying to live up to their own standards and just aren't making it. But in this case, your hypocrisy isn't that excusable.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And who is initiating that force isn't a matter of opinion.
But it is. That's why we have courts to settle such matters.
quote:No. Once again you're inventing something that never happened. No one ever said any such thing.
Consider the historical example of Iceland, when it was settled by refugees from Norway. There weren't any natives, so this is really terra nullius stuff, no ambiguity about whether they really had title to the land. What's the first thing they do? They establish a set of rules which everyone on the island has to follow, or be treated as outlaws, that is, having no recourse for crime except personal violence. This is an explicit statement of the principle "Obey these laws or we won't consider them to apply to you".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The burden of proof is on you to say why they should be able to ignore that and do what they want with me, with my life, with my property, with my time, and with my freedom.
Why is property on this list? Your previous response to my post didn't address this question; you simply stated that in order for you to not have the right to keep your property, others would have to have the right to take it. That seems to me to be a tautology; you didn't explain why they don't have that right, or why they shouldn't. I don't see any reason why that would be the default position, and the only reason you've provided is that the right to property is a self-evident moral axiom, which isn't very convincing.
Okay, here's why. The basic property is that which I create. When I make something where that something wasn't there before, I own it as a creator. It's mine as much as the skin that I grow on my body. It didn't exist until I gave it existence. I exchanged my time -- a piece of my life that I can never get back -- for this new thing, which is a product of my life.
To suggest that the product of my life can be freely taken by others, despite my objections, is to say that my life can be taken by them. So they're only taking 2 weeks of my life, rather than the whole thing. That's just a matter of degree.
Once I own something that I've created, I can, if I so choose, give it to someone else. It's mine, so of course I can. I can trade it for something that someone else has created. By entering into a voluntary exchange, I'm literally saying that the two things are of equal value, and that I'm maintaining what I have -- in value -- despite the fact that I now have something new.
Here I have something that I didn't create. But since it's in place of something that I did create, the same thing applies as before. I traded a piece of my life (time) for the initial created thing, and I traded that thing for a different thing. You'd have to posit a point at which my engaging in such trading makes me forfeit my ownership. If I take 2 weeks to create something, is what I created the equivalent of a footprint in the mud? Just something that "happened" as I passed by? And the 2 weeks I spent... well, I just threw those away? Who has the right to say that?
So let's say I work for a software development firm. And I get paid $X for Y hours of work. Again, that's a piece of my life that I'm trading for something of value. Not as much value as I'd like, and not in a medium that will readily retain its value, but that's what happens when you have something like the Fed. Still, those $X are mine in exactly the same measure as the Y hour of my life was mine. To say that I don't own the $X is to say that I didn't own the Y hour of my life.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The problem is not necessarily that the three can force the fourth to do something 4 doesn't want to do. That's potentially a problem, true, but it's not the only problem. The problem is also that the fourth insists that their individual rights exceed in importance and value everything else.
No. No one here has said anything like that. I don't have a problem with the three people rowing in the direction that they choose. I have a problem with them making me row as well if it isn't the direction I want to go in.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. No one here has said anything like that. I don't have a problem with the three people rowing in the direction that they choose. I have a problem with them making me row as well if it isn't the direction I want to go in.
At which point you're contributing nothing except an additional burden to the life raft.
But, as you said, you're not in a life raft. You can leave without dying of shark attacks or exhaustion through swimming.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, here's why. The basic property is that which I create. When I make something where that something wasn't there before, I own it as a creator. It's mine as much as the skin that I grow on my body. It didn't exist until I gave it existence. I exchanged my time -- a piece of my life that I can never get back -- for this new thing, which is a product of my life.
Okay. So the right to property flows from the right to life; given that the right to life is axiomatic, the right to property, which you create (directly or indirectly) by spending time (the "currency" of life), is an extension of that right.
That's not unreasonable, but I wouldn't call the right to property a self-evident moral axiom in and of itself. Additionally, this entire line of reasoning is predicated on the assumption that natural rights exist. There are different views.
Still, thanks for the explanation. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can HAVE a robust charity system without making it the law of the land. Those who wish to give, CAN!
While there's nothing intrinsically false about this statement, it's only accurate in the hypothetical. Historically, this could only be said to be true if you're willing to drastically downsize your definition of "robust."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our society is too related to truly claim your property as your own. If the society we have created and the rules we follow were not in place, your job may not exist. In our society, it is nearly impossible to not get some gain from the government. For example, something people often forget with health care, if I have a contagious disease, I will share it with everyone I come into contact with. Because the govt pays for my healthcare (which right now is not true, but used to be), instead of ignoring the disease, I go and get government provided antibiotics. I get better and 20 other people don't get sick. Those 20 people don't infect 20 people each, who don't infect 20 and so on. Depending on what disease I am passing around, this may save your life or the life of your child. But instead of saying, thank you to the government for protecting people from the illness, everyone gripes about how they had to pay for someone else's antibiotics.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Libertarian utopia is very interesting, but I fear its ability to defend itself from threats of internal corruption.
I've recently read or studied Iraq after Hussein, Russia after Communism, and a bit other history that keeps circling around to this point. When the best intentioned people gather to create the capitalist utopia, corruption and organized crime naturally erupt.
In all the history of history, I am unaware of any Libertarian style government emerging naturally, or enduring long. This is a strong argument against the natural and obvious axioms which I see mentioned here.
You are putting a value on time as a segment of your life. What of those who's offer is to sacrifice their entire life to insure the inviolatility of your property. Police, Firemen, Investigators, Judges, Soldiers, and those who are supposed to make sure that the scales used to measure the % of life you donate to the cause are balanced and fair.
From the most ancient times one of the most prime responsibilities of any government is to make sure the scales are balanced. The entire Scales of Justice metaphor is based on scales in the market, and the idea that if you sell 20lbs of grain, that you get credit for 20, not 15 and not 24.
So what do we pay these people? Do we tax everyone since they all equally use their services, or do we tax the rich more than the poor since the rich will use these services more often? And what if one person does not wish to pay the tax for Grain Market Scale Checker because he doesn't eat grain. What if those who are organizing crime refuse to pay taxes for judges and police? If you tax them, is it not double jeopardy? Are they not being punished twice?
And if value of the police man is given to be $X an hour, but rich man Malcolm wants to pay 5X to influence his where-abouts what do we do with this contract.
That is actually where most Capitalist emerging economies fail, refusing to pay the police enough so they go into corruption in order to pay their own bills.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can HAVE a robust charity system without making it the law of the land. Those who wish to give, CAN!
While there's nothing intrinsically false about this statement, it's only accurate in the hypothetical. Historically, this could only be said to be true if you're willing to drastically downsize your definition of "robust."
Look, something Tom and I agree on!
Ok, who had June 4 in the pool?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
