[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This seems antithetical to the very notion of human society to me.[/quote]
I look around and see that humans can live in societies, but that there is no “human society.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
As long as others decide letting you be is more profitable in the long run, maybe. That’s if they value the long run payoff. But it doesn’t mean you have natural rights. Just means someone, or a bunch of someones, see profit in letting you be. For someone else, the possibility of knocking you over the head for some crack money, or even just for fun, is profitable enough. It’s subjective.[/quote]
Only thugs need to be convinced of natural rights and even they can be made to beg for their lives which shows they want their “rights” respected, too.
So even if we cannot agree there are natural rights we can all agree we want not to be killed, stolen from, or enslaved.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This seems antithetical to the very notion of human society to me.
I look around and see that humans can live in societies, but that there is no “human society.”[/quote]
Replace that word for cooperation and it is the same thing.
[quote]orion wrote:
Libertarians traditionally have viewed coercion, especially when institutionalized in the form of government, as the main threat to freedom. But cultural pressures outside the state also can restrict peopleâ??s ability to live as they please. Is that another limit on liberty worth criticizing, or is it a function of voluntary choices? [/quote]
Sometimes nature makes it impossible for man to choose what he would ideally prefer.
I do not think it matters the choices offered as long as I am not forced which I must choose. Not choosing is also a choice.
Our freedom is in the choosing not in the possible choices. That said, I do not think choices should be limited by coercive authority either.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So even if we cannot agree there are natural rights we can all agree we want not to be killed, stolen from, or enslaved.[/quote]
I’m sure slave owners felt/feel the same way.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This seems antithetical to the very notion of human society to me.
I look around and see that humans can live in societies, but that there is no “human society.”
Replace that word for cooperation and it is the same thing.[/quote]
Cooperation standing ontop of an understanding that might makes right.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:…what other people do or say, think or believe, is of no consequence on being the owner of your life. You, on the other hand, must allow people to make opposing choices; choices that may contradict everything you hold dear. Otherwise you contradict yourself…
Believing is fine, acting is different.
I do not want people acting in accordance with collectivist doctrines though they can believe all they want to in them.
And as long as I am not contradicting other’s natural rights there is no contradiction.[/quote]
…the groundrules you laid out in your opening post are subjective. You want people to act and behave according to rules they may not agree with. How do you solve that?
In the end, we’re all fetuses. We continue living because others have allowed it, for whatever their reasons.
Damn, I’m sending that in to be published somewhere!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So even if we cannot agree there are natural rights we can all agree we want not to be killed, stolen from, or enslaved.
I’m sure slave owners felt/feel the same way.[/quote]
Yes but try to enslave the slave owners and what would happen? Even if they think they have the right to own an other person they would be conflicted at the notion of being owned by someone else. This contradiction was enough to convince certain slave owners that slavery was wrong.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:…what other people do or say, think or believe, is of no consequence on being the owner of your life. You, on the other hand, must allow people to make opposing choices; choices that may contradict everything you hold dear. Otherwise you contradict yourself…
Believing is fine, acting is different.
I do not want people acting in accordance with collectivist doctrines though they can believe all they want to in them.
And as long as I am not contradicting other’s natural rights there is no contradiction.
…the groundrules you laid out in your opening post are subjective. You want people to act and behave according to rules they may not agree with. How do you solve that?
[/quote]
I am going to go get some beers at happy-hour but I will be back to answer this…
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:So we either wage war on each other or we agree that everybody has at least to keep his mitts to himself ,if only for practical reasons, which sounds a lot like libertarianism to me.
Correct, but this has nothing to do with natural rights, nor does a right to property follow from it. Ironically, the right to property can ONLY come from the “collective.”
[/quote]
No, respect for other peoples rights only becomes necessary when there is a collective.
The development of the idea of natural rights can only take place if there is a collective.
But if you accept the principle of self ownership they were there all along.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Society is a collection of individuals. It is the aim of socialism to allow each individual to fully develop according to their own wishes (of course, so long as they do not violate the [democratically agreed-upon and enforced] rights of another). If by “collective,” you mean “democratic” (and by contrast, by “individualist” you must mean “coercive”), then it is the design of socialism to check the harmful effects of wealth concentration through collective ownership.
[/quote]
Democratic and coercive are exact opposites?
Do I even have to point out how absurd that is?
To quote Ms Rand, check your premises.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
As one lone individual is incapable of extracting any but the meanest existence from nature, all benefits of modern society, and thus all wealth is necessarily social in nature, and it is for this reason that socialists intend to collectively control wealth, since it was collectively produced.[/quote]
Which is why socialism is such a crude system.
Capitalism rewards people to some degree according to how much they contributed to the production. That may be imperfect but far better than any planned scheme could possibly do that.
That is why capital accumulation in capitalism is invariably so much greater than in socialism that the poorest of the poor are better off in capitalism. Such is the nature of exponential growth which makes the whole point of socialism obsolete.
[quote]orion wrote:
But if you accept the principle of self ownership they were there all along. [/quote]
That’s just too weak. If you mean to say that nobdoy else lives in your head, that’s true. But, I don’t live in a cow’s, chimp’s, or dolphin’s either.
That reminds me! Is it immoral to rid another of one of their multiple personalities? Now that, requires some deep thought.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
But if you accept the principle of self ownership they were there all along.
That’s just too weak. If you mean to say that nobdoy else lives in your head, that’s true. But, I don’t live in a cow’s, chimp’s, or dolphin’s either.
That reminds me! Is it immoral to rid another of one of their multiple personalities? Now that, requires some deep thout.
[/quote]
I am a proponent of natural rights only insofar as political decisions are concerned.
It works like this:
I know quite well that the foundation of all ethical systems is ultimately non-existent except for our need for them.
I also know though that once you accept the idea of self ownership, and there is no reason you have to, the whole natural rights doctrine kind of develops on its own.
So either you are with me on self ownership, than you kind of have to follow me along the way to property rights and so further and so on, the whole Lockean spiel OR you publicly declare that you, the collective and/or our reptilian overlords own us.
And I have yet to see a politician publicly argue that we belong to him, as much as he may try to treat us like livestock, mandatory vaccinations and all.
All I am saying is it makes for a killer argument, a solid, workable ideology and if people actually believe in it amazing things happen, like in Athens, or in Italy during the renaissance, or in the US before the war for southern independence.
What more could you possibly want?
The essential premise to this argument is invalid. The claim I own my own life is misguided. There are no ownership properties of the ego. The ego IS you; you cannot own yourself because you are yourself. YOU are the essence of being. The idea of being is quite tricky, though. I do not own my arm, heart, brain, nor consciousness because all these components comprise who I am – they are me and I am them. Let us not fall into the trap of dualistic metaphysics.
Putting aside the improper semantics of the argument (where self-destiny ought to be used in place of self-ownership), here are my replies:
-How is this a natural right and not a cultural or societal right?
-Really, ALL forms of aggression are immoral? The term aggression is a matter of perspective in many instances, so constructing a universal morality against aggression may be problematic.
-Being ready to defend oneself is a subjective act and doesn’t seem pertinent to the argument.
-Thus, you are creating societal or collective norms – one shall not enforce another into a relationship against their will.
Okay, no disagreement here. However, how does one make all others responsible for their actions? Won’t this require a law and judicial system from society?
That is fine, but this infers you will create for yourself and only yourself. How is that practical or even mildly worthwhile? You are rejecting the merits of others, and therefore, the entire history of technological progression from humanity. Good luck being a lone hunter and gatherer without any technological tools to speak of.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
But if you accept the principle of self ownership they were there all along.
That’s just too weak. If you mean to say that nobdoy else lives in your head, that’s true. But, I don’t live in a cow’s, chimp’s, or dolphin’s either.
That reminds me! Is it immoral to rid another of one of their multiple personalities? Now that, requires some deep thout.
I am a proponent of natural rights only insofar as political decisions are concerned.
It works like this:
I know quite well that the foundation of all ethical systems is ultimately non-existent except for our need for them.
I also know though that once you accept the idea of self ownership, and there is no reason you have to, the whole natural rights doctrine kind of develops on its own.
So either you are with me on self ownership, than you kind of have to follow me along the way to property rights and so further and so on, the whole Lockean spiel OR you publicly declare that you, the collective and/or our reptilian overlords own us.
And I have yet to see a politician publicly argue that we belong to him, as much as he may try to treat us like livestock, mandatory vaccinations and all.
All I am saying is it makes for a killer argument, a solid, workable ideology and if people actually believe in it amazing things happen, like in Athens, or in Italy during the renaissance, or in the US before the war for southern independence.
What more could you possibly want?
[/quote]
Indeed! When people actually believe they own their lives amazing things will happen!!
You can bank on it!!
[quote]kylec72 wrote:
The essential premise to this argument is invalid. The claim I own my own life is misguided. There are no ownership properties of the ego. The ego IS you; you cannot own yourself because you are yourself. YOU are the essence of being. The idea of being is quite tricky, though. I do not own my arm, heart, brain, nor consciousness because all these components comprise who I am – they are me and I am them. Let us not fall into the trap of dualistic metaphysics.
Putting aside the improper semantics of the argument (where self-destiny ought to be used in place of self-ownership), here are my replies:
If I claim to own my own life then I must also recognize the natural right of self ownership for all people.
-How is this a natural right and not a cultural or societal right?
If I claim to own my own life then all forms of aggression are immoral: how can I claim to own my life and at the same time contradict the rights of someone else?
-Really, ALL forms of aggression are immoral? The term aggression is a matter of perspective in many instances, so constructing a universal morality against aggression may be problematic.
If I claim to own my own life then I must be ready to defend myself; I cannot force others to offer me protection against their will because this is aggressive and therefore immoral.
-Being ready to defend oneself is a subjective act and doesn’t seem pertinent to the argument.
If I claim to own my own life then all interpersonal relationships and associations I make must be voluntary otherwise I am committing an act of aggression.
-Thus, you are creating societal or collective norms – one shall not enforce another into a relationship against their will.
If I claim to own my own life then I must accept responsibility for all of my actions and decisions I make; outside of being coerced all actions and choices I make are my own.
Okay, no disagreement here. However, how does one make all others responsible for their actions? Won’t this require a law and judicial system from society?
If I claim to own my own life then I must reject all forms of collectivism because I am an individual suited to my own nature give abilities and talents; though I can identify with certain groups of individuals that share specific traits I am not defined by membership in those groups nor do I owe allegiance to any one group that I identify with.
That is fine, but this infers you will create for yourself and only yourself. How is that practical or even mildly worthwhile? You are rejecting the merits of others, and therefore, the entire history of technological progression from humanity. Good luck being a lone hunter and gatherer without any technological tools to speak of.[/quote]
eh…you’re irrelevant.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
But if you accept the principle of self ownership they were there all along.
That’s just too weak. If you mean to say that nobdoy else lives in your head, that’s true. But, I don’t live in a cow’s, chimp’s, or dolphin’s either.
That reminds me! Is it immoral to rid another of one of their multiple personalities? Now that, requires some deep thout.
I am a proponent of natural rights only insofar as political decisions are concerned.
It works like this:
I know quite well that the foundation of all ethical systems is ultimately non-existent except for our need for them.
I also know though that once you accept the idea of self ownership, and there is no reason you have to, the whole natural rights doctrine kind of develops on its own.
So either you are with me on self ownership, than you kind of have to follow me along the way to property rights and so further and so on, the whole Lockean spiel OR you publicly declare that you, the collective and/or our reptilian overlords own us.
And I have yet to see a politician publicly argue that we belong to him, as much as he may try to treat us like livestock, mandatory vaccinations and all.
All I am saying is it makes for a killer argument, a solid, workable ideology and if people actually believe in it amazing things happen, like in Athens, or in Italy during the renaissance, or in the US before the war for southern independence.
What more could you possibly want?
Indeed! When people actually believe they own their lives amazing things will happen!!
You can bank on it!![/quote]
QFT!
Then you argue a point no one is trying to make.
See the kind of logical knots into which you twist yourself in order to conform to libertarian principles? The claim that wealth is not collectively produced is flat out wrong and it’s laughable that you would attempt to make the claim. Tell you what: the fisherman can keep his his rod, his fish, and his cabin, but let him have no part of wealth that IS collectively produced, such as manufactured clothing, shoes, food purchased from a store, automobiles, etc.
Agreed, but then what on earth does this have to do with ownership? The right to property neither follows from or is implied by any of this. Everyone has a right to participate in the production of wealth, to be compensated for his service, and to have a say as to what manner in which the resources of the society, which he helped to build up, ought to be employed.