Freedom is Slavery

[hmkpoker]

People living in a civilized society have to adopt rights if they are to evolve out of violent Hobbesian anarchy.

A right is a social rule. It is well-recognized by the citizens. In order for it to have any kind of significant meaning, the right must be enforceable. For this to occur, a perception of the violation of the right must exist, and it must activate a defensive social response. This is most obviously accomplished today through the police, however it is observable in any civilized social context. (For example, someone taking much more than his share of food at a small social gathering will be scolded for doing so and made to stop if the situation persists. No central authority had to create this; the appropriation of reasonably equal shares in this context is merely assumed collectively.)

What some people consider "rights" are in practice nothing more than social norms that either are very, very weakly enforced, or potential rights that will one day be enforceable. An example of this is the unborn's "right to life." It is legal to get an abortion as a result of Roe v. Wade, and the law does not intervene with the mother aborting her child. Nothing, with the exception of the pronounced judgement and protests of a few right-wingers, can effectively stop the mother from getting this procedure. As secularism and liberalism progress, it is concievable that, in time, the "right to life" for the unborn may be a forgotten concept, documented only in history books. The child's "right to life," in this case, will have no practical existence. It will simply be an idea held by few, and enforced by none, unless society works to adopt it again.

Along this train of thought, it must be understood that there are an unlimited number of these potential rights. Social rules are essentially arbitrary and determined by the will of the people. If they sufficiently will a freedom of speech, the right will be created and exercised. If they sufficiently will a free market, property rights will become stronger and more recognized and enforced. If they sufficiently will the freedom or right to egalitarian equality, the Bolsheviks will revolt. If they believe they have a right to have a government official shave their donkeys every Thursday, a social structure will be created to enforce this absurdity. (The establishment and enforcement of rights is limited only to practicality. The right to fly or exercise telepathy obviously cannot be enforced)

Another interesting thing about rights is that they only exist when there is something stopping them from existing naturally. My breathing could be considered to have detrimental external effects because I am creating more CO2, but there is currently no recognized threat by this phenomenon, and no need to discuss or enforce a "right to breathe." If no mother genuinely wanted to abort her child, there would be no reason for there to be a recognized and enforceable "right to life." And yet, this is a real motivation that ticks some people off. The "right to life" must be created by others to oppose what the mother would otherwise do...and in so doing, it, like all rights, must exist as the violation of another's percieved or desired right.

All rights exist as restrictions to others. The right to life opposes the woman's right to choose. The right to free speech opposes another's perceived right to not be offended. The right to exercise personal property rights opposes the right to equality from the extreme left. The right to clean air must oppose the industialist's right to free business management. The right to have an evenly apportioned share in a small social setting must oppose the individual's right to take as much as he wants. The right to enjoy safety often opposes the right to freedom. No social right can be created without stopping someone else from doing what he wants. All rights must, therefore, oppose what would otherwise be another opponent right.

One more interesting thing about rights is that, damn, they sound noble. Those with the self-interest in enacting the right can more easily justify the rule by propagating it as a "right" rather than self-interest. "A fundamental right to equality" and "the freedom to enjoy safety" sounds much better than "I want your money, and want other people to enforce that want," as is the case in socialist jackbooted thuggery. Inhibiting women from doing what they want to the zygotes that they create is much more easily sold as "an inalienable right to life"; the right is given an aura of divinity and righteousness that feels empowering to the supporters and inspires guilt in the opponents, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is nothing more than the recognition and enforcement of an arbitrarily created social rule.

ANY social or government rule can be turned into a "right." The widespread epidemic of violence in black markets running prostitution and drug services is recognized as a "right to keep the world safe for children." The invasive practice of unwarranted wiretaps constitute the enforcement of your "right to live in a terror-free world." Being forcibly confined to a plastic, sterile bubble where you eat nothing but synth-mush and watch nothing but FCC-regulated propaganda is your "right to a safe and healthy existence."

Freedom is slavery.

Recognize rights for what they are: self-interest.

[pizzystrizzy]

[ QUOTE ]
That lambs bear ill-will towards large birds of prey is hardly strange: but is in itself no reason to blame large birds of prey for making off with little lambs. And if the lambs say among themselves: ‘These birds of prey are evil; and whoever is as little of a bird of prey as possible, indeed, rather the opposite, a lamb—should he (sic) not be said to be good?’, then there can be no objection to setting up an ideal like this, even if the birds of prey might look down on it a little contemptuously and perhaps say to themselves: ‘We bear them no ill-will at all, these good lambs—indeed, we love them: there is nothing tastier than a tender lamb.’ To demand of strength that it should not express itself as strength, that it should not be a will to overcome, overthrow, dominate, a thirst for enemies and a resistance and triumph, makes as little sense as to demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength. A quantum of force is also a quantum of drive, will, action—in fact, it is nothing more than this driving, willing, acting, and it is only through the seduction of language (and through the fundamental errors of reason petrified in it)—language which understands and misunderstands all action as conditioned by an actor, by a ‘subject’—that it can appear otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, Book I, #13

[hmkpoker]

Well said.

It really surprises me that some of the ACers regard things in terms of morality.

[DougShrapnel]

I was following you up until here.

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom is slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I was following you up until here.

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom is slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that anything, even slavery, can be justified by the government powers under freedom ("rights").

Hobbesian anarchy may be the purest form of freedom (that is, the absence of social enforcement of norms), but no one considers that to be preferable.

[trigstarr]

Ever read 1984?

"The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. ... WAR IS PEACE."

Seems close to your point...

[hmkpoker]

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

My point was that anything, even slavery, can be justified by the government powers under freedom ("rights").

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind explaining why this is only possible under governments? I assume that in an anarchic world the same conflicts would arise (e.g. a business owner's "right" to enslave people and a worker's "right" to compensation) with the only difference being that the advantage would remain with the wealthy business owner who is better able to enforce his "right" than the worker (and if either right is enforced, I'm curious how it isn't the same "jackbooted thuggery" that you cite in the socialist example).

[billygrippo]

LIFE IS

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
People living in a civilized society have to adopt rights if they are to evolve out of violent Hobbesian anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ] Not nessarily true. Sure that is that way that it happened, but there is no reason to believe that adopting rights is the only way to evolve out of anarchy. A homogenious population could develop and there would be no need for rights.

[ QUOTE ]
A right is a social rule. It is well-recognized by the citizens. In order for it to have any kind of significant meaning, the right must be enforceable. For this to occur, a perception of the violation of the right must exist, and it must activate a defensive social response. This is most obviously accomplished today through the police, however it is observable in any civilized social context. (For example, someone taking much more than his share of food at a small social gathering will be scolded for doing so and made to stop if the situation persists. No central authority had to create this; the appropriation of reasonably equal shares in this context is merely assumed collectively.)


[/ QUOTE ] It needs to be enforcible or immutable. If we create the right; you can take as much as you can take by any means. No reason to enforce it, there is no way to break that right.

[ QUOTE ]
Social rules are essentially arbitrary and determined by the will of the people.

[/ QUOTE ] Not in the slightest bit. "Recognize rights for what they are: self-interest."

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My point was that anything, even slavery, can be justified by the government powers under freedom ("rights").

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind explaining why this is only possible under governments? I assume that in an anarchic world the same conflicts would arise (e.g. a business owner's "right" to enslave people and a worker's "right" to compensation) with the only difference being that the advantage would remain with the wealthy business owner who is better able to enforce his "right" than the worker (and if either right is enforced, I'm curious how it isn't the same "jackbooted thuggery" that you cite in the socialist example).

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say that?

Slavery can, has and does exist in poor areas with little government. A wealthy business owner with lots of power, in an area where resources are extremely scarce, benefits most from adopting slavery as the norm; it gives the people food and a place to live (granted the conditions are crap by our standards, but you do have to keep your slaves alive and healthy if you want to get anything out of them). The slaves, then, have some incentive to work.

However, you can only get so much out of someone who's only going to work hard enough to avoid getting whipped (which, in and of itself, requires resource expenditure). To maintain high levels of competitive production, you either need to industrialize or increase worker incentive. You also have to worry about a potential slave revolt when the resources in the area grow sufficiently to make the price of slavery below market price to the slaves. As such, compensation becomes more profitable to the owner (and obviously to the slaves).

If he fails to do so, a slave revolt can and will occur, and his power will drop as the slaves have risen, and as a result in the change of will, new rights emerge.

Yes, people who have more power and can enforce their rights more effectively could be said to have more "rights" or "freedoms" than the layperson. However, government doesn't equalize this. To the contrary, it simply gives more power to the ruling body that was created.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People living in a civilized society have to adopt rights if they are to evolve out of violent Hobbesian anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ] Not nessarily true. Sure that is that way that it happened, but there is no reason to believe that adopting rights is the only way to evolve out of anarchy. A homogenious population could develop and there would be no need for rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, people who have more power and can enforce their rights more effectively could be said to have more "rights" or "freedoms" than the layperson. However, government doesn't equalize this. To the contrary, it simply gives more power to the ruling body that was created.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what of those ruling bodies which are comprised of the people it represents (e.g. Athenian democracy)?

[DougShrapnel]

Given enough time all people could end up being the same. It wouldn't be anarchy as it would be highly organized, yet there wouldn't be any "rights". Everyone would desire the same things, and they would all use the same methods to acquire. There would be no self-interest, because there is little/no different between selves. Everyone would just to what is best for everyone. Societal norms and "rights" would be de facto and not enumerated. Individuality is the need for rights. I won’t touch on the need for government as it’s just one self-interest based way to accomplish the enforcement of and restitution for infringement of self-interests. There is nothing inherent about government or ac that makes them more or less correct. I am certain that I am unable to convince you of it since you have some strong arguments for ac and I am ill equiped to do so. No matter how good the ac argument get, the only thing that is clear to me is that you have some self-interest in AC over government.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, people who have more power and can enforce their rights more effectively could be said to have more "rights" or "freedoms" than the layperson. However, government doesn't equalize this. To the contrary, it simply gives more power to the ruling body that was created.

[/ QUOTE ]



In a civil and enlightened society, the government then protects the subjects of said power in a curious trade off.

Notice the comically broad use of the terms "civil" and "enlightened"

Cambraceres

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People living in a civilized society have to adopt rights if they are to evolve out of violent Hobbesian anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ] Not nessarily true. Sure that is that way that it happened, but there is no reason to believe that adopting rights is the only way to evolve out of anarchy. A homogenious population could develop and there would be no need for rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think ants, bees, and termites.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People living in a civilized society have to adopt rights if they are to evolve out of violent Hobbesian anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ] Not nessarily true. Sure that is that way that it happened, but there is no reason to believe that adopting rights is the only way to evolve out of anarchy. A homogenious population could develop and there would be no need for rights.



[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so add "Given human nature," to the beginning of the post. I really don't think we need to any grand proofs that humans are not homogenous.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, people who have more power and can enforce their rights more effectively could be said to have more "rights" or "freedoms" than the layperson. However, government doesn't equalize this. To the contrary, it simply gives more power to the ruling body that was created.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what of those ruling bodies which are comprised of the people it represents (e.g. Athenian democracy)?

[/ QUOTE ]

A state where decisions are made by the status quo...high time-preference imbeciles that don't understand economics or social policy.

Great.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Given enough time all people could end up being the same. It wouldn't be anarchy as it would be highly organized, yet there wouldn't be any "rights". Everyone would desire the same things, and they would all use the same methods to acquire. There would be no self-interest, because there is little/no different between selves. Everyone would just to what is best for everyone. Societal norms and "rights" would be de facto and not enumerated. Individuality is the need for rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are getting at. However, trying to implement such a system at our current level of resources (read: technology) is impossible. We still need rights to survive. The social structure that would eventually evolve from AC (or whatever) after enough resources have been secured to create a massive social revolution would be something that we can't really concieve of at our current state; the motivations would be alien to us.

[ QUOTE ]
No matter how good the ac argument get, the only thing that is clear to me is that you have some self-interest in AC over government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yeah. I think I've expressed that pretty clearly.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People living in a civilized society have to adopt rights if they are to evolve out of violent Hobbesian anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ] Not nessarily true. Sure that is that way that it happened, but there is no reason to believe that adopting rights is the only way to evolve out of anarchy. A homogenious population could develop and there would be no need for rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think ants, bees, and termites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beings that spend all of their lives working excruciating labor, and lacking the intelligence to develop better means of providing resources, thereby significantly limiting their choosing power and leaving them stuck with homogenous preferences.

Somehow, I don't think that's what he was getting at.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Think ants, bees, and termites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beings that spend all of their lives working excruciating labor, and lacking the intelligence to develop better means of providing resources, thereby significantly limiting their choosing power and leaving them stuck with homogenous preferences.

Somehow, I don't think that's what he was getting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is exactly what he was getting at. We could have been like intelligent bees, all possessed of a single goal, perpetuating our hive. The negative characterizations you cast on the lives of bees and ants are only negative from an individualistic point of view. Bees don't "labor" for the hive, they simply do what is best for the hive.

Humans, as a species, would likely be better off if we similarly used all of our efforts to contribute to the success of our species as a whole rather than the success of ourselves as individuals. We just didn't evolve that way.

In other words, ants and bees don't need incentives to help the hive -- it is all they know to do. They don't have homogenous preferences because they lack intelligence or because they labor incessantly; they just evolved to have homogenous preferences. Homogenous preferences and intelligence are not mutually exclusive.

[Sharkey]

Having no rights is not freedom.

Spending one’s entire existence defending rights against the local strongman under anarchy is hardly freedom either.

Utilizing the tools of the long experience of civilization to create a servant government charged with protecting the rights of the people, thus enabling the cooperative social pursuit of creativity and innovation, is an excellent start on the road to freedom.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Having no rights is not freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it was. I just said that rights are a strategic creation of an amalgam of self-interests; nothing more mystical or divine than that. I don't think there's anything wrong with self-interest either. Self-interest is what keeps me from eating you and your parents.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having no rights is not freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it was. I just said that rights are a strategic creation of an amalgam of self-interests; nothing more mystical or divine than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s a blanket negative statement. Can you prove it, or is it based on faith?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's anything wrong with self-interest either. Self-interest is what keeps me from eating you and your parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

And self-preservation keeps you from trying.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
That’s a blanket negative statement. Can you prove it, or is it based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the OP, and tell me which point you disagree with.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's anything wrong with self-interest either. Self-interest is what keeps me from eating you and your parents.

[/ QUOTE ]
And self-preservation keeps you from trying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Self-interest.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is exactly what he was getting at. We could have been like intelligent bees, all possessed of a single goal, perpetuating our hive. The negative characterizations you cast on the lives of bees and ants are only negative from an individualistic point of view. Bees don't "labor" for the hive, they simply do what is best for the hive.

Humans, as a species, would likely be better off if we similarly used all of our efforts to contribute to the success of our species as a whole rather than the success of ourselves as individuals. We just didn't evolve that way.

In other words, ants and bees don't need incentives to help the hive -- it is all they know to do. They don't have homogenous preferences because they lack intelligence or because they labor incessantly; they just evolved to have homogenous preferences. Homogenous preferences and intelligence are not mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This brings up the very interesting notion of social consciousness, that if consciousness arises (apparently) through the interaction of individually functioning organic entities (cells), that eventually there could arise such a thing as a "social consciousness" or "hive mind," where the society itself has a mind and acts upon its own will. I actually believe that, one day, we will reach that point and create a radical next step in evolution.

However, the hive mind idea is highly theoretical. I don't see any reason to believe that it exists among ants and bees. How can it be said that bees think to do what is best for the hive? Surely they can't comprehend the economics of their society, much less concoct plans toward the betterment and social progress of the hive. A more reasonable explanation seems to be instinct, that animals act toward a self-based motivation that evolution programmed them with.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That’s a blanket negative statement. Can you prove it, or is it based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the OP, and tell me which point you disagree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with everything in the OP that assumes rights are never anything more that social constructs. You don’t prove that premise in the OP, so I would like to see such proof or at least an argument that would be convincing to an impartial observer. If you don’t have one, that’s fine too. You are, of course, entitled to choose what you take on faith.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with everything in the OP that assumes rights are never anything more that social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is a right then?

[MrMon]

I believe this country was founded on the idea of "natural rights", the idea that a man is born with all the rights he will ever have, and that government should be restricted from encroaching on those rights. So you aren't granted rights by the government or society, instead, your natural rights are protected from encroachment by others.

If you read the Constitution, you'll find the governemnt never grants you a right, instead, it's the government who is prohibited from infringing on those rights. This presupposes that you already have all the rights you are going to have from birth.

Just my two cents.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe this country was founded on the idea of "natural rights",

[/ QUOTE ]

so what? What is a "right," if not merely a social norm or some meaningless religious prattle?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, people who have more power and can enforce their rights more effectively could be said to have more "rights" or "freedoms" than the layperson. However, government doesn't equalize this. To the contrary, it simply gives more power to the ruling body that was created.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what of those ruling bodies which are comprised of the people it represents (e.g. Athenian democracy)?

[/ QUOTE ]

A state where decisions are made by the status quo...high time-preference imbeciles that don't understand economics or social policy.

Great.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a system in which anyone with sufficient means to do so can trample on the God-given rights of anyone he sees fit is preferable?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, people who have more power and can enforce their rights more effectively could be said to have more "rights" or "freedoms" than the layperson. However, government doesn't equalize this. To the contrary, it simply gives more power to the ruling body that was created.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what of those ruling bodies which are comprised of the people it represents (e.g. Athenian democracy)?

[/ QUOTE ]

A state where decisions are made by the status quo...high time-preference imbeciles that don't understand economics or social policy.

Great.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a system in which anyone with sufficient means to do so can trample on the God-given rights of anyone he sees fit is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]
We have this now.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
So a system in which anyone with sufficient means to do so can trample on the God-given rights of anyone he sees fit is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. There is no God.

EDIT TO ADD: even if there were, I fail to see how this changes the nature of rights, as he doesn't intervene to enforce them.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So a system in which anyone with sufficient means to do so can trample on the God-given rights of anyone he sees fit is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]
We have this now.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't since the people in power only have that power so long as they retain the support of the people they represent, and there are certain rights (i.e. the Constitution) which can't be changed without the direct consent of the people.

While the current American system isn't perfect (despite what the Federalist Papers have to say, I believe that a direct democracy is preferable to a representative republic), the "one man, one vote" system is certainly better than the "one dollar, one vote" system.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So a system in which anyone with sufficient means to do so can trample on the God-given rights of anyone he sees fit is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. There is no God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could call them natural rights, if you'd prefer.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So a system in which anyone with sufficient means to do so can trample on the God-given rights of anyone he sees fit is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. There is no God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could call them natural rights, if you'd prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's equally crap. How does this change the nature of rights to anything other than a socially enforced norm rooted in human self-interest?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

That's equally crap. How does this change the nature of rights to anything other than a socially enforced norm rooted in human self-interest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that if you put a bullet in my head, I didn't have a right to live which you violated?

I'm taking the position that rights exist regardless of enforcement and that God-given (or whatever) rights take presidence over other supposed "rights" (e.g. my right to freedom above your "right" to enslave me).

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that if you put a bullet in my head, I didn't have a right to live which you violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a world where social rules are recognized and enforced, and for which I will be punished for upon the recognition of my violation of same? Yes. I violated your right.

In a Hobbesian anarchy world where this is not the case? No. You don't have a right to live in such conditions. (If you do, what good is this right, and explain the nature of the right's existence)

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

What is a right?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that a right is any freedom of which the infringement would be immoral (therefore, since enslavement is immoral, freedom is a right). I realize that you're trying to make your argument of what constitutes a right without resorting to moral arguments, but I don't see how the two can't be intertwined. I believe (and Kant argues this point better than I ever could) that all men, when allowed to act without the influence of outside forces (economic and social forces included) that he will naturally act in a way which is in accordance with natural law, that is, which respects natural rights, i.e. morals.

Now a question for you. If rights are simply those social rules which are enforced, in the absence of morals, what determines those social rules?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that a right is any freedom of which the infringement would be immoral (therefore, since enslavement is immoral, freedom is a right). I realize that you're trying to make your argument of what constitutes a right without resorting to moral arguments, but I don't see how the two can't be intertwined.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you've decided to define rights in terms of morality, which is also determined arbitrarily by society. Very well then, what is a moral? (Try not to define this in terms of rights, or other synonyms...I'm asking for an explanation of its origin, purpose, nature, whatever.)

[ QUOTE ]
I believe (and Kant argues this point better than I ever could) that all men, when allowed to act without the influence of outside forces (economic and social forces included) that he will naturally act in a way which is in accordance with natural law, that is, which respects natural rights, i.e. morals.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is impossible. All action, both human and mechanical, is always being influenced by outside forces. I'd even go as far as to make the deterministic argument that what we do is determined by these forces. Our freedom recieves another limitation as civilized population expands because we are being influenced by others, who may naturally have competing motives.

[ QUOTE ]
natural rights, i.e. morals

[/ QUOTE ]

So they are synonymous? Doesn't really answer my question.

[ QUOTE ]
Now a question for you. If rights are simply those social rules which are enforced, in the absence of morals, what determines those social rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

Competing self interests. I explained that in my OP. I don't believe in morality just like I don't believe in rights.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in morality just like I don't believe in rights.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you saying that all actions are equally correct? Morality/ethics is a means to delimit correct action from incorrect action.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in morality just like I don't believe in rights.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you saying that all actions are equally correct? Morality/ethics is a means to delimit correct action from incorrect action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, now we're on to something.

What makes something "correct?" Personally, I think that an action is more correct when it objectively accomplishes the goal of leading the actor (person) to a more favorable state of affairs, and less correct when it does not.

Killing people, in the majority of situations, is incorrect as it usually does not accomplish the goal of bringing about a better state. It destroys productivity, and it identifies you as a threat to society, making them correct in destroying you. There are few to no real world examples where murdering people could be considered correct. Most people in society know this, and thus it becomes correct to keep it from happening, and in so doing creating a right.

However, murder is not absolutely incorrect. If it provides more benefit than harm to the murderer, how could we call it incorrect? If you are a mob boss or a corrupt politician, and there is an informant that threatens to put you in for life, and you have the means of killing him and getting away with it at your disposal, how could killing the rat be "wrong"?

Another example: say an airplane crashes in the frozen tundra, and the survivors have no food and will have to resort to cannibalism if they want to survive. You decide to draw straws on it. You happen to have some fast hands, and really want the fat guy who was snoring in the isle in front of you to get it. Is it wrong to rig the election so that the fat guy dies, if you think you can get away with it?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People living in a civilized society have to adopt rights if they are to evolve out of violent Hobbesian anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ] Not nessarily true. Sure that is that way that it happened, but there is no reason to believe that adopting rights is the only way to evolve out of anarchy. A homogenious population could develop and there would be no need for rights.



[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so add "Given human nature," to the beginning of the post. I really don't think we need to any grand proofs that humans are not homogenous.

[/ QUOTE ] Just change "have to".

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Well yeah. I think I've expressed that pretty clearly.

[/ QUOTE ] The problem is that others have a legitmate "right" to make you pay for stuff that there is no way for you not utilize, or items that their sole/main use is to benefit humanity. The primary ligitmizer of government is defense. I'm beginning to see the need for research and development as a legitimizer. All AC would do in these situation is take these responsibilites away from a one person one vote, and change it to a one dollar one vote. It would not correct the "thugary" that is apt to go on.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
All AC would do in these situation is take these responsibilites away from a one person one vote, and change it to a one dollar one vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd prefer one (tax) dollar one vote. Shouldn't a stock holder have more say is he has more money invested in the system?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All AC would do in these situation is take these responsibilites away from a one person one vote, and change it to a one dollar one vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd prefer one (tax) dollar one vote. Shouldn't a stock holder have more say is he has more money invested in the system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, that would make for a fine society. Everyone knows that the wealthiest one is the more one can afford to be moral. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All AC would do in these situation is take these responsibilites away from a one person one vote, and change it to a one dollar one vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd prefer one (tax) dollar one vote. Shouldn't a stock holder have more say is he has more money invested in the system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, that would make for a fine society. Everyone knows tat the wealthiest one is the more one can afford to be moral. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it "moral" to give someone who is forced to pay $80,000 in taxes the same benefits as someone who pays a grand? Besides, there are a lot more poor people than rich people.

Paying for voting priviledges actually incentivizes voluntary taxes. I fail to see what the problem is.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Another example: say an airplane crashes in the frozen tundra, and the survivors have no food and will have to resort to cannibalism if they want to survive.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's plenty of food up here in the Frozen Tundra! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[vhawk01]

Your right, and as long as all of the poor people vote as one hive mind, they would just about balance out one or two billionaires. Seems like a good system.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it "moral" to give someone who is forced to pay $80,000 in taxes the same benefits as someone who pays a grand?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, of course not. It is obvious that the one paying $80000 in tax does not have the same needs than the one paying $1000. the latter should have more benefit than the former.

Of course, really I may go your way if votes should only be given for $ earned from personal exertion and not for $ earned from investments. Can't wait to see Buffet and Gates doing some roadwork or gardening. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The reasomn I say this is that the only true value wealth added is from personal exertion. The invetstment is a way to redirect the benefit (part of it, like taxation) of personal exertion to the privileged away from the generator.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
No, of course not. It is obvious that the one paying $80000 in tax does not have the same needs than the one paying $1000. the latter should have more benefit than the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://fridge.ubuntu.com/files/no-pony-for-you.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, really I may go your way if votes should only be given for $ earned from personal exertion and not for $ earned from investments.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you tell the difference? How do you objectively measure what the worth of personal exertion is? You don't think CEOs produce something? If they didn't, why would private companies have them (the workers could just form their own enterprise if they didn't need a CEO to work for, right?) Don't you think that investment, the assuming of risk in the hands of one individual, is important? All over the country there are people recieving wages from businesses that are losing money. No one thinks about them when they talk about how evil capitalists are.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it "moral" to give someone who is forced to pay $80,000 in taxes the same benefits as someone who pays a grand?

[/ QUOTE ] The guy that pays 1,000 would gladly change places with the 80,000 guy. But he can't do so. Wouldn't you rather make 250,000 pretax and pay 80,000 in taxes than make 20k pretax and pay 1k in taxes?

If the guy who pays 80,000 in taxes really does not want to be 'forced' to pay 80k in taxes she should work at a different job that pays less. The person making less does not have this freedom.

Nobody is forced to pay for redistributive programs because nobody is forced to make a lot of pretax income.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

How do you tell the difference? How do you objectively measure what the worth of personal exertion is? You don't think CEOs produce something? If they didn't, why would private companies have them (the workers could just form their own enterprise if they didn't need a CEO to work for, right?) Don't you think that investment, the assuming of risk in the hands of one individual, is important? All over the country there are people recieving wages from businesses that are losing money. No one thinks about them when they talk about how evil capitalists are.

[/ QUOTE ] About 30% of all wealth is gained via specualtion right now as opposed to any kind of socially beneficial work right now in the U.S. And this percentage has been increasing for a long time.

blue chip stocks, real estate, several bond markets, several futures markets, interest on savings etc. are not at all risky-the are investments virtually guranteed to be profitable.

More fundementally, it cannot seriously be maintained that a worker's life involves less risk than a capitalists'. Workers face the risk of occupational disease, unemployment, and imoverished retirement, which capitalists and managers do not face.

And how do workers get enough resources to compete with big business??? How are they going to get in on this economy of a scale thing going on? They don't have any resources, that's why they are in essensce forced to work for the capitalist in the first place.

The reason some people have more money than others is because of luck in the grand natural and social lottery, market power and, to a lesser but still important extent, the control of the wealthy over politics in capitialistic 'democracies'.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is forced to pay for redistributive programs because nobody is forced to make a lot of pretax income.

[/ QUOTE ]

The next time I rob a bank, I'll tell the judge that the bank isn't forced to get robbed because nobody forced the bankers to build the bank.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
About 30% of all wealth is gained via specualtion right now as opposed to any kind of socially beneficial work right now in the U.S. And this percentage has been increasing for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Why does "society" have some right to benefit from individuals' work?

And how is speculation not socially beneficial? Without speculation, many ventures that turn out to be "socially beneficial" would not get funded. Many statists constantly claim that without a state, things like scientific research will be neglected - but what is research if not speculation?

[ QUOTE ]
blue chip stocks, real estate, several bond markets, several futures markets, interest on savings etc. are not at all risky-the are investments virtually guranteed to be profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Overall, they are profitable. Individually, they are risky. Apparently you are not familiar with variance.

[ QUOTE ]
More fundementally, it cannot seriously be maintained that a worker's life involves less risk than a capitalists'. Workers face the risk of occupational disease, unemployment, and imoverished retirement, which capitalists and managers do not face.

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't born that way. They produce value that other people are willing to compensate them for. Yes, they accumulate wealth through doing "socially beneficial" work.

CEOs are firable just like anyone else. You just don't see many unhirable ex-CEOs because of selection bias (most companies don't hire someone to be a CEO unless they're already proven to be good managers).

It's like saying (to use one of your favorite analogies) that it's unfair that NBA stars don't have to worry about losing pickup basketball games as much as the "regular people". Being an NBA star doesn't make you good at basketball. Being good at basketball makes you an NBA star (well, it's the biggest component of it).

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is forced to pay for redistributive programs because nobody is forced to make a lot of pretax income.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the incentive to work, then, is?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
And how do workers get enough resources to compete with big business???

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam Walton did it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is forced to pay for redistributive programs because nobody is forced to make a lot of pretax income.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the incentive to work, then, is?

[/ QUOTE ]

one of us should seriously consider making a "greatest hits of Moorobot" with all these nuggets of gold.

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
About 30% of all wealth is gained via specualtion right now as opposed to any kind of socially beneficial work right now in the U.S. And this percentage has been increasing for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Why does "society" have some right to benefit from individuals' work?



[/ QUOTE ]

Could it possibly be because the indivual is benefitting from the society's existence?

Anyway, its part of the agreement when you choose to be a member of the society. Complaining about "involuntary" taxes is like signing up for electric service, then complaining when they bill you at the end of the month.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, its part of the agreement when you choose to be a member of the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did any of us make this "choice"?

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, its part of the agreement when you choose to be a member of the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did any of us make this "choice"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You make this choice every day, when you decide not to leave. The social contract can be terminated without penalty by either party.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
About 30% of all wealth is gained via specualtion right now as opposed to any kind of socially beneficial work right now in the U.S. And this percentage has been increasing for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Why does "society" have some right to benefit from individuals' work?



[/ QUOTE ]

Could it possibly be because the indivual is benefitting from the society's existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it could not, because "society" does not exist in any meaninful sense. Individuals benefit from the existence of other individuals, not "society." I forget who made this challenge on these boards first, but it's brilliant: Please show me "society" without showing me any individuals. Show me your "family" without showing me the individuals that comprise it.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, its part of the agreement when you choose to be a member of the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this agreement? I don't recall signing it. Can you produce my signed copy for me?

[ QUOTE ]
Complaining about "involuntary" taxes is like signing up for electric service, then complaining when they bill you at the end of the month.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a signed agreement with the electrical company. It states the terms explicitly, has an effective date and terms that cannot be unilaterally violated. I can control the amount of company provided electricity that I use. I can even choose to use no company provided electricity at all. None of these things are true of taxation and the so-called "services" that are thrust upon me.

"Love it or leave it" in 3, 2, 1 . . .

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I forget who made this challenge on these boards first, but it's brilliant: Please show me "society" without showing me any individuals. Show me your "family" without showing me the individuals that comprise it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe it was that crazy bugger, Nielso.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it could not, because "society" does not exist in any meaninful sense. Individuals benefit from the existence of other individuals, not "society." I forget who made this challenge on these boards first, but it's brilliant: Please show me "society" without showing me any individuals. Show me your "family" without showing me the individuals that comprise it.


[/ QUOTE ] This is suppose to mean something?

"Indivduals" do not exist in any meaninful sense. Show me "individuals" without showing me any cells. Show me your mother without showing me the individual cells that comprise her.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it could not, because "society" does not exist in any meaninful sense. Individuals benefit from the existence of other individuals, not "society." I forget who made this challenge on these boards first, but it's brilliant: Please show me "society" without showing me any individuals. Show me your "family" without showing me the individuals that comprise it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re missing something essential.

Society exists in the emergent properties of social relationships among individuals.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, its part of the agreement when you choose to be a member of the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did any of us make this "choice"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You make this choice every day, when you decide not to leave. The social contract can be terminated without penalty by either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leave where? And why do I have to leave the continent I was born on in order to make this "choice"?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, its part of the agreement when you choose to be a member of the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did any of us make this "choice"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You make this choice every day, when you decide not to leave. The social contract can be terminated without penalty by either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is some truth to the "love it or leave it" statement, in that there does exist a choice. One is capable of going through the months or years of processing necessary to gain citizenship in another country. We don't live under world government (were that to be the case, there would certainly be no choice at all). A man living out in the boondocks who wants to shop at a place of than the local general store, even if that store is two hours away, does have a choice.

That there is a choice is not the issue. The problem is a limitation of choices. The more choices a man has, the better off he is, and the fewer he has the worse. Americans wanting to live under different laws have very limited options, for in addition to the limitations imposed by the many complications of moving and getting new citizenship, the laws for the most part are not terribly different in other countries that have the resources that would make them attractive to any American. It becomes the best decision of limited options simply to live in America.

Now, let's say that there was no union, and that the fifty states were sovereign. Each state is free to have its own laws. Some states will become more socialist, others more capitalist. Some states will have looser drugs laws, and others may enforce harsher penalties. Different currencies will facilitate different economies. Under these conditions, someone wishing to live under different laws has more choices. If he wants a country where his social freedoms are recognized and protected, he can live under liberalism, and if he wants a country where his kids are safe to grow up under good family values-based laws, he can live in a more conservative state. People are more free to choose the laws that are ideal for them.

The difference between your choice in government and your choice in market services is that governments are limited by the exclusivity of jurisdiction. Two governments cannot (peacefully) occupy the same space, although two businesses can. The only way to provide more choices when space is limited is through decentralization.

Yet somehow, people seem to think that it is necessary for everyone to live under the same social norms that they do, and support nonsense like big federal government. It doesn't make sense to me.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
You make this choice every day, when you decide not to leave. The social contract can be terminated without penalty by either party.

[/ QUOTE ] It goes deeper than this. Nobody is forced to work in the U.S. They only pay taxes if they choose to work AND choose to stay in the country. Last time I checked, in fact, they only pay taxes if they make over a certain ammount in the market... That is all there is to it, and everyone knows in advance that this is teh case.

The incentive to work could be your post tax income, if you want to do it. It is your choice though.

[moorobot]

The most obvious problem with this view, is, of course, children born to people in different areas. It will then be involuntary for all of them where they are born, and where they grow up!!!

And it would be child abuse to let a kid grow up in an AC society. Too much violence, and the massively increased chance of the parents actually commiting what we call child abuse, since there is no law, and the child can't really effectively go to or even get to a 'private arbitrator' by himself can he? (as if he should be expected to in the first place, which is not to say that this system would work because it clearly won't). A human rights violation that should be prevented.

The next most is the high probability of warfare amongst the states, which is badly worsened because of ideological differences between them, the fact that some won't be democracies (who almost never fight each other), and the fact that they are so close together geographically.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it could not, because "society" does not exist in any meaninful sense. Individuals benefit from the existence of other individuals, not "society." I forget who made this challenge on these boards first, but it's brilliant: Please show me "society" without showing me any individuals. Show me your "family" without showing me the individuals that comprise it.


[/ QUOTE ] This is suppose to mean something?

"Indivduals" do not exist in any meaninful sense. Show me "individuals" without showing me any cells. Show me your mother without showing me the individual cells that comprise her.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cells don't make decisions, individuals do. Human choice is at the heart of the issue my friend.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The most obvious problem with this view, is, of course, children born to people in different areas. It will then be involuntary for all of them where they are born, and where they grow up!!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have some way to prevent this? There's no concievable way to prevent the natural variances of where children are born. Oh right, you want to remove ALL the choices, so that everyone lives the same life.

[ QUOTE ]
And it would be child abuse to let a kid grow up in an AC society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's talking about AC? I outlined the fact that governments need to geographically decentralize if we are to have more options in the laws we want to live under, through the example of sovereign states. How does this translate into pure anarchy?

[ QUOTE ]
The next most is the high probability of warfare amongst the states

[/ QUOTE ]

It's happened once before, and it was BECAUSE there was a union telling the states what to do.

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
About 30% of all wealth is gained via specualtion right now as opposed to any kind of socially beneficial work right now in the U.S. And this percentage has been increasing for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Why does "society" have some right to benefit from individuals' work?



[/ QUOTE ]

Could it possibly be because the indivual is benefitting from the society's existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it could not, because "society" does not exist in any meaninful sense. Individuals benefit from the existence of other individuals, not "society." I forget who made this challenge on these boards first, but it's brilliant: Please show me "society" without showing me any individuals. Show me your "family" without showing me the individuals that comprise it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. If you want to be an obtuse idiot and not allow the substitution of the simple word "society" for the complex phrase "the sum total of all interacting individuals and their interactions", so be it. The point remains the same. Perhaps you might want to respond to it in some sort of material fashion, rather than irrelevant sidebars.

Feel free to Replace All instances of the word "society" with that phrase in my future posts, for I have no desire to pander to obtuse idiocy.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, its part of the agreement when you choose to be a member of the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this agreement? I don't recall signing it. Can you produce my signed copy for me?

[/ QUOTE ]

The agreement is the law of the land. You don't have to sign it precisely because it is terminable by either party without prejudice. There is no possible circumstance where either party would be required to prove that you agreed to it. Interaction with other members of the society is proof enough. If you wish to enjoy the benefits of interacting with members, you agree to it, if you don't you don't. What you don't get to do, however, is try to get a free lunch by interacting and enjoying the benefits, then trying to claim that you aren't a part of the society, and therefore should not have to pay the membership fees (taxes).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Complaining about "involuntary" taxes is like signing up for electric service, then complaining when they bill you at the end of the month.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a signed agreement with the electrical company. It states the terms explicitly, has an effective date and terms that cannot be unilaterally violated. I can control the amount of company provided electricity that I use. I can even choose to use no company provided electricity at all. None of these things are true of taxation and the so-called "services" that are thrust upon me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? So you no longer have a choice as to how much work you do (and therefore how much taxes you pay)? Working is involuntary now? As far as I know, it is still perfectly possible for you to build a cabin on an isolated plot of land in Idaho or somewhere, and subsistence farm and hunt, and not interact with any part of society. You won't be benefitting from society, and therefore you won't owe anything to society (in the form of taxes).

[ QUOTE ]
"Love it or leave it" in 3, 2, 1 . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not "love it or leave it", its "stop trying to get a [censored] free lunch from the rest of us".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, its part of the agreement when you choose to be a member of the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did any of us make this "choice"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You make this choice every day, when you decide not to leave. The social contract can be terminated without penalty by either party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leave where? And why do I have to leave the continent I was born on in order to make this "choice"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Leaving doesn't necessarily mean physically. It simply means stop interacting with other members of the society. If you are able to secure a remote cabin in the wilderness of Idaho and are capable of living a hermit's subsistence life, more power to you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it could not, because "society" does not exist in any meaninful sense. Individuals benefit from the existence of other individuals, not "society." I forget who made this challenge on these boards first, but it's brilliant: Please show me "society" without showing me any individuals. Show me your "family" without showing me the individuals that comprise it.


[/ QUOTE ] This is suppose to mean something?

"Indivduals" do not exist in any meaninful sense. Show me "individuals" without showing me any cells. Show me your mother without showing me the individual cells that comprise her.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cells don't make decisions, individuals do. Human choice is at the heart of the issue my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in fact choice is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

Anyway, cells and societies both make as many choices as humans do, for any meaningful definition of the word "choice".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is forced to work in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's wrong. You're always telling us that people are forced to work, else they will starve.

[ QUOTE ]
They only pay taxes if they choose to work AND choose to stay in the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

No bank is forced to keep money in the valut. I only rob them if they choose to keep money in the vault (AND the bank is nearby - I'm too lazy to travel very far to rob banks).

[ QUOTE ]
Last time I checked, in fact, they only pay taxes if they make over a certain ammount in the market... That is all there is to it, and everyone knows in advance that this is teh case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only rob profitable banks. I let banks that are having a hard time get by without robbing them.


BTW, since you argue that people aren't "forced" to pay taxes since they aren't forced to have pretax income (even though you argue they *are* forced to work when that particular argument suits you), are governments "forced" to levy taxes? Governments aren't "forced" to have lots of spending that causes them to need money.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Love it or leave it" in 3, 2, 1 . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not "love it or leave it", its "stop trying to get a [censored] free lunch from the rest of us".

[/ QUOTE ]

You, sir, are preaching to the choir /images/graemlins/smile.gif