Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security
From: New Dark Ages (nda_at_ignorance.is.bliss.invalid)
Date: 01/20/05
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Bill Gates and Tsunamis"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: "Why the Georgist movement has not succeeded:" - by Warren Samuels"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Socialism is a Mental Disease: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Next in thread: Socialism is a Mental Disease: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Reply:(deleted message) Socialism is a Mental Disease: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:59:03 GMT
root@localhost. wrote...
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:09:34 GMT, New Dark Ages
> <nda@ignorance.is.bliss.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >root@localhost. wrote...
> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:32:17 GMT, New Dark Ages
> >> <nda@ignorance.is.bliss.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >root@localhost. wrote...
> >> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:06:39 GMT, New Dark Ages
> >> >> <nda@ignorance.is.bliss.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >root@localhost. wrote...
> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:48:44 GMT, New Dark Ages
> >> >> >> <nda@ignorance.is.bliss.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> It remains for you. For me, it doesn't. For me it's a matter of first
> >> >> >> >> principles, namely, that I have the following rights: life, liberty
> >> >> >> >> and property.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Well, you're certainly entitled to your little ideology.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's not an entitlement, it's a right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Heck, maybe we agree. How do you define "property" and "liberty" ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Property (strong sense): whatever one creates and does not relinquish
> >> >> control of. Derives from the Principle of Self-ownership.
> >> >
> >> >What's the "Principle of Self-ownership" ? The idea that we're the
> >> >property of ourselves?
> >>
> >> Yes, the very simple idea that we have full control of ourselves at
> >> all times.
> >>
> >> >> Property (weak sense): whatever one controls exclusively through the
> >> >> threat of use of force.
> >> >
> >> >Land ownership is immoral, then? (Natural resource, controlled
> >> >exclusively through the [threat of the] use of force?
> >>
> >> To be immoral, it would have to violate some principle. For the life
> >> of me, I cannot think of one it would.
> >
> >You don't have any principles about when it is moral or immoral to
> >use force--i.e., it's always moral to use force? Particularly when
> >you're using it to exclude others from something that isn't yours in
> >the first place, by your own definitions?
>
> The problem is that it isn't theirs either. Why should it be immoral
> to exclude others if others have no moral claim to what I am holding?
> That's why I don't think there is a clear philosophical principle on
> which to stand for moral guidance here.
When is it moral to use force? Force is what's being used to exclude
others from natural resources.
> >Why don't you just say you don't HAVE any principles! Or, that you
> >abandon them for personal gain (which is the same thing as saying you
> >don't have any).
>
> Because I *DO* have principles. They simply say nothing about
> ownership of natural resources.
But there can't be any ownership of natural resources, by your own
definitions. It's not property, and you didn't claim inherent rights
to 'life, liberty, property, and all non-property I can forcibly
exlude others from.'
And you have yet to describe your principles around the use of force.
When it is moral to use force? And is it moral to use force when it
is not expressly moral by your answer to the previous question?
> I deleted the rest of your arguments because they simply dwell on the
> same thing and I believe I've answered already.
The key unanswered question is when, in principle, is it moral and
immoral to use force? This is a key question because it gets to the
heart of the moral right to use force to exclude others from a
natural resource--since you have said that this exclusion is enforced
by the [threat of the] use of force.
So I've re-introduced some deleted text. Read it again and answer:
Is it moral or immoral for you to kill me if I try to cross that
piece of land to get to the river without paying your toll? Why, or
why not?
[quote]
> >Excluding others from access to natural resources is intrinsically
> >infringing on the liberty of others, then?
> > Given that the others are free to do exactly the same, I don't think
> so. Because land ownership is based on force, we end up having either
> war (ex: Israel vs. Palestine) or some kind of fair agreement.
It can hardly be a fair agreement if it's coerced. I'd like to walk
across that piece of land to get to the river, but if I do you'll use
force to wound or kill me. So I agree to pay you a toll, and you
agree to give me access to something you have no right to exclude me
from in the first place. And my only options are: Paying the toll in
perpetuity; removing you by force; finding another route to the river
and being subject to another toll from you or whomever has the
ability to threaten force over that area of natural resource.
Is that the kind of 'fair agreement' you're thinking of? It doesn't
sound very fair to me. It sounds like the kind of thing street thugs
do when they muscle money out of people to walk on "their" street.
[/quote]
- Next message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Bill Gates and Tsunamis"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: "Why the Georgist movement has not succeeded:" - by Warren Samuels"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Socialism is a Mental Disease: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Next in thread: Socialism is a Mental Disease: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Reply:(deleted message) Socialism is a Mental Disease: "Re: Wages, Inflation and Social Security"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
