Libertarianism

[pErvinalia]

You do realize that money is equal to speech don't you?

Well, in a fashion it can be. But the point is - how is that fair in a supposed democracy of 1 person = 1 vote? Why should someone with a billion dollars have 10,000 times the effective votes of someone with $100,000? The amount of money you have shouldn't give you more influence over the political process. The political process in a democracy is supposed to be governed by the principle of 1 person = 1 vote.

The amount of money one spends on a campaign doesn't give the donor more than one vote per person, it merely persuades more people to vote as the donor is suggesting they vote.

Your complaint assumes that voters are idiots and the only thing they consider is how glitzy the ad is and how often they see it.

BAZINGA! "Rational actor" guff, right there! Actually, if you understood human psychology, you would know that people don't take decisions that are wholly rational, and they ARE terribly influenced by all sorts of environmental variables.

As I said, Libertarianism is a science denying ideology.

Where did you get that stupid idea? Libertarianism is silent on science, it's a political and social philosophy, not a science experiment.

Because it all hinges (at least outwardly) on the concept of the "rational actor". You espouse this in just about every post you make on the subject. Including the one I quoted.

Throw in "natural rights" guff, and it's not much different from catholicism.

So what? That doesn't mean that they aren't rational actors, it just means that you disagree with their reasoning. You're not the font of all rational wisdom you know.

Rationality has a pretty narrow definition. There are whole divisions of Psychology that study this phenomenon. It is absolutely testable by science, and the results are overwhelmingly in support of the case that humans aren't wholly rational.

As for "natural rights," why shouldn't one hold that position? It's perfectly rational, as I have discussed in detail, if one eschews theism. Just because you don't accept the Organic Rights argument doesn't mean it's unscientific or false. It's entirely scientific in fact because it relies only upon observable natural behavior of living creatures and derives the principles from those observations. You may feel that government grants you rights, which is fine with me, but I don't. Government can't grant something it never had to begin with. Government is not a "thing" it's an activity of human beings (and some other creatures in fact), and as such "government" cannot have "rights" any more than it can have legs or eyes. All government has is powers and authorities granted to it by the human beings who comprise and authorize it to act on their behalf.

I don't have a problem with some of the "principles" you draw from your Organic Rights stuff. I just happen to be of the view that morals really are a "might is right" thing. If a strong society says that 'x' is good and 'y' is bad, then that's the way it is for that time and place. I wondered in some thread somewhere a couple of days ago whether you had read Sam Harris' Moral Landscape and what you thought of it. I'd be interested to know.

So no, "natural rights" are not in the least unscientific, and are far more grounded in science than your assertion that government "creates" rights out of thin air.

It comes down to how we define "rights'. If rights are nothing more than a logically defensible statement of a state of being, then "rights' is a functionally useless concept. If "rights" are defined as something that can be defended (and may or may not be logically defensible), then that makes much more sense in the context of societies.

[MrJonno]

Cogently put, but you still evade the central question: What is your moral argument for forcing Person A to labor on behalf of Person B against his will?

To stop person B starving, on a small scale you can probably just ask, when there are millions of Person A and B you do it via taxation.

A minimum quality of life for everyone is more important than a unlimited qualify of any individual.

One day we will probably get to the stage where the rich will be able to live indefinitely, there can be only one result for this and that would be for it to be made illegal

[pErvinalia]

Cogently put, but you still evade the central question: What is your moral argument for forcing Person A to labor on behalf of Person B against his will?

To stop person B starving, on a small scale you can probably just ask, when there are millions of Person A and B you do it via taxation.

A minimum quality of life for everyone is more important than a unlimited qualify of any individual.

How someone can't see the moral case in this, baffles me.

Essentially, someone else's right to life, trumps your right to excess.

[MrJonno]

Long live the collective!

[pErvinalia]

Well, I AM Stalin.

[Seth]

Rationality has a pretty narrow definition. There are whole divisions of Psychology that study this phenomenon. It is absolutely testable by science, and the results are overwhelmingly in support of the case that humans aren't wholly rational.

So what? Humans don't have to be "wholly rational" to still be rational actors.

As for "natural rights," why shouldn't one hold that position? It's perfectly rational, as I have discussed in detail, if one eschews theism. Just because you don't accept the Organic Rights argument doesn't mean it's unscientific or false. It's entirely scientific in fact because it relies only upon observable natural behavior of living creatures and derives the principles from those observations. You may feel that government grants you rights, which is fine with me, but I don't. Government can't grant something it never had to begin with. Government is not a "thing" it's an activity of human beings (and some other creatures in fact), and as such "government" cannot have "rights" any more than it can have legs or eyes. All government has is powers and authorities granted to it by the human beings who comprise and authorize it to act on their behalf.

I don't have a problem with some of the "principles" you draw from your Organic Rights stuff. I just happen to be of the view that morals really are a "might is right" thing. If a strong society says that 'x' is good and 'y' is bad, then that's the way it is for that time and place.

Situational ethics and moral relativism make it so easy to justify any sort of horror don't they?

I wondered in some thread somewhere a couple of days ago whether you had read Sam Harris' Moral Landscape and what you thought of it. I'd be interested to know.

I have not, but if I run across it I'll give it a look.

So no, "natural rights" are not in the least unscientific, and are far more grounded in science than your assertion that government "creates" rights out of thin air.

It comes down to how we define "rights'. If rights are nothing more than a logically defensible statement of a state of being, then "rights' is a functionally useless concept. If "rights" are defined as something that can be defended (and may or may not be logically defensible), then that makes much more sense in the context of societies.

You're correct. My construction is an attempt to define rights in a more scientifically supportable manner than the abstract philosophical notion that "rights" are what somebody else says they are. That makes little sense and seems to be quite illogical.

If a "right" is some sort of guarantee of a freedom of action by one person, it makes no logical sense to say that this "right" is the product of what someone OTHER than the person exercising it says it is. That's just tautological because if a "right" can be redefined at will by others, then in what way is it a "right" to begin with?

This is why I derive the Organic Rights from nature, because the laws of nature that control the Organic Rights are immutable characteristics of every living organism and that's the only way that they can be called "rights" in the first place, because the only logical definition of a "right" is that it's a freedom of action that can be defended against intrusion by others.

Anything else, particularly Jonno's concept of "rights" is meaningless twaddle because in his "society grants rights" construct nothing may be asserted as a "right" because everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority and the decision about what freedoms of action are allowed or forbidden has no firm foundation but is entirely subjective, which makes calling it a "right" superfluous and erroneous.

A better description of his (and your) construct is that no such thing as "rights" exist, and that the individual may not assert or engage in any freedom of action that is not approved of by the collective. ("All that is not expressly permitted is forbidden.")

That's clearly the Marxist model, and it's not only philosophically bankrupt, it's ethically and morally bankrupt and a great evil for anyone who believes in individual liberty.

[Seth]

Cogently put, but you still evade the central question: What is your moral argument for forcing Person A to labor on behalf of Person B against his will?

To stop person B starving,

Why is Person A responsible for the well-being of Person B? Why is Person B not responsible for his own well-being?

on a small scale you can probably just ask, when there are millions of Person A and B you do it via taxation.

Why?

A minimum quality of life for everyone is more important than a unlimited qualify of any individual.

Is it? Why is it? And why is not each individual responsible for achieving his or her desired minimum quality of life? Why is Person A responsible for the quality of life of Person B? You state broad platitudes without any discussion of the philosophical, moral or ethical foundation for your assertion that "A minimum quality of life for everyone is more important than a unlimited qualify of any individual."

More importantly, you present a false dilemma fallacy by claiming that failing to provide for others results in an "unlimited quality of life" for the individual.

One day we will probably get to the stage where the rich will be able to live indefinitely, there can be only one result for this and that would be for it to be made illegal

And how would you justify the murder of someone merely because they are long-lived?

[MrJonno]

Why is Person A responsible for the well-being of Person B? Why is Person B not responsible for his own well-being?

Social consensus same basis for any morality (its not as if there are any natural objective morals are there)

Is it? Why is it? And why is not each individual responsible for achieving his or her desired minimum quality of life? Why is Person A responsible for the quality of life of Person B? You state broad platitudes without any discussion of the philosophical, moral or ethical foundation for your assertion that "A minimum quality of life for everyone is more important than a unlimited qualify of any individual."

Same reason

And how would you justify the murder of someone merely because they are long-lived?

Basic biology that the people have to die so that others can live. The other alternative would be to be ban reproduction

If resources get that tight there going to have be those sort of limits, I guess the rich had better hope we have colonized a few planets by the time it happens.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why is Person A responsible for the well-being of Person B? Why is Person B not responsible for his own well-being?

Social consensus same basis for any morality (its not as if there are any natural objective morals are there)

Very true. But, you may be wrong about where the consensus is, at least from time-to-time.

And how would you justify the murder of someone merely because they are long-lived?

Basic biology that the people have to die so that others can live. The other alternative would be to be ban reproduction

If resources get that tight there going to have be those sort of limits, I guess the rich had better hope we have colonized a few planets by the time it happens.

Eventually, yes. That's why the space program, particularly manned space flight, is so important.

Otherwise, once science tweaks the genes such that humans are far longer lived and relatively disease-free, there will have to be a form of Logan's Run society imposed. There will be population limits and euthanasia. There is only one place to go to avoid that sort of thing, and the ultimate (relatively near term, as in "thousands of years") demise of the human species -- and that is "up" and "out."

[MrJonno]

We dont' really need any new science to live indefinitely just new technology, we need fundamental new undiscovered physics to get to the stars.
Main restriction on the moment on biological technology is bio ethics, you simple can't pay a doctor to bypass all the safety rules

[Coito ergo sum]

We dont' really need any new science to live indefinitely just new technology, we need fundamental new undiscovered physics to get to the stars.
Main restriction on the moment on biological technology is bio ethics, you simple can't pay a doctor to bypass all the safety rules

Whether we create the science to live indefinitely or not, the human species is history within a few thousand years, most likely. At best, we'll suffer a global cataclysm of some sort and be depopulated down to a small number. It's not millions of years that we have left. Any number of things can happen in the short term (e.g. the Yellowstone Caldera, which is overdue to erupt according to geologists and vulcanologists) to wipe us out.

There is only one way -- and one way only - to extend the life of the human species beyond the order of thousands of years. And, that is to move some of our eggs out of this basket.

[Jason]

Clearly we need to develop FTL travel and spread out to the stars. Cut the population on earth down to maybe 500 million and keep it as a garden planet. Industrialize some dustballs with rich resources but little or no indigenous life. Terraform new planets. Build enormous space stations with populations of a few million. Stuff like that.

[Seth]

Why is Person A responsible for the well-being of Person B? Why is Person B not responsible for his own well-being?

Social consensus same basis for any morality (its not as if there are any natural objective morals are there)

"Social consensus" is not an argument, it's reiteration of tyranny of the masses, by which metric you would probably be offed.

Is it? Why is it? And why is not each individual responsible for achieving his or her desired minimum quality of life? Why is Person A responsible for the quality of life of Person B? You state broad platitudes without any discussion of the philosophical, moral or ethical foundation for your assertion that "A minimum quality of life for everyone is more important than a unlimited qualify of any individual."

Same reason

Evasion.

And how would you justify the murder of someone merely because they are long-lived?

Basic biology that the people have to die so that others can live. The other alternative would be to be ban reproduction

And who gets to make that decision? Based on what criteria? And who executes the oldsters?

Every argument you make is just about as amoral and psychotic as anything I've ever heard anyone say.

If resources get that tight there going to have be those sort of limits, I guess the rich had better hope we have colonized a few planets by the time it happens.

Well, since "the rich" are self-evidently better adapted to life and are better able to survive, since they have a proven record of taking care of themselves, and the dependent class leeches who either refuse to work or have failed at everything they've tried, if we're going to go down the Darwinian dead-end road, I'd say the ones that have to go are the poor, the sick, and the disabled. That makes much more sense than killing the genetically superior who have succeeded in living longer than everyone else.

Besides, "the rich" are going to have all the guns and soldiers to prevent anyone from killing them, while the dependent class is going to have bricks and bottles. That means a short and nasty end to the proletarian uprising.

[JimC]

Clearly we need to develop FTL travel and spread out to the stars. Cut the population on earth down to maybe 500 million and keep it as a garden planet. Industrialize some dustballs with rich resources but little or no indigenous life. Terraform new planets. Build enormous space stations with populations of a few million. Stuff like that.

And keep our technological base always improving by engaging in a war to the death with giant, evil insectoid aliens...

[Beatsong]

Cogently put, but you still evade the central question: What is your moral argument for forcing Person A to labor on behalf of Person B against his will?

To stop person B starving,

Why is Person A responsible for the well-being of Person B? Why is Person B not responsible for his own well-being?

Person B IS responsible for his own well being - and by teaming up with a bunch of other Person Bs (aka "The Collective") he can achieve that well being by forcing Person A to labour for him. So there's your answer.

The problem with your disingenuous excuse for a philosophy is that it doesn't even begin to address any question of consistency. All Person A needs as justification for his unilateral declaration of property and his enforcement of that declaration upon others, is the sheer physical power to do so. That power IS the morality (according to you, apparently).

But the moment the boot is on the other foot, you're all concerned for the sanctity of civilised morals, and every action has to prove itself according to thorough ethical examination before being acceptable. That's nothing but hypocritical bullshit. You established the parameters - of power creating morality - so you can fucking well live with them when they're applied in ways you don't like.

Now I know you would counter that the right to property is difference because it doesn't impinge upon anyone else. But as I've pointed out a thousand times before, that's bullshit too. A claim to property is, automatically, a claim of what other people AREN'T allowed to do (ie, what they're not allowed to do with your property). The idea of a property claim that doesn't impact upon others' exercise of their liberty is an oxymoron. Property is by definition a restriction of liberty - the liberty of all those who don't own the property.

So we can dispense with that old canard, and all we're left with is what we're always left with by this point:

"The sheer physical power to assert and defend a right is what MAKES it a right, and is all that's required to justify it, IN CERTAIN SELECT CASES FOR CERTAIN SELECT PEOPLE. However, you need to provide a compelling philosophical and ethical justification for the actions of all OTHER people in OTHER situations. However, I'm not going to provide any rationale whatsoever why some of us, sometimes, are subject only to the first principle and everyone else, other times, is subject to the second."

on a small scale you can probably just ask, when there are millions of Person A and B you do it via taxation.

Why?

[/quote]

So that the Person Bs can live and eat. All they're doing is making a claim over property and then defending it. Just like the white man did with the property of the Native Americans. Call it "war of conquest" if it makes you feel better. So that's OK then.