perv:
You’re pretty close to libertarian, from what I’ve seen of your posts.
Yes. I agree with libertarians on many subjects. But I think I disagree with them…
OK, I just went to the libertarian web site to find an issue I disagreed with them on. I couldn’t find one. Maybe I am a libertarian and didn’t know it. I have always shied away from the party because there are some pretty nutty people in it here locally.
Who knew?
I agree, ** pervert ** your beliefs sound fairly close to libertarianism to me. You might want to use that label, if you think it works for you.
BTW, I purposely said I thought you were libertarian, and not Libertarian (ie, referring to the party). I, too, shy away from the party because of the nuts, but also because of the anarchists.
Telling point, there.
In recent years, considering how the Democrats seem to be getting more conservative, but the Republicans seem to be acting more like Great Society Democrats (even to the point of starting a war)… in recent years, I’d simply begun defining “liberal” as “epithet cast upon someone in order to discredit his political savvy, his thinking, and his basic intelligence and common sense; a name applied to someone the speaker does not want others to listen to too carefully.”
At least, that seems to be how people like Limbaugh and Coulter use it.
I understood. I jut looked up the party as the easiest place to get teh libertarian perspective. From a brief overview I’m not sure they have as much data to back up some of their policies. But many of the ideals I can agree with.
I actually consider myself an objectivist (without the Rand cult overtones that word sometimes carries). But in terms of the OP, I think some parts of liberalism are appropriate, and some parts of conservatism. The difficulty, of course, is trying to squeaze the multidimentional spectra of political theories out there into the binary choice of liberal or conservative.
** I am saying that the rules of ownership are defined by society, or the social contract if you will. If we had a social contract where no one owned anything then he wouldn’t own anything. Hence, he owns what he owns because society says so.
In other words, they do so by working together… in a society. Without society he has no language or clothes or anything. Thus my point that he should stop complaining about the necessity of paying for what he has already taken. Or even more succinctly: TANSTAAFL
This is a bit idealistic but I will go along so long as “powers granted by the individuals” is defined as “any powers the individuals let the leaders get away with having”.
Again that seems idealistic. I wish that were so but it seems to me that it is government mostly by the few mostly for the few. BTW, why do you think the 2nd statement contradicts the first? I mean, other than the lack of “by the society” in the 2nd statement they are the same thing. As you say, the society is the people.
Well I think you’ll have a hard time finding people like this, absent your interpretation of the silliness of the ideas.
I agree with this almost unreservedly. I think most laws meant to enact change should also include the means with which its success can be measured; if the success cannot be measured, then it should mostly be considered a wasteful use of public resources. The category difference here would be for things like extending or restricting rights whose success is simply their implimentation. So for an example, allowing gay marriage is an end in itself, while increasing the education budget is a means to an end, and how well the means works should be measurable or to some extent understandable.
The initial problem with this would be competing legislation; for example, that we would increase the budget for paying schoolteachers with the intent of getting more teachers, yet other legislation that would adjust teachers income in order to retain existing ones. The requirement to think in terms of expected results and holistic effects would greatly benefit legal action in the future, but come at a great cost initially as restructuring and rethinking is done about legislation.
I think this is only true of means to an end. Given the category difference I did above, though, we could see some topics vacillate. For instance, broadening the police’s ability to conduct surreptitious searches (so-called “sneak and peek” warrants) could be seen as a means to an end, or an end in itself. If it was the former, we should expect certain results; if it was the latter, we should expect some sort of clarification of the fourth amendment (a definite modification to it rather than judicial interpretation). At least, I would expect so, but apparently this isn’t how our legal system works, so what can I say. I would change many things about the existing system.
Even though I agree, I do so in a more ideal sense. This requirement might actually prove to be beyond anyone’s realistic capabilities. Without providing real examples for “normal” legislation it is always easy to maintain a position like this.
All of your responses rely on the same flaw. So I’m going to concentrate on this one since it exemplifies it more.
You have the origination backwards. Property rights exist without societies. Societies are instituted in order to protect them (amongst other rights). Although, clearly 10 people have the power to take the property of an individual. This power does not confer a right. It certainly does not abrogate the individuals right to his property.
Obviously, no system of government is perfect. So the actuality of a particular governments protecting particular citezens rights may vary. That is, governments should protect property rights. Sometimes they may perpetrate violations of this right. Such perpetration does not necessarily render the right irrelevant. Even in societies which perposely set out to destroy property rights (USSR) the basic tenets of economic activity were still in place. Some people had more money than others. Some people were able to aquire more goods than others. Essentially the society operated as if everyone had private property, but the legal system routinely denied such a right.
The point of all this in regards to the rest of your post, is that I may owe certain individuals for my language, clothes or streets. But most of them I have paid. The road builders were well compensated. So were the clothing manufacturers. I think teachers don’t earn enough, but they did voluntarily agree to whatever wages they got for teaching me, so we can’t say I still owe them any money.
Meanwhile, none of this implies that I owe a bum in New York a living wage. If you know of one of my teachers who is out on the street, I’ll be on the next plane. But if you think that the fact that I had teachers means I need to support the drug habbit of some junkie on the other side of the country, you are sadly mistaken.
Preview pervert, preview. Sorry about the spelling gaffs. And use of the word “got” My mother would be so disappointed.:smack:
Jesus was a liberal. 
No. He owns what he owns because he has legitimately obtained it, without force or fraud. If “society” (which you wrongly and wrongheadedly equate with “the governement”) said that he did not, then “society” would be in error. The fact that “society” could bring force to bear against him, in order to enforce its views upon him, does not make this hypothetical “society” correct in its views, nor does the preponderence of force make its use of that force legitimate or morally just.
Umm… no. Ove person, alone, can sew a shirt or plow a field. It may not be the single most efficient use of every person’s time to do each such thing for himself, but that does not mean single persons, alone, are incapable of it, without the mighty blessings of “society”. Furthermore, if one man contracts with another to purchase a shirt, or employs another man to plow his field, it does not follow that, because more than one person is involved, all people are involved.
Your invocation of Heinlein is peculiar - I cannot see how it relates to anything else you have said.
[
No. The sociey is the persons - by which I mean, the myth of the overriding will of collective society, as a moral force to justify coercion, is not supported by any legitimate derivation from the social contract. If I have dealing with another person, then clearly both persons’ wishes must be considered. If, on the other hand, I have dealing with another person, and various uninvolved persons wish a voice in our private dealings, or “society” wishes a voice in our private dealings, or an organization claiming to represent “society” wishes to intrude upon our private dealings, then I am not obliged to assign their wishes any moral force - nor any force at all, save that of the armed robber who insists upon being obeyed on pain of harm. In short, you are entirely wrong, though this has nothing whatsoever to do with *Reeder.
On preview, I am compelled to note not only that my coding is atrociously bad, but that pervert is definitely libertarian-leaning. One can be so, of course, without being (big L) Libertarian Party-leaning.
**I take a different view of rights. Your hypothetical rights don’t change the fact that in a society where all property is held in common no individual owns property. Let me be clear. You may choose to believe that an individual has a right to some property and you may think of it as his but that has no effect in the real world of our imaginary society. The individual trying to keep that property to himself would still be subject to the antihoarding part of the social contract. Others would still feel free to use the property you consider his and if he refused them he would have to face the penalties for his selfishness.
This is why I reject the notion of “universal rights”. If they have no effect upon the real world then what use are they? It seems to me they are just an excuse for their believers to avoid having to make the case for their preferences and at the same time feel morally superior to those who disagree. I could, for instance, claim that I have a “natural right” to have sex with whoever I please and then complain that those who refused me were selfishly denying me my rights. Clearly that’s silly but no more than you claiming people have an “inherent right” to own their house or car or teddy bear or whatever. I think instead it works better if we understand rights as those privileges that are generally respected by others and enforced when they are not.
John Mace wasn’t really complaining about having to give money to individuals. That was the most convenient way for him to frame it to support his point of view but that’s not what he was objecting to. No one comes along and makes him hand money to the road construction crew or anything. He is whining about taxes. Taxes go to support the society. No one is forcing him to pay to support our society. If he doesn’t like it he can always get out. If he chooses to stay in society but still complains about having to pay then he’s an ingrate. Society ain’t free.
I’m not saying you do. I’m saying that if society determines it’s best to pay bums in New York a living wage then you should foot your fair share of the bill. If you want to argue that we shouldn’t pay them then fine. Go for it. If you want to argue that your share is too high, also fine. But you are in this society along with the rest of us so if you can’t change enough minds to change the policy you need to pony up or move on.
Actually, some of the opposition to the nuclear waste dumping in the Yucca Mts. came from conservative sources. They viewed it as a violation of states’ rights, coming from a stricter interpretation of the constitution that gave more power to the states (especially with regard to the reach of the commerce clause). It’s a constitutional issue.
Also, part of their complaint is that the federal government has failed to adhere to its own regulations regarding the selection of nuclear waste dump sites. (The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.)
** In your opinion. Our hypothetical charactor doesn’t inhabit Libertaria.
In your opinion. See my above post about “universal rights” as an excuse to feel morally superior while avoiding the need to actually justify a preference.
True. Nor does it make it unjust or illegitimate. Legitimacy and justice are in the eye of the beholder. Your belief that someone deserves to own property similarly doesn’t make owning property legitimate or just.
** Sure it can be done. Try it if you like.
Of course. But if this is done within a society then others are involved.
Like lunch maintaining a society ain’t free.
In your opinion. Convince enough others and that will actually matter.
Be careful where and how you choose to exercise this hypothetical freedom you claim. Your belief won’t mean diddly in a court of law.**
Saying so don’t make it so. And fighting ignorance is what this board is about. I hope Reeder doesn’t mind. If he or the authorities want me to take it elsewhere I am willing.
**2sense ** are you seriously proposing that might makes right? Are you really a complete relativist? Anything society claims as your rights are your only rights? Do you really read polls to determine what you are entitled to?
I found most of your post very difficult to follow. you started saying “I take a different view of rights.” Followed by a criticism of what you think my view of rights is. You did not describe what your view of them amounts to. Thus my confused questions above.
2sense would have society decide how much reproductive rights women have.
No, I think it is worse than that. He would have nothing we believe mean anything unless a quorum of “society” agreed.
“Legitimacy and justice are in the eye of the beholder. Your belief that someone deserves to own property similarly doesn’t make owning property legitimate or just.”
Of course how we are to agree or disagree when the ideals we hold are merely illusions is not clear.
** Yes, I am a moral relativist. I don’t believe there is any absolute right or wrong. I am completely against the idea that might makes right however. When it comes to morals right and wrong is an opinion. I believe in democracy. Since all individual moral opinions are equal the only fair way for the government to judge is to count them up and see which is more popular.
I have my beliefs and they are not subject to change based upon popularity. OTOH I think that is how government should be run: majority rule.
I did describe my opinion but briefly so it’s no surprise you missed it. I said, “I think instead it works better if we understand rights as those privileges that are generally respected by others and enforced when they are not.” I believe in civil rights and I believe in them because I can see them in action. While I can’t speak for all other liberals I do know that some here share this view.
On preview, adaher is right but you are mistaken.