Well that depends. Life is not a photograph of a moment; it’s a motion picture. Did I own the land before you lusted for the orchard, or did you own the orchard before I grabbed the land? That’s why the NP distinguishes between initial F&D and responsive F&D. You work, save, and buy your own land, and I will do the same. You plant apple trees if you want, and I will do the same.
Suppose that I own a company and refuse to hire you. Am I imposing unemployment on you? On the other hand, suppose that you have a law and I *must * hire you. Are you not imposing a decision on me? By yet another permutation, let’s say that I have a law that prevents you from working where you wish. Am I not imposing my will on both you and your prospective employer? If you owned the orchard, then you can call upon your government to defend it from me. If I own the land, then I can call upon my government to defend it from you.
Meanwhile, I don’t know why this sort of contention need be the default. Frankly, I cannot think of a better circumstance than sitting with you in an apple orchard, whether yours or mine, and discussing things like this. I submit that when laws from big all-emcompassing plans are so complicated that only a select few have the means and education to unravel and interpret them, neighbors must be wary of one another lest they get swallowed up in the grand plan from far away. On the other hand, when neighbors must live or die by their willingness to cooperate voluntarily, I submit that they tend to do things like help each other build barns and chat together under apple trees.
Obviously, this is unrealistic, but the most entertaining scenario would be for the US ambassador to France to deliver a politely worded request for extradition without pre-conditions to the appropriate French officials.
Attached to the request would be a Xerox of the extradition request we sent to the Taliban. The return address would be Kabul.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - If the first request had no effect, the second request would be written in German. That oughta scare 'em into anything.
No. See, the problem is that you can’t step out of the “we” thing. Quite frankly, what it is is that I am not allowing you to do is speak and decide for me. I am saying that stewardship of your own life is sufficient to occupy every one of your waking moments. You do not need, and in fact cannot bear, the burden of living my life for me as well as your own for you. So, what it is that I — I alone — am enforcing for myself — myself alone — is what you call “property privilege”. And I am saying that I do not believe that I can decide for you to what ethical principles you should adhere. If you want to share your property with others, feel, um, free. If you want to hoard your apples and give me none, that is your business and not mine. Or if you want to invite me over to share them, that is up to you. “We” are not doing anything. You are doing for you, and I am doing for me. If you are constantly busy examining how I live my life, then I submit that your own affairs are starving for attention.
OK, but if one hoards so many apples that some go hungry, I would consider that to engender forceful coercion, and would cheer the hungry on when they met it with similar force.
Of course, good hearts all around would make the distinction moot. Perhaps our two worlds are one and the same after all - we merely disagree on how to get there.
Oh, I routinely cheer on civil disobedience. Consider a much more sober example than the apples — that of a small child whom you witness being abused by an anarchist neighbor. I, for one, would swoop down upon the man, beat him senseless, and rescue the child. Then, I would accept my fate. You see, I differentiate between morality and ethics this way: morality concerns that which is between a man and his God (if he is a man of faith) or conscience (if he is otherwise); while ethics concerns only that which is between a man and his fellow man. I might have no ethical right to rescue the child or to steal your apple to feed a hungry child, but I do believe that, according to my own God and conscience, that I have not only a moral right, but a moral obligation to disobey the law. Put another way, an ethical right might or might not constitute a moral obligation, and conversely, it is a mistake to institute morality into the ethical compulsion of law. As you say, we probably merely disagree on how to get there. Therefore, I grant you the freedom to go your way, and I will go mine. If you try to stop me, I will resist you. Otherwise, I will be pursuing my own happiness in my own way, and celebrating the fact that you are doing the same.
I’ll decide what mine is, and you decide what yours is. That’s what consent means. You might ask, “But what if there’s a conflict?” Well, would that be anything new? Is the NP introducing conflict into politics? Of course not. It is merely reestablishing what the ethical basis of conflict is — in other words, there will be no conflict until someone somewhere intiates it. I often see people cite ancient scribbles to bolster their views and I often attack those scribbles and those views, but only because of the assertion that rights come magically from them.
There indeed are other ancient scribbles that I like, such as some of those from scripture and some of those from a source I’m about to give you. But before I do, I would ask as a personal favor that your read them deliberately and carefully, pretending that you have never seen them before. I like them because they rightly, in my view, identify the source of legitimacy for governments and law. I do realize that you are not bound by them, and neither am I. And I know that some of the phrases are rather dated, and that even the men who wrote them did not always abide by their spirit. But it summarizes for me what government is all about — an entity legitimized by my consent to secure my rights. I am highlighting certain portions so that you can look into my brain and see how I read them.
Consider:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I agree completely. And I do not believe that it means some men, or most men, or a group of men who comprise a ruling class — but all men (and women, of course). Each and every individual one. For why should one man have these rights and not another?
