Hmmm, I don’t think I’m inferring that. I’m just saying that the distinction here is not actually one between “imposing beliefs” and “not imposing beliefs”.
Then you’d have to make a convincing case for that. You really haven’t. It’s abundantly clearly that only party seeking to constrain others because of their chosen beliefs here is Nygren.
Okay. Who exactly owns “The Glorious People’s Socialist Moon Base”, and what property and/or sovereignty rights are implied in its existence?
Again, you’re dragging in a whole bunch of unexamined baggage about default assumptions concerning rights, and expecting me to evaluate your scenarios as though they were baggage-free.
You went off on a wild tangent about lunar property rights, and now you’re complaining that it’s confusing the issue?
Wait, you think I was the one who went off on that tangent? I was responding to Babale in post #241 asking me a bunch of hypothetical questions about “his” hypothetical moon base where he’s “selling homes” in a lunar colony.
I don’t think you can really blame me for talking about lunar property rights in the context of answering the questions that Babale asked me.
The problem is, if I need to spell it out, that any hypothetical situation dealing with control of activities on some territory necessarily involves a bunch of underlying assumptions about property and sovereignty rights over said territory. You can’t set up such a hypothetical and pretend that those underlying assumptions aren’t relevant.
I apologize, I may not have followed the entire story arc of the rise and downfall of lunar capitalism carefully enough.
I’m not in favor of any one group gaining intellectual property rights to the moon, but I hope some precedent can be set before plans are taken to carve the faces of Ronald, Donald and Elon into the surface; viewable from earth
I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. The point is that there’s no system of property rights management that does not run into the religious rights question. You can make Elon Musk Lunar King, or you can abolish the entire concept of private property, and you’re still faced with the same questions about where you draw the lines between one individual’s religious beliefs, and another individual’s actions.
Why would that bother you, if it’s not doing any objective harm?
I mean, a widespread opinion in this thread seems to be that individuals should not be prevented from doing whatever they want (and can pay for doing) on the moon, as long as their actions are not causing any objective harm.
You personally might not like seeing a sort of lunar Mt. Rushmore portrait of Elon Musk when gazing at the moon, but as long as it’s not causing objective harm, you’d be SOL.
Yes, yes I do.
What are you egen talking about?
I used terms like “my” to establish in the narrative thay I am the person making the decision, not because I believe this is the best way to organize a moon base or because I’ve never examined the assumption that this would be the only way to do it. I didn’t spend much time on it because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Who the fuck cares? How would the answer to this question affect the answer to the question below?
By what metrics do you think that this decision making group should decide which of the religious groups described above are making valid requests that should be granted, which are making reuqests that should be listened to but rejected, and which are downright offensive?
What is condescending is your repeated insistence that we have completely failed to take our assumptions into account and in fact don’t even know that they exist.
(Written before I saw your edit)
No one’s argued that you shouldn’t be bothered by something that does no objective harm. The argument is that the government shouldn’t prevent people from doing something that does no objective harm. There’s a lot of shit people do that bothers me, but I don’t try to pass laws against them doing it, because just “bothering me” isn’t a sufficient excuse for exercising government power against someone.
The government could close up some tax loopholes and finally address a host of issues that have gone begging (“objective harm” to the suckers at the bottom) while the super rich indulge in vanity projects. And that includes a lot of religious exemptions; Judeo-Christian and Indigenous Peoples alike.
Did you miss the “viewable from Earth” part of the hypothesis? Apparently not, but you seem to be glossing over that critical difference.
All moral systems are composed of a large number of competing values. While “personal autonomy” is very high up in my personal hierarchy of values, “Fuck Elon Musk” is at almost as high. When cross-indexed with my belief that “The moon is pretty” (which is generally pretty low in my hierarchy of beliefs that influence my ethical behavior) the “personal autonomy” value bends here, allowing me to support banning that asshole from carving his heinous mug into the lunar surface.
There is no harm done by desecrating the dead - they can’t feel a thing, right? Laws concerning the dead, of which this case is all about, are about offending religious / spiritual ideas, but it’s the majority who’s feelings are considered worthy of legislation. The Navajo never objected to scientific work on the Moon.
Oh, is that considered “objective harm”?
It is ridiculous to suggest that you cannot understand the difference.
Please explain to me how a Navajo person would know that these remains were on the Moon, if the mission went in secret?
It’s certainly open to argument whether merely seeing any particular thing is harmful and to what degree, but whatever is happening is objectively real. Photons are hitting eyeballs. The concept of a pleasant view vs an unpleasant view is not controversial.
Laws against desecrating the dead can mostly be justified under either property rights or public health. The harmed party in this case isn’t the corpse, it’s the “owner” of the corpse, which would either be the next of kin, or the state in the case of people without identifiable heirs.
How is that relevant, since the commercial enterprises working to place cremains on the moon are doing their best to make it not secret? That (space)ship has sailed.
I honestly don’t get how “Pretend you don’t know there are cremains on the moon” is unambiguously or incontrovertibly a more valid denial of “objective harm” than “Pretend you can’t see, or just don’t look at, the Elon Musk portrait on the moon”.
If merely seeing something you don’t want to see is not in fact causing “objective harm”, then it would seem that the presence of an Earth-viewable Elon Musk portrait on the moon is not per se more “objectively harmful” than the presence of human cremains on the moon.
Because the thought experiment highlights how the claimed “harm” to the Navajo is entirely a function of the intolerance of their superstition, and not an objectively real phenomenon.
It’s honestly getting tiresome that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between “offense” and objective harm. The difference is obvious, and the bankruptcy of any system that adjudicates based on claimed subjective offense is equally obvious. You can trump any claim of subjective offense by a claim of greater subjective offense. I’m not going to debate this in circles with you.
ETA: I should say the claimed harm to Nygren, because of his belief. I do not believe that most Navajo adhere to his fundamentalism.