|
Post by rmarks1 on May 25, 2019 14:29:39 GMT -5
This is what you actually said: "Robbing other people so the government can provide for your safety is not compatible with the claim that property rights are a universal human right". Now did you see me say that ONLY my rights should be protected? I didn't. Not ever. And what does that change about the argument? You are still argueing that the human right to property can be violated arbitrarily as long as it yields benefits to you and/or an arbitrary group of people. "Everyone" is not an arbitrary group. "Everyone" means that no one is excluded. Your argument applies only if one group is excluded. Therefore your argument is false. Argument by insult. Pointing out your errors is not a derailment. Nor is it a tantrum. And you are claiming the distinction I made makes no difference. But (as usual) you didn't bother to give any evidence as to why. That's Argument by Dogmatic Assertion. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 0:12:29 GMT -5
And what does that change about the argument? You are still argueing that the human right to property can be violated arbitrarily as long as it yields benefits to you and/or an arbitrary group of people. "Everyone" is not an arbitrary group. "Everyone" means that no one is excluded. Your argument applies only if one group is excluded. Therefore your argument is false. 1. So even people who live outside the US have the right to be protected by the US government? How do you reconcile that with immigration and freedom of movement across borders not being human rights? 2. Does this mean every single human being is entitled to government protection? Or does the government choose freely how many it wants to protect? 3. How is this a negative right when the government is made to do something, and people are made to support the government in this (via taxation etc.)? I've explained why it makes no difference: I can only explain my reasoning by writing. Reading my explanations is something you have to do for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2019 2:21:19 GMT -5
"Everyone" is not an arbitrary group. "Everyone" means that no one is excluded. Your argument applies only if one group is excluded. Therefore your argument is false. 1. So even people who live outside the US have the right to be protected by the US government? How do you reconcile that with immigration and freedom of movement across borders not being human rights? No one in each country is excluded. Freedom of Religion is also a Universal Right. But that doesn't mean the U.S. government is obligated to send troops to other countries if their religious freedom is being violated, does it? Every government is obligated to protect all of its citizens. The Negative Right is to have your life free from violence. Government enforcement of that right is a means to an end. It is a Derivative Right. And of course the government is made to do something. Governments don't have rights. Only individuals have rights. The protection of those rights is the government's sole purpose. I did read it. And I answered it. "Everyone" is not an "arbitrary group of people. It is everyone in the country. A right has to be Universal for everyone in the country or it is not a right at all. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 10:58:06 GMT -5
1. So even people who live outside the US have the right to be protected by the US government? How do you reconcile that with immigration and freedom of movement across borders not being human rights? No one in each country is excluded. Freedom of Religion is also a Universal Right. But that doesn't mean the U.S. government is obligated to send troops to other countries if their religious freedom is being violated, does it? But people from other countries are excluded when talking about the US, and vice versa. Correct? So when talking about human rights on US territory, they're not universal human rights, they're human rights for US citizens residing in the US, and no one else. Right? Nobody else has any human rights within US territory. Does that mean citizens are required to pay for everyone's protection? Should the government have the power to violate their right to property by robbing/taxing them over this? What if they don't feel like paying, is the government obliged to violate their right to property, against their will? But that's in contradiction with your response to 2: "Every government is obligated to protect all of its citizens." It is not a means to an end, it is a universal obligation towards everyone, to be carried out by every government. If it was a negative right, then the government would only protect those who couldn't protect themselves, and only in cases where no other method would be found to work, and even then, nobody would be obligated to support it by law - and by giving the government the power to violate private property no less. You have not introduced these into the discussion so far. Please explain what a derivative right is, where it originates, and why it is necessary. But not just the government. People are made to support it, even though you yourself have argued that safety is a negative right, and therefore implies no obligation on part of any one person - after all, that would be slavery, correct? Then how come that the right to property is routinely violated by the government? How can you say that you are free when you are obligated to pay taxes for other people's protection?
Isn't that a form of slavery, according to your own premises?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2019 12:00:19 GMT -5
No one in each country is excluded. Freedom of Religion is also a Universal Right. But that doesn't mean the U.S. government is obligated to send troops to other countries if their religious freedom is being violated, does it? But people from other countries are excluded when talking about the US, and vice versa. Correct? So when talking about human rights on US territory, they're not universal human rights, they're human rights for US citizens residing in the US, and no one else. Right? Nobody else has any human rights within US territory. When was the last time you heard of tourists in the USA being denied human rights? Human rights are Universal in the sense that all countries should recognize them. For example, all countries should have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Rights like these are Universal and must be granted to everyone who is in the country. In order to protect everyone's rights (including the right to property) the government has to set up a protective apparatus. This is the only exception to the right to property. Defending everyone's life and property does cost money. Since the protection is for everyone, then everyone must pay. And everyone should get the same protection. No contradiction here. The government does have the obligation to protect everyone because that is the only proper purpose of government. This is the only way the government can protect your negative rights. Not at all. Negative Rights are Universal. They must apply equally to everyone. For example, if you call the police because someone is trying to break into your house, they don't ask you how much money you have before they send help. The full quote is: "The Negative Right is to have your life free from violence. Government enforcement of that right is a means to an end. It is a Derivative Right." Once basic Negative Rights are recognized, the next question is how they are to be protected. The Right to Government Protection Derives from our basic Rights. Therefore it is Derivative. That's all. Yes, there is no obligation on the part of any one person. After all, if another person has the obligation to protect you, then they also have the obligation to protect everyone else as well. That could be a little tiring, right? That's why the government is set up in the first place. In today's world, yes. But that is because governments today routinely go beyond their basic purpose: protection. Yep. It's a concession. But it's the only concession that everyone has to make to protect all of their rights. The problems start happening when the government goes beyond its only purpose of providing protection from violence and fraud. Again, the only alternative to Limited Government is Anarchy. Is that what you are proposing? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 15:20:21 GMT -5
Again, the only alternative to Limited Government is Anarchy. Is that what you are proposing? Bob If we accept the premise that taxation is theft and slavery, then anarchy is the only moral alternative. Do you agree that taxation is theft and slavery?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2019 16:28:15 GMT -5
Again, the only alternative to Limited Government is Anarchy. Is that what you are proposing? Bob If we accept the premise that taxation is theft and slavery, then anarchy is the only moral alternative. Do you agree that taxation is theft and slavery?
How can something that can never work be "moral?"
You would probably love the books of Murray Rothbard.
Taxation is theft and slavery. Unfortunately it can never be eliminated. But it can be minimized. So that's the best course of action.
There are people who have chronic ailments for which there is no known cure. But in many cases, the effects of the disease can be minimized.
Until a cure is found for the disease of government, minimization is the only way to go. Do you have a cure that works?
But to claim that the cure for the disease is to make the sickness stronger is absurd.
Which doctor would you prefer to go to? One who says "I can't cure you but I can minimize the effects of your sickness", or one who says "I can't cure you but I can make the symptoms much worse!"?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 18:51:49 GMT -5
If we accept the premise that taxation is theft and slavery, then anarchy is the only moral alternative. Do you agree that taxation is theft and slavery? How can something that can never work be "moral?" Complex Question fallacy. Besides, I've yet to see a successful libertarian state. Do you know any? You mean the libertarian-fascist "dark enlightenment" figure and gold standard fetishist? I doubt it. But you do not suggest to minimize it. You suggest that it is morally correct to enslave people when done for morally correct goals. According to your argument, the end of protecting an arbitrary group of people justifies the means of slavery and robbery. Slavery is correct, when done for the correct goal. Human rights only mean anything when they do not conflict with a higher goal, such as capitalism or keeping the social order. This is a) a Red Herring since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and b) total nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2019 21:43:24 GMT -5
How can something that can never work be "moral?" Complex Question fallacy. Wrong. A Complex Question Fallacy assumes facts not in evidence. Example: Do you still beat your wife? No facts are being assumed when I ask how something that can never work could be moral. As I have explained many times before, we know Libertarian states can work from the fact that countries that move closer to Free Markets seem to have the greatest economic success. Examples would be Hong Kong under the British and Singapore Now THAT is a Complex Question Fallacy. You haven't established any of those claims as facts. Laughably wrong! I just said that minimization of government power is the best course of action. And in your very next sentence you say that I did not say what I clearly said! As usual you don't give any quotes of what I actually said to back that up. Once again, you are just making things up. As usual, you give no quotes of what I actually said. I never said any such thing. You are making it all up. Nope. I never said that either. You're just making up things and then claiming I said them. Unfortunately for you, my actual words are right on this post. And none of them correspond to what you claim. Claimed but not demonstrated. Since I am still talking about government minimization, what I say is connected to the topic under discussion. And since you give no supporting evidence at all (surprise) you have not demonstrated that it is nonsense. So your claims are false. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2019 12:20:00 GMT -5
Complex Question fallacy. Wrong. A Complex Question Fallacy assumes facts not in evidence. Example: Do you still beat your wife? No facts are being assumed when I ask how something that can never work could be moral. Indeed. And you have no evidence that anarchism "never works". You are assuming facts not in evidence. So you would say that this is what a libertarian economy looks like: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Race,_gender_and_civil_rights en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Torture_of_criminal_suspectsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#PaleolibertarianismI couldn't find a link for his advocacy for the gold standard specifically, but his advocacy against central banks and fractional reserve lending makes such a position extremely likely. How is stealing and robbing people a minimization of government power? You are argueing that taxation is alright as long as it is being done to protect human rights which you consider valid, such as personal safety. We have established that taxation is theft and slavery. So please explain how advocating for slavery to support the government's protection of human rights is not a justification for slavery. You are in favor of taxation, right? That means you support the government in its forcible violation of private property.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 27, 2019 13:17:17 GMT -5
Wrong. A Complex Question Fallacy assumes facts not in evidence. Example: Do you still beat your wife? No facts are being assumed when I ask how something that can never work could be moral. Indeed. And you have no evidence that anarchism "never works". You are assuming facts not in evidence. Actually there is plenty of evidence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Examples_of_state-collapse_anarchyThank you for presenting more evidence that Anarchism doesn't work. You have just refuted the claims of the leading 20th century Anarchist. When government powers are limited, they won't be able to steal much money. That's the best that can be hoped for. If you have a better way to do things, I would like to hear it. Do you? It's a minimization of slavery and it's the best we can hope for. Do you have a better system? I favor limiting government action to the most minimum possible. That's the best we can hope for. If you can think of any better system, please tell us about it. Do you have a better system? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2019 15:06:48 GMT -5
It's a minimization of slavery and it's the best we can hope for. Do you have a better system? I favor limiting government action to the most minimum possible. That's the best we can hope for. If you can think of any better system, please tell us about it. Do you have a better system? Bob How about not enslaving people? Or do you consider that unthinkable?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 27, 2019 15:17:56 GMT -5
It's a minimization of slavery and it's the best we can hope for. Do you have a better system? I favor limiting government action to the most minimum possible. That's the best we can hope for. If you can think of any better system, please tell us about it. Do you have a better system? Bob How about not enslaving people? Or do you consider that unthinkable?
Uh McAnswer. In case you haven't looked lately, slavery has already been outlawed over most of the world.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2019 16:00:21 GMT -5
And yet you are here justifying it as necessary to run your ideal libertarian state, and argueing that not abolishing, but merely minimizing it, being the best possible outcome:
Yep. It's a concession. But it's the only concession that everyone has to make to protect all of their rights. The problems start happening when the government goes beyond its only purpose of providing protection from violence and fraud. Again, the only alternative to Limited Government is Anarchy. Is that what you are proposing? Bob
It's a minimization of slavery and it's the best we can hope for. Do you have a better system?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 27, 2019 19:28:04 GMT -5
And yet you are here justifying it as necessary to run your ideal libertarian state, and argueing that not abolishing, but merely minimizing it, being the best possible outcome:
Yep. It's a concession. But it's the only concession that everyone has to make to protect all of their rights. The problems start happening when the government goes beyond its only purpose of providing protection from violence and fraud. Again, the only alternative to Limited Government is Anarchy. Is that what you are proposing? Bob
It's a minimization of slavery and it's the best we can hope for. Do you have a better system?
Obviously I meant Full-Time Slavery has been outlawed.
Also, I asked you: "If you can think of any better system, please tell us about it. Do you have a better system?
You answered: "How about not enslaving people? Or do you consider that unthinkable?"
That's not a system of government or economics. SPECIFICALLY do you have a better system than minimum government Free Market Capitalism?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 6:50:51 GMT -5
And yet you are here justifying it as necessary to run your ideal libertarian state, and argueing that not abolishing, but merely minimizing it, being the best possible outcome: Obviously I meant Full-Time Slavery has been outlawed.
Also, I asked you: "If you can think of any better system, please tell us about it. Do you have a better system?
You answered: "How about not enslaving people? Or do you consider that unthinkable?" That's not a system of government or economics. SPECIFICALLY do you have a better system than minimum government Free Market Capitalism?
Bob
Yes. Not enslaving people. That's inherently better than enslaving people.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 28, 2019 9:52:59 GMT -5
Obviously I meant Full-Time Slavery has been outlawed.
Also, I asked you: "If you can think of any better system, please tell us about it. Do you have a better system?
You answered: "How about not enslaving people? Or do you consider that unthinkable?" That's not a system of government or economics. SPECIFICALLY do you have a better system than minimum government Free Market Capitalism?
Bob
Yes. Not enslaving people. That's inherently better than enslaving people.
Not enslaving people. Wonderful. Now what are the specifics of your social plan?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 12:14:23 GMT -5
Yes. Not enslaving people. That's inherently better than enslaving people. Not enslaving people. Wonderful. Now what are the specifics of your social plan? Bob
What "social plan"? Please be more specific.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 28, 2019 13:31:26 GMT -5
Not enslaving people. Wonderful. Now what are the specifics of your social plan? Bob
What "social plan"? Please be more specific.
I asked you: "SPECIFICALLY do you have a better system than minimum government Free Market Capitalism?"
You answered: "Yes. Not enslaving people. That's inherently better than enslaving people."
But there is all sorts of ways to not enslave people. What specific way did you have in mind and how would it be set up?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 15:56:07 GMT -5
What "social plan"? Please be more specific. I asked you: "SPECIFICALLY do you have a better system than minimum government Free Market Capitalism?"
You answered: "Yes. Not enslaving people. That's inherently better than enslaving people." But there is all sorts of ways to not enslave people. How can there be a multitude of a lack of something? All I am advocating is that people not do something we have already established as morally wrong. Any system not built on slavery is by definition morally superior to all systems built on slavery.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 28, 2019 18:13:41 GMT -5
I asked you: "SPECIFICALLY do you have a better system than minimum government Free Market Capitalism?"
You answered: "Yes. Not enslaving people. That's inherently better than enslaving people." But there is all sorts of ways to not enslave people. How can there be a multitude of a lack of something? All I am advocating is that people not do something we have already established as morally wrong. Any system not built on slavery is by definition morally superior to all systems built on slavery.
Fine. Now all you have to tell us is what that system is and how it works.
Can you?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 12:18:49 GMT -5
How can there be a multitude of a lack of something? All I am advocating is that people not do something we have already established as morally wrong. Any system not built on slavery is by definition morally superior to all systems built on slavery. Fine. Now all you have to tell us is what that system is and how it works.
The system is the absence of slavery, also known as not enslaving other people for your benefit. Is this a novel concept for you, Bob? Do you believe that human rights can only exist in a society that condones slavery?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2019 13:53:24 GMT -5
Fine. Now all you have to tell us is what that system is and how it works.
The system is the absence of slavery, also known as not enslaving other people for your benefit.
Is this a novel concept for you, Bob? Do you believe that human rights can only exist in a society that condones slavery?
"Absence of Slavery" is not a system. It is only one feature of a system.
How does the rest of the system work?
Or didn't you work that out yet?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:55:33 GMT -5
The system is the absence of slavery, also known as not enslaving other people for your benefit.
Is this a novel concept for you, Bob? Do you believe that human rights can only exist in a society that condones slavery?
"Absence of Slavery" is not a system. It is only one feature of a system.
But it is the fundamental and defining feature of a free society.
How could you build a free society when you would not even clear that first conceptual step - not enslaving others?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2019 13:59:33 GMT -5
"Absence of Slavery" is not a system. It is only one feature of a system.
But it is the fundamental and defining feature of a free society.
How could you build a free society when you would not even clear that first conceptual step - not enslaving others?
Fine. Now what's the second step in your society?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 20:09:21 GMT -5
It's not "my society".
I am simply pointing out the logical conclusion to draw from the premises you laid out in the beginning of this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 29, 2019 21:12:45 GMT -5
It's not "my society". I am simply pointing out the logical conclusion to draw from the premises you laid out in the beginning of this discussion.
That's right. It isn't "your society" because you have nothing better to offer than the Free Market and Minimal government.
If you manage to find anything better than the Free Market and minimal government, please let us know. In the meantime, you will have to agree that Minimal Government and the Free Market are the best possible alternative to produce maximum freedom that can be offered.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2019 3:45:59 GMT -5
It's not "my society". I am simply pointing out the logical conclusion to draw from the premises you laid out in the beginning of this discussion. That's right. It isn't "your society" because you have nothing better to offer than the Free Market and Minimal government. So what you are saying is that the Free Market and Minimal government cannot exist without slavery. Why exactly do you think they're so great, then?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 30, 2019 11:02:17 GMT -5
That's right. It isn't "your society" because you have nothing better to offer than the Free Market and Minimal government. So what you are saying is that the Free Market and Minimal government cannot exist without slavery. Why exactly do you think they're so great, then?
I thin the Free Market and Minimal Government are great because they reduce taxes and government intervention to the absolute minimum.
Now please answer my question. Do you have a better alternative system? How would your alternative system run?
Would it run?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2019 15:32:22 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that the Free Market and Minimal government cannot exist without slavery. Why exactly do you think they're so great, then? I thin the Free Market and Minimal Government are great because they reduce taxes and government intervention to the absolute minimum. "the absolute minimum" for slavery would be no slavery at all, and you have already admitted that your system would be incapable of realizing that. It's just another authoritarian slave society with a pretty ideological paint, like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. I have already answered your question. Any alternate system must be based on not enslaving people.
|
|