Freedom Infringing Freedom

[username]

One doesn't; however, no one would need to. It should be the function of the police and prosecutors to prove that you were at fault. If you showed responsibility by trying to get your neighbor to turn down his stereo, and made complaints about it to the valid authorities, that should be seen as a viable defense.

Well in this example, I am assuming the position that was expressed previously that the loud stereo doesn't constitute a property rights violation therefore there is no ability to invoke the authorities into the matter. Personally I think this is a poor example because I view noise pollution as a violation of property rights.

But if it's what people want, then it's something a free market will provide. If a community wants to be safer, they can form a neighborhood watch group, as many of them do.

I think there are numerous public functions that are in place because the free market doesn't provide for them. Public schools are an example. If the taxpayers weren't subsidizing the cost we would have a lot of uneducated people because the market isn't going to open a school in a poor area where parents can't afford tuition. The market does provide solutions, but only to people who can afford the solution. The market is not need driven, it is profit driven. The market based system is great, and I am no commie , but it isn't sufficient all by itself to meet the needs of a modern society.

You need to be careful, here. There is a difference between taking action against (say) a careless gun owner who is recklessly endangering others before he actually injures or kills someone, and a corporation who has no intent or maybe even ability to pollute but who must comply with onerously strict regulations anyway. US companies pay out more money complying with government regulations than they make in profits. I don't see any way how that can be justified.

I agree with you here.

Well, at least one guy tried. I believe he called it "Communism." [/B]

Your point is well taken and this is something I struggle with. I used to consider myself a libertarian, these days I just call myself libertarianish. I don't believe a strictly libertarian ideology is sufficent in a modern society. To deviate from libertarian ideology is to move toward socialism. I despise socialism, but to me it is a matter of degree. If libertarian ideology isn't sufficient then it means we require a blended solution and this solution inescapably will be a mix of libertarian and socialist ideas.

I prefer something with the lowest degree of socialism possible, but I don't see some degree of socialism as avoidable in a functional society with a high quality of life.

 

[Ed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Yes, and when you buy a forest, that's usually standard.

Maybe where you come from but I could buy hundreds of acres today in CT and have no restrictions on the trees that grow there. The trees are mine, after all. Any restriction would be specific to that parcel and would be part of a private deal and not involve the government. Do you realize how placing a restriction on a purchase impacts the selling price?

That just means that the limits that are placed on ownership are codified beforehand.

Yes, but generally not with government involvement. There will always be someone in line with a deal that I like and no restrictions (providing I pay the price).

It's not my view, it's how it actually works whether I agree with it or not. People are not allowed to use certain drugs, or they are not allowed to be euthanised when they want to. So they are not allowed to make all decisions concerning their bodies themselves.

Certain drugs? Like which ones?

The government.

And they do this because they are wise or have our best interests at heart? You think that that is alright?[/QUOTE]

 

[shanek]

I think there are numerous public functions that are in place because the free market doesn't provide for them. Public schools are an example. If the taxpayers weren't subsidizing the cost we would have a lot of uneducated people because the market isn't going to open a school in a poor area where parents can't afford tuition.

That's incorrect for two reasons: 1) most private school tuition is less than the amount spent per student by government school systems, and sometimes is even less than half the amount; and 2) numerous scholarship and financial aid options based on need are examples. And that doesn't even include the fact that we wouldn't need the current level of taxation without the governmnet schools.

That's without even looking at the quality of education issues.

The market does provide solutions, but only to people who can afford the solution.

Uh, no. As I said, many need-based options exist.

If libertarian ideology isn't sufficient then it means we require a blended solution and this solution inescapably will be a mix of libertarian and socialist ideas.

I see. And what evidence do we have that libertarianism would not be sufficient?

I prefer something with the lowest degree of socialism possible, but I don't see some degree of socialism as avoidable in a functional society with a high quality of life.

What would prevent a government system with a low degree of socialism from growing closer and closer to socialism as time goes on, as the US has done?

 

[username]

That's incorrect for two reasons: 1) most private school tuition is less than the amount spent per student by government school systems, and sometimes is even less than half the amount; and 2) numerous scholarship and financial aid options based on need are examples. And that doesn't even include the fact that we wouldn't need the current level of taxation without the governmnet schools.

While it is true that some private schools charge less than the public schools, those private schools don't provide education to special needs kids in most cases. It is those children who raise the average cost. Even if I accepted that once things were made to be an apples to apples comparison the cost of private education would be lower than public this still wouldn't mean it would be affordable to all. In a modern society an uneducated child becomes a criminal adult. We either pay for the eduation or we pay for the crime and incarceration.

That's without even looking at the quality of education issues.

It is my opinion that public schools, on the whole, do a good job. The problem areas are generally the ghetto neighborhoods where there are serious family structure/parenting issues. There are, of course, exceptions.

Uh, no. As I said, many need-based options exist.

Yes, you did and I agree that there are options for financial assistance, but there are options for college assistance as well and still not everyone can afford college. K-12 are far more important than college and I don't think I would want to let some kids get overlooked. They will become the next generation of criminals. There is absolutely nothing stopping a private school from opening in one of these ghettos and taking the kids from these areas into thier private school. Yet, this is not happening. Why not? How would getting rid of public schools change this?

I see. And what evidence do we have that libertarianism would not be sufficient?

My opinion on libertarianism is that it falls short in 2 key areas.

The first area is that it doesn't recognize the concept of society, it focuses on individuals exclusively. Modern societies are integrated individuals with dependencies upon other individuals. Prior to the industrial revolution this would work fine, but as soon as people came closer together in terms of geography and began pooling resources to meet common needs we have deviated from an individual only economy/social structure. No government legislated this, it is simply what happens when societies form and laws will end up reflecting this change. There is zero chance we are going to find people willing to take responsibility for planning and maintaining roads even if it could work, nobody wants the responsibility. Same thing with public education, people want it. Some will choose homeschooling and private schooling, but the majority are going to want public education to exist therefore it will continue to exist.

Secondly, the libertarian idea of private property is another example of not recognizing the interconnected nature of modern societies. Pollution is an issue and libertarianism has no answer to it. The libertarian argument is that nobody would pollute thier own land if they really owned it because it would lower thier property value. That doesn't take into account the pollution that affects other people's property in ways that are difficult, if not impossible to prove. Libertarianism puts too much of a burden on those harmed to prove they were harmed before any action can be taken against the aggressor. This results in a lack of regulations that people want like pollution laws, noise laws and the like.

What would prevent a government system with a low degree of socialism from growing closer and closer to socialism as time goes on, as the US has done?

Nothing. This is the struggle I have with my own position. I think it is similar to the struggle the founders of the US had when they reasoned that our system of government could only work if the people's character was fit for it.

The only thing that could restrain the drift toward increasing socialism is the will of the people. Then again, in any system of government it is only the will of the people that ultimately determines everything and anything, even in a dictatorship.

 

[Tudor]

Earthborn:

Usually I would not respond to such drivel, but since I am new here and you seem to be mistaking me for somebody who would value your "input", I will endeavour to give you a sense of the countless difficult problems you're ignoring while trampling upon ideas. Pay attention, since this is the only opportunity of its kind:

1) "If we assume this is true" - If we assume what is true? A rule? A norm? Are moral rules TRUE? Who do you think you are, Kant? (this is an insult, of course, but it is not a gratuitous one: Kant really did say that moral rules were true, or rather he set out to find the necessary conditions for their truth).
Your very first six words show me you completely ignore classical and contemporary moral and political philosophy, on the one hand, and semantics and philosophy of science, on the other (I must point out that by "semantics" I don't mean "english vocabulary").

2) "If we assume this is true, than [I'm guessing "then" is in order here - my note] nothing is designated as yours alone". This is surreal. Let's suppose for a second that we forget that moral rules are neither true nor false (see (1) also). Let's also skip the poor choice of words which transforms the sentence I quoted into a logical gem ("If "something is X" is true, then "there is no thing that is X" is true").
I'm going to try to make this as clear as possible: you're stating that my proposed rule is not the existing law. So what? Who said it was? shanek said one SHOULD use property rights to settle conflicting claims of rights, not that the law DOES that, and your (nonsensical) answer to his statement was a hilarious attempt to show that in some cases (restaurant & air) his solution doesn't work. I showed you why you were wrong, by proposing a CONSISTENT interpretation of property rights as rules that forbid certain types of behaviour. Nobody said this is the law.

By the way, is that what you asked when you asked about the ownership of the air, what does the law have to say about it? Or you simply asked how would a moral philosophy grounded on property rights would settle the matter? I will return to this later.

3) "You are not the only one who decides what will be done to your body. There are always restrictions on what you are allowed to do with your property."

Again stating what the law is. This has no bearing whatsoever upon the problems of moral or political philosophy (unless you're into legal positivism - see (4)), problems like: "what rights should people have?", "why should they have certain rights?", "what does it mean that people have rights?" , "are there any conflicting rights?" etc. , problems like those discussed in this thread.
What you quoted was an interpretation of (some) property rights as a moral rule (a proposed moral rule).

4) "The rules are irrelevant in real life where no one has ultimate ownership of anything." What exactly does that mean? What is the source of ownership? The law? Any law? Or just certain type of laws (think of nazi laws and the property legally taken from the jewish people)? I was proposing a consistent set of rules with the specific purpose to settle conflicting claims about rights (or freedoms) The fact they are not laws is obvious. Whether they should or shoudn't be laws is what was being discussed here.
Now some people (notably Hans Kelsen) have basically said that law=rights (legal positivism; of course what it was actually said is A LOT more complicated than that). The problem with this is that it entails the right of the nazis to imprison jews, the right of the stalinists to send people to the Gulag etc. Our moral intuition is outraged by such legal maneuvers, and, equally important, if we accept that law= rights, we have no theoretical instruments left to criticize laws that we feel are improper (such as those already mentioned above).

5) "The rules have no equivalent in any laws, so I don't see how they are any more than your own opinion."
Now I could, if I were in the proper mood, to take you through the history of the proper usage of the word "opinion" or "belief", from Plato to Ayer and Chisholm. But since I think that by "opinion", you meant something else than "belief" ("proposal", that is), I shall let you go and just say: No ◊◊◊◊!? What the ◊◊◊◊ have I been saying? Of course they're proposals; of course they're not true (they're not false either). The question is: are they satisfactory (i.e. are they consistent?; can they settle conflicting claims about rights? should we strive to adopt such rules?)?

People have been discussing matters such as these (the foundation of morality, justice and law, moral rights and legal rights etc) for twenty-five hundred years (since the times of Socrates and the sophists, Aristotle and Plato, until Rawls and Nozick and Dworkin, the degree of sophistication growing and growing). And you jump in the middle of all this with pathetic first grade level comments, like the guy in the Science section that's trying to reinvent theoretical physics without being able to spell properly (I believe his nickname is Kumar).

In order to ever have me answer one of your posts again (or simply in order to not make a fool of yourself again), you should try to read (humbly and slowly) at least some introductory works concerning moral and political philosophy. I for one am not going to be your tutor anymore.

 

[shanek]

While it is true that some private schools charge less than the public schools, those private schools don't provide education to special needs kids in most cases.

Call it anecdotal if you like, but I know a single mother working at a low-paying job who's sending her autistic child to a private school.

It is those children who raise the average cost.

Not really; it depends mostly on the skill levels of the teachers. Most special-needs children don't require any more in the way of infrastructure, materials, etc. than any other child; and I, as a father of an autistic child, should know. They just need a specially-structured class, which, if anything, is easier to provide in a private school as most of them have a lower student-to-teacher ratio.

It is my opinion that public schools, on the whole, do a good job. The problem areas are generally the ghetto neighborhoods where there are serious family structure/parenting issues. There are, of course, exceptions.

Again, call it anecdotal if you like, but the two charter schools in my county (our county ordinances don't allow private schools in the county; bogus, huh?) scored higher for K-6 children than even the highest government school in the county, and higher grade levels were only two-tenths of a point behind the highest.

Yes, you did and I agree that there are options for financial assistance, but there are options for college assistance as well and still not everyone can afford college.

And that's with state-sponsored colleges all over the place. What does that tell you?

K-12 are far more important than college and I don't think I would want to let some kids get overlooked. They will become the next generation of criminals.

Wait...you mentioned earlier that the problems in the government schools mostly stem from people in "ghetto neighborhoods where there are serious family structure/parenting issues." But that's also where most of the "next generation of criminals" comes from. So, why are you chiding the private schools because they won't be able to fix a problem that the government schools can't fix anyway? And most of these children don't learn anyway, and are just a disruptive influence on the rest of the students. It sucks, but that's the reality. So why say private schools can't fix a problem that the government schools can't fix?

There is absolutely nothing stopping a private school from opening in one of these ghettos and taking the kids from these areas into thier private school. Yet, this is not happening. Why not?

Couldn't tell you, as there are no ghettos in my area. In fact, come to think of it, ghettos are the result of government housing projects....Hmmmm.....

We do, of course, have lower income areas, but the private schools seem to have a good selection of kids from all areas and all income levels.

The first area is that it doesn't recognize the concept of society, it focuses on individuals exclusively.

That's because "society" is an imaginary construct. It's kind of like the idea of a "forest." You can't save the forest by destroying the trees, and so you can't protect "society" by infringing on the rights of the individuals that make up that society.

Modern societies are integrated individuals with dependencies upon other individuals.

Yes, and as an example of this I advise checking out the opening post in the "I, Pencil" thread (although, be warned, Claus as usual changed it into a thread of personal attacks).

There is zero chance we are going to find people willing to take responsibility for planning and maintaining roads even if it could work,

Wow...when you say "zero chance," that's quite a big claim, and so I'm going to have to ask you to provide evidence to back it up. Oh, and you also might want to explain all the roads that cropped up early in this country's history before governments started making them. The road I live on, in fact, wasn't originally made by a government; the government just claimed eminent domain and took over the maintenance of it when it took over all the roads in the state.

And the "it's what we all want" claim is just a big fallacy. If it's what we all want, then we don't need to use government force to get it. You only need government force when you want to force your way into other people's lives.

Secondly, the libertarian idea of private property is another example of not recognizing the interconnected nature of modern societies. Pollution is an issue and libertarianism has no answer to it.

That is just absolutely ridiculous. In England, for example, pollution of lakes and streams is kept at bay by private ownership and the private Anglers Conservation Association. This can and does work.

Libertarianism puts too much of a burden on those harmed to prove they were harmed before any action can be taken against the aggressor.

Yes, you have to prove your case in order to deprive someone else of their rights. Why you see this as a bad thing I have no idea.

Nothing. This is the struggle I have with my own position. I think it is similar to the struggle the founders of the US had when they reasoned that our system of government could only work if the people's character was fit for it.

They were referring to the character of the people who understand the Constitution and speak out against and vote out those politicians who violate it. Shamefully, not very many people understand all that today, at least in more than a handful of issues.

 

[shanek]

Usually I would not respond to such drivel, but since I am new here and you seem to be mistaking me for somebody who would value your "input", I will endeavour to give you a sense of the countless difficult problems you're ignoring while trampling upon ideas. Pay attention, since this is the only opportunity of its kind:

Just to let you know: I wouldn't call Earthborn's posts "drivel." Yes, she can make a ridiculous point from time to time (but then, don't we all?), and she has this annoying habit of taking everything down to a philosophical level, but she's an excellent debator and she keeps me on my toes about a lot of things. I find it a delight to discuss things with her. Get to know her and you might find the same thing, too, even if you disagree with her as much as I do.

You made some good points in your posts, though. Thanks for participating, and welcome to the forum!

 

[username]

Call it anecdotal if you like, but I know a single mother working at a low-paying job who's sending her autistic child to a private school.

Ok, it's ancedotal

Not really; it depends mostly on the skill levels of the teachers. Most special-needs children don't require any more in the way of infrastructure, materials, etc. than any other child; and I, as a father of an autistic child, should know. They just need a specially-structured class, which, if anything, is easier to provide in a private school as most of them have a lower student-to-teacher ratio.

I would disagree. A child with autism has no special needs other than for the teachers to teach accordingly. A child without the use of legs requires an elevator if the building is more than one story or requires arranging for all subjects to be taught on only the first floor. A child with medical needs requires a qualified nursing staff to provide for those needs. Not all special needs are going to be as expensive. A private school has the luxury of not admitting the student, a public one does not.

Again, call it anecdotal if you like, but the two charter schools in my county (our county ordinances don't allow private schools in the county; bogus, huh?) scored higher for K-6 children than even the highest government school in the county, and higher grade levels were only two-tenths of a point behind the highest.

It is ancedotal. I am not really arguing that private schools can't do better on tests than public ones in some cases though.

And that's with state-sponsored colleges all over the place. What does that tell you?

Yes. Education, when it isn't completely subsidized by taxpayers is outside the reach of many. There is a strong correlation between educational level and the prison population. It is a pay now or pay later deal and it seems unavoidable.

Wait...you mentioned earlier that the problems in the government schools mostly stem from people in "ghetto neighborhoods where there are serious family structure/parenting issues." But that's also where most of the "next generation of criminals" comes from. So, why are you chiding the private schools because they won't be able to fix a problem that the government schools can't fix anyway?

I am not chiding private schools in any way. I am saying that those ghetto areas are served by public schools, not private ones. Private schools generally don't have any interest in dealing with the issues the kids in these areas present. It is an example of how private education leaves some kids out of the picture due to private education being market or profit driven. If the cost benefit ratio isn't high enough the market will not put a school in an area.

Couldn't tell you, as there are no ghettos in my area. In fact, come to think of it, ghettos are the result of government housing projects....Hmmmm.....

We do, of course, have lower income areas, but the private schools seem to have a good selection of kids from all areas and all income levels.

While government housing may result in ghettos, it only does so because the cost of the housing is often subsidized or controlled. Where I live there is only one area I can think of, about an hour away that has such housing. The rest of the ghetto areas are simply older, run down homes that have low value.

That's because "society" is an imaginary construct. It's kind of like the idea of a "forest." You can't save the forest by destroying the trees, and so you can't protect "society" by infringing on the rights of the individuals that make up that society.

Society is a construct, or as I put it, it is a concept. It is not imaginary though. People willingly form societies. Look at the trends toward city vs rural living. More and more people are moving to cities because of the benefits they provide even though it means giving up some privacy since people are living in closer proximity to others. Cities require central planning for roads, and delivery of utilities and the like in order to function, there is no reasonable alternative.

Taxes become necessary to pay for things like courts and police/fire services, road building, maintaining public property and all the rest. This taxation, some libertarians would argue, is theft. But the trend toward living in or on the outskirts of cities would seem to suggest that people are OK with this theft which would mean it isn't theft at all.
So, taxation itself, is depriving a person of their right to property and in some cases the taxpayer is paying for something they derive no direct benefit from. This is how modern societies, every last one of them, operate. They operate this way out of necessity. If there was another way to handle things surely there would be an example somewhere.

Wow...when you say "zero chance," that's quite a big claim, and so I'm going to have to ask you to provide evidence to back it up.

I can't prove the claim. To me it seems like common sense that most would prefer to pay their property taxes and not worry about roads than have to put in time and effort and budget to handle road building privately. It is my opinion. If yours is different then so be it.

Oh, and you also might want to explain all the roads that cropped up early in this country's history before governments started making them. The road I live on, in fact, wasn't originally made by a government; the government just claimed eminent domain and took over the maintenance of it when it took over all the roads in the state.

Well sure, people can make roads if they need one and government won't do it. My claim was simply that most people, in my opinion, don't want the hassle and would prefer government take care of it for them.

When we are talking about roads in neighborhoods I think these are much more able to be handled privately than highways are interstates connecting areas across large distances.

And the "it's what we all want" claim is just a big fallacy. If it's what we all want, then we don't need to use government force to get it. You only need government force when you want to force your way into other people's lives.



That is just absolutely ridiculous. In England, for example, pollution of lakes and streams is kept at bay by private ownership and the private Anglers Conservation Association. This can and does work.



Yes, you have to prove your case in order to deprive someone else of their rights. Why you see this as a bad thing I have no idea.



They were referring to the character of the people who understand the Constitution and speak out against and vote out those politicians who violate it. Shamefully, not very many people understand all that today, at least in more than a handful of issues. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[shanek]

I would disagree. A child with autism has no special needs other than for the teachers to teach accordingly. A child without the use of legs requires an elevator if the building is more than one story or requires arranging for all subjects to be taught on only the first floor.

Every private school that I've visited has been wheelchair-accessible.

A child with medical needs requires a qualified nursing staff to provide for those needs.

He would require that even if he were to stay at home, so how is this an extra expense for the family or school?

Yes. Education, when it isn't completely subsidized by taxpayers is outside the reach of many. There is a strong correlation between educational level and the prison population. It is a pay now or pay later deal and it seems unavoidable.

What does that have to do with the point I made?

I am not chiding private schools in any way. I am saying that those ghetto areas are served by public schools, not private ones. Private schools generally don't have any interest in dealing with the issues the kids in these areas present.

Well, again, I don't know about "ghetto" kids, but the private schools I know of seem to handle kids from low-income families just fine. Perhaps you should submit some evidence for this point?

Society is a construct, or as I put it, it is a concept. It is not imaginary though.

I consider those to be the same thing. It exists in the human mind only.

People willingly form societies.

No, they don't, otherwise we wouldn't need to use government force to "protect" "society." People willingly form relationships with certain other people, but that's not the same thing.

More and more people are moving to cities because of the benefits they provide even though it means giving up some privacy since people are living in closer proximity to others.

Not the case here; people are more likely to move to the outlying areas of Charlotte than in the city itself.

Taxes become necessary to pay for things like courts and police/fire services, road building, maintaining public property and all the rest.

But those things are all of benefit to individuals.

So, taxation itself, is depriving a person of their right to property and in some cases the taxpayer is paying for something they derive no direct benefit from.

How do individuals not receive a direct benefit from the services you mentioned?

I can't prove the claim. To me it seems like common sense

Common sense is neither common nor sense. Common sense once told us that the sun went around the Earth, not vice-versa. It seems to me that appeal to "common sense" is just a way of saying, "I have no evidence, but it's what I believe." I firmly believe that "appeal to common sense" should be considered a fallacy by skeptics.

Well sure, people can make roads if they need one and government won't do it. My claim was simply that most people, in my opinion, don't want the hassle and would prefer government take care of it for them.

Yes, but that's a big part of the problem.

When we are talking about roads in neighborhoods I think these are much more able to be handled privately than highways are interstates connecting areas across large distances.

Interesting, then, that I've had people in this forum argue the exact opposite...maybe, just maybe, neither situation is as obvious as it seems?

The rest of your post is just an unquoted repetition of my last several paragraphs. Did you inadvertently hit "Submit Reply" without finishing your post? If so, please finish.

 

[Tudor]

Just to let you know: I wouldn't call Earthborn's posts "drivel." Yes, she can make a ridiculous point from time to time (but then, don't we all?), and she has this annoying habit of taking everything down to a philosophical level, but she's an excellent debator and she keeps me on my toes about a lot of things. I find it a delight to discuss things with her. Get to know her and you might find the same thing, too, even if you disagree with her as much as I do.

You made some good points in your posts, though. Thanks for participating, and welcome to the forum!

Thank you (again). You just welcomed me to the forum for a second time (remember my post about the marginal role of experts in science and the mistakes which are ubiquitous in the history of science, posted in a thread about global warming? your first welcome came right after that ).

Concerning Earthborn:

I don't like debates and I don't like debators. I like rigorous arguments that point to internal inconsistencies, underlying assumptions and possible consequences (at least when the subject is basic rules concerning the assignment of rights). That is why I'll take philosophy over rhetoric any day, and indeed I did take it, since this (moral and political philosophy, philosophy of science) is what I am doing (researching) for some time now.

Normally I would let minor nuissances pass, but her philosophical level is no philosophical level of any kind. As far as I can tell, she has no knowledge of moral or political philosophy, classical or contemporary (Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Mill, Marx, Rawls, Nozick - nothing at all), no knowledge of philosophy of law (Kelsen, Schmitt etc) or of the semantics and logic of science (the careless way she uses the concept of "truth" really annoyed me).

I realize now I am not well suited for posting on a public forum. I have neither the time nor the patience to explain elementary terminology when trying to make a simple point, so I seriously doubt I will get to know her.

Tudor

 

[shanek]

Thank you (again). You just welcomed me to the forum for a second time (remember my post about the marginal role of experts in science and the mistakes which are ubiquitous in the history of science, posted in a thread about global warming? your first welcome came right after that ).

Ah, well, that shows you how well my memory works...

I don't like debates and I don't like debators.

Then you probably won't like me, either.

I realize now I am not well suited for posting on a public forum. I have neither the time nor the patience to explain elementary terminology when trying to make a simple point, so I seriously doubt I will get to know her.

Too bad. I hope you won't stay away entirely. You've made some good points and been a positive contributor.

 

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Tudor:
since I am new here and you seem to be mistaking me for somebody who would value your "input"

It is easy to make such a mistake if someone decides to join a discussion board. If you do not value other people's input, you might as well discuss exclusively to yourself.

Are moral rules TRUE?

Depends on how we define 'true'.

I showed you why you were wrong, by proposing a CONSISTENT interpretation of property rights as rules that forbid certain types of behaviour.

However, you have not shown why your interpretation is better than another. If different interpretations cannot be shown to be better or worse, but logically lead to different conclusions then we cannot claim that the issue is settled.

By the way, is that what you asked when you asked about the ownership of the air, what does the law have to say about it?

The law says nothing about it, removing one possible way to settle the issue.

What is the source of ownership? The law? Any law?

If not the law, what is?

Now some people (notably Hans Kelsen) have basically said that law=rights (legal positivism; of course what it was actually said is A LOT more complicated than that). The problem with this is that it entails the right of the nazis to imprison jews, the right of the stalinists to send people to the Gulag etc.

Unless of course one assumes that something can still be morally wrong even if that person has the 'right' (as defined by the society he lives in) to do it.

if we accept that law= rights, we have no theoretical instruments left to criticize laws that we feel are improper

It is still possible to criticise such laws on utilitarian principles. How easy is it to base a society on such laws and how well will such a society fare...

The question is: are they satisfactory (i.e. are they consistent?; can they settle conflicting claims about rights? should we strive to adopt such rules?)?

Or an even better question: are they any better than other proposals?

In order to ever have me answer one of your posts again (or simply in order to not make a fool of yourself again), you should try to read (humbly and slowly) at least some introductory works concerning moral and political philosophy.

Let's call that the 'Read A Book' fallacy: "I'm right because I've read more. Read as much as I did and you'll see I'm right."

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Freedom Infringing Freedom

So, whose freedom wins out? Is this a case of two freedoms conflicting? Well, ask the question: who owns the property, and you'll see the answer.

The restaurant owner is the one with the rights here. The legislation is a violation of his rights to allow smoking in his establishment if he so chooses. However, he no more infringes on the rights of smokers by banning smoking in his own restaurant than he is infringing on the rights of smokers by allowing it. It's his property, it's his restaurant, so it's his rights and his decision.

If I am in the restaurant, does the restaurant owner own the air in my lungs? Can she or he accuse me of theft for breathing her or his oxygen?

If the loan is not fully paid on the restaurant, does the bank own the air? Can the bank, rather than the restauranteur, determine whether smoking will be allowed?

If it is a simple question of who owns something, how does this apply to Yahweh's example? Does the woman own her womb? Does the fetus own his body? Do they share custody of the umbilical cord? Is the kid trespassing?

Sorry...I feel like Iacchus for using so many question marks. My point, I suppose, is that the simple answer of "whose property is it" is not as simple as it appears. Even ownership itself is dependent on a social agreement; I don't see why it would necessarily include the air over the land, or the mineral rights below it. Either could be determined separately, or all could be combined.

 

[Earthborn]

Yes, she can make a ridiculous point from time to time

The point is of course that you are often unable to show why such a point (which does not necessarily reflect my opinion) is ridiculous. I then have to conclude that the point, ridiculous as it seems, is no more ridiculous than yours.

she has this annoying habit of taking everything down to a philosophical level

That's only because you base your arguments on philosophical principles: how things should be instead of how they are, what the proper role of government is supposed to be and what is justified. That's philosophy.

even if you disagree with her as much as I do.

The funny thing is that you think you disagree with me a lot, while I don't really disagree all that much with you. So one of us must be profoundly misunderstanding the other, and I don't think it is me.

 

[elle_inquisitor]

On the issue of freedom and ownership smoking laws here in Ontario, Canada have been forged on neither of these premises. These laws have been put in place because a) cigarette smoke is a proven carcinogen b) health care costs are soaring, and c) smokers are in the minority.

By next summer there won't even be smoking allowed on open air patios at bars and restaurants. But hey, it's still legal to drink until you get cirrhosis of the liver and breath in your carcinogens from other know air pollutants.

As of last month, it is illegal to smoke a cigarette anywhere on hospital property in the city where I live. The measures are so extreme that you can't even light a cigarette in your own vehicle with the windows rolled up.

Is it just me or does that seem just a tad Draconian?

 

[username]

Is it just me or does that seem just a tad Draconian? [/B]

It isn't just you. This is an example of things going way too far. Laws like this are clearly not based upon the science, they are based upon predjudice.

It is precisely overreaching like this that makes basing all laws upon the property rights principle attractive. At last it reigns in statist politicians and curtails their penchant for social control.

 

[Earthborn]

Maybe where you come from

Yes, where I come from.

Yes, but generally not with government involvement.

I am talking specifically about limits by the government. Around here when someone buys a forest and the government has designated that area as a forest, then it cannot be changed into something that is not a forest anymore. This is because a change can also affect someone else's property: homes that are next to forests are highly valued so if a forest next to someone's house is cleared it decreases the value of that house. Also the government has the constitutional duty to protect the environment.

Certain drugs? Like which ones?

Heroine, cocaine... Illegal drugs.

And they do this because they are wise or have our best interests at heart?

Some of them are wise, some of the have our best interests at heart. Some of them are even both. Whether they are is irrelevant to the discussion.

You think that that is alright?

My personal opinion is not the issue here.

 

[Earthborn]

And what evidence do we have that libertarianism would not be sufficient?

This is asking for evidence of a 'negative'.

What would prevent a government system with a low degree of socialism from growing closer and closer to socialism as time goes on, as the US has done?

What would prevent a libertarian system from growing closer and closer to socialism? The answer is in both cases the same: the constitution. In both situations it can be easily argued that it won't be enough.

That's because "society" is an imaginary construct. It's kind of like the idea of a "forest."

Very good analogy. You do acknowledge the existence of forests, don't you? If so, why do you so often object to the word 'society' ?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Freedom Infringing Freedom

If I am in the restaurant, does the restaurant owner own the air in my lungs? Can she or he accuse me of theft for breathing her or his oxygen?

And with that, I officially declare this post Far Too Silly. Where's the Colonel when you need him?

 

[shanek]

That's only because you base your arguments on philosophical principles: how things should be instead of how they are, what the proper role of government is supposed to be and what is justified. That's philosophy.

No, it isn't. It's only philosophy if I use a moral or other subjective basis for it. As I have repeatedly explained, all of these are arrived at through rational thought.