Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
And in contrary to most people, I believe theft is immoral behavior.
ppfff ... lowering the bar??
ppfff ... lowering the bar??
well,
I think you didn't answer the question n.1 :
you said that "a little" state is necessary (you're not anarchist, you wrote).
I ask: how do you determine "how much"?
Where's the line and why?
and I would like to make a new question
3) Why thetf is immoral?
If other harming behaviours are acceptable (for example: leaving people die if they cannot afford food or medicine while some other people have them in abundance) why you concentrate in property and theft?
You recognize some rights (property, life) and some other not (health, food, information)?
Or you recognize rights in a negative way (you shouldn't harm other people sphere, but still you ain't have any positive obligation versus them, so you can avoid doing anything for..)?
BTW:
My opinion it's that's not an uthopia, I think it's a nightmare.
And I think freedom and liberty are empty words (words that means nothing itself, without another specification).
That's why I can't understand your position. It seem to me that you are in some way "obsessed" over very useless things:
-low taxation: I can't understand it: I should care about my wealth, not only in terms of how many money I can get/use/keep, but in how many things and services I get.. and if state produce for me more wealth than what he take from me: I'll take the bigger state!
-property: having an absolute right over thing doesn't mean being rich or happy. Most things you can have, without services get useless (think a home without a electric or water furniture, or a car without streets and police controls over them, or a supermarket full of food products to buy without any health control over them).
Having should not being valued in itself, but for the real wealth that produce.
So giving up on a portion of the property right, in order to get a better wealth os acceptable? Of course!
-less state: why? don't you see that where state lacks private make the same thing in a more dangerous way? I see you wrote market mechanisms permit people to choose, but that's a tale. Every evidence show the contrary (there are a long scientific literature over it). Why to continue the representation of the state vs the private market, when is proved that market FAILS when it's leaved without control and regulation? Why to keep the dialogue in the terms used 3 centuries ago, while both terms of discussion (state and market) got very different things since them?
For the rest I agree with don enzo!
(but is always useful to read someone else's ideas!)
I think you didn't answer the question n.1 :
you said that "a little" state is necessary (you're not anarchist, you wrote).
I ask: how do you determine "how much"?
Where's the line and why?
and I would like to make a new question
3) Why thetf is immoral?
If other harming behaviours are acceptable (for example: leaving people die if they cannot afford food or medicine while some other people have them in abundance) why you concentrate in property and theft?
You recognize some rights (property, life) and some other not (health, food, information)?
Or you recognize rights in a negative way (you shouldn't harm other people sphere, but still you ain't have any positive obligation versus them, so you can avoid doing anything for..)?
BTW:
My opinion it's that's not an uthopia, I think it's a nightmare.
And I think freedom and liberty are empty words (words that means nothing itself, without another specification).
That's why I can't understand your position. It seem to me that you are in some way "obsessed" over very useless things:
-low taxation: I can't understand it: I should care about my wealth, not only in terms of how many money I can get/use/keep, but in how many things and services I get.. and if state produce for me more wealth than what he take from me: I'll take the bigger state!
-property: having an absolute right over thing doesn't mean being rich or happy. Most things you can have, without services get useless (think a home without a electric or water furniture, or a car without streets and police controls over them, or a supermarket full of food products to buy without any health control over them).
Having should not being valued in itself, but for the real wealth that produce.
So giving up on a portion of the property right, in order to get a better wealth os acceptable? Of course!
-less state: why? don't you see that where state lacks private make the same thing in a more dangerous way? I see you wrote market mechanisms permit people to choose, but that's a tale. Every evidence show the contrary (there are a long scientific literature over it). Why to continue the representation of the state vs the private market, when is proved that market FAILS when it's leaved without control and regulation? Why to keep the dialogue in the terms used 3 centuries ago, while both terms of discussion (state and market) got very different things since them?
For the rest I agree with don enzo!
(but is always useful to read someone else's ideas!)
you said that "a little" state is necessary (you're not anarchist, you wrote).
I ask: how do you determine "how much"?
Where's the line and why?
I cannot put a number on this. A little state is necessary, to provide for the public services: police, defense and justice. (But with lower costs than right now, because only the public tasks remain: no police in football stadiums, no border patrol, ...) How? By levying taxes on natural resources. Because private ownership of nature does not exist. Nature is a common good, that is best preserved if it's in the hands of an individual. Ergo, an individual must pay a tax to have the monopoly on a certain part of nature. If I want a house, I need ground to build it on. I buy the ground from the state by paying taxes on a yearly basis in return for the monopolistic right on the use of the ground.
3) Why thetf is immoral?
If other harming behaviours are acceptable (for example: leaving people die if they cannot afford food or medicine while some other people have them in abundance) why you concentrate in property and theft?
You recognize some rights (property, life) and some other not (health, food, information)?
Or you recognize rights in a negative way (you shouldn't harm other people sphere, but still you ain't have any positive obligation versus them, so you can avoid doing anything for..)?
The difference between theft and the so-called harming behavior you've come up with is the initiation of violence. If I do not give my food (which is too much to eat myself) to someone else, I'm not initiating violence. If a company does not give its medicine to the poor people in Africa, they are not initiating violence against the African people. They are not helping them, yes, but not helping is not the same as using violence. Theft, on the other hand, is an initiation of violence. If I take a lady's purse, I'm using violence against that woman.
Property and life are in fact the same right: the right on self-ownership. If there is no right on private property, then I am not the owner of my body. If I have no body, then I cannot have a right on life. Even more, there is no 'I' if there is no private property. All that is left then, is a massive tragedy of the commons, in which no human rights exists, in which nothing exists. Or as Ayn Rand would put it: To say 'I love you', one must first know how to say the 'I'.
And I think freedom and liberty are empty words (words that means nothing itself, without another specification).
If you do not specify them, then yes, those are empty words. But if you do not specify 'solidarity', then that word has no meaning either. Hell, even the word 'word' has no meaning without a specification. So this is not an argument: all concepts are void if you don't specify them. You can disagree with a concept, but if a concept is well-defined and internally consistent, it is - by definition - not void. Useless maybe, but not void.
That's why I can't understand your position.
Too bad for you. I fully understand the leftist position (I consider everyone who does not see liberty as the only political goal as a leftist), I just disagree with it. Try to read more about liberty and its necessity, so one day, you might understand it. And if you're very lucky, one day, you might agree with me :p
-low taxation: I can't understand it: I should care about my wealth, not only in terms of how many money I can get/use/keep, but in how many things and services I get.. and if state produce for me more wealth than what he take from me: I'll take the bigger state!
Economic materialism is indeed very popular within the leftist world. As if wealth is the most important thing in life. If you follow your logic and it could be proven that fascism creates the biggest wealth, then you would support fascism? You'd support everyone regardless of their methods if they give you more wealth. If I can be honest, I would call that a position without any sense of morality. It is the position of egoists, retards and evil people.
-property: having an absolute right over thing doesn't mean being rich or happy. Most things you can have, without services get useless (think a home without a electric or water furniture, or a car without streets and police controls over them, or a supermarket full of food products to buy without any health control over them).
My political goal is not to get the people rich or happy. That is their own responsibility. My political goal is to let the people be free. To free the democratic slaves.
So giving up on a portion of the property right, in order to get a better wealth os acceptable? Of course!
I fully agree. I have the right to give up some of my property right in return for wealth. So does everyone else. You can do that by signing a contract. But nobody has the right to take my property right away against my will, even if that is in return for wealth. Even if I get a gazillion dollars in return, nobody has the right to not recognize my property right.
-less state: why? don't you see that where state lacks private make the same thing in a more dangerous way?
No, I don't see that. It is true that where the state does not realize its tasks (police, justice, defense), societies collapse. But I'm not defending that, remember? I'm not defending a Somalian anarchy.
I see you wrote market mechanisms permit people to choose, but that's a tale. Every evidence show the contrary (there are a long scientific literature over it).
To be precise: no substantial scientific literature has shown that. Market mechanisms (it's not really a mechanism; it's just a natural process, a natural order if you will) indeed permits people to chose according to their preferences.
Why to continue the representation of the state vs the private market, when is proved that market FAILS when it's leaved without control and regulation? Why to keep the dialogue in the terms used 3 centuries ago, while both terms of discussion (state and market) got very different things since them?
The economic debate is still private markets vs centralized planning. The latter has failed over and over again (and will always fail, see Mises and the economic calculation problem). Private markets work.
I ask: how do you determine "how much"?
Where's the line and why?
I cannot put a number on this. A little state is necessary, to provide for the public services: police, defense and justice. (But with lower costs than right now, because only the public tasks remain: no police in football stadiums, no border patrol, ...) How? By levying taxes on natural resources. Because private ownership of nature does not exist. Nature is a common good, that is best preserved if it's in the hands of an individual. Ergo, an individual must pay a tax to have the monopoly on a certain part of nature. If I want a house, I need ground to build it on. I buy the ground from the state by paying taxes on a yearly basis in return for the monopolistic right on the use of the ground.
3) Why thetf is immoral?
If other harming behaviours are acceptable (for example: leaving people die if they cannot afford food or medicine while some other people have them in abundance) why you concentrate in property and theft?
You recognize some rights (property, life) and some other not (health, food, information)?
Or you recognize rights in a negative way (you shouldn't harm other people sphere, but still you ain't have any positive obligation versus them, so you can avoid doing anything for..)?
The difference between theft and the so-called harming behavior you've come up with is the initiation of violence. If I do not give my food (which is too much to eat myself) to someone else, I'm not initiating violence. If a company does not give its medicine to the poor people in Africa, they are not initiating violence against the African people. They are not helping them, yes, but not helping is not the same as using violence. Theft, on the other hand, is an initiation of violence. If I take a lady's purse, I'm using violence against that woman.
Property and life are in fact the same right: the right on self-ownership. If there is no right on private property, then I am not the owner of my body. If I have no body, then I cannot have a right on life. Even more, there is no 'I' if there is no private property. All that is left then, is a massive tragedy of the commons, in which no human rights exists, in which nothing exists. Or as Ayn Rand would put it: To say 'I love you', one must first know how to say the 'I'.
And I think freedom and liberty are empty words (words that means nothing itself, without another specification).
If you do not specify them, then yes, those are empty words. But if you do not specify 'solidarity', then that word has no meaning either. Hell, even the word 'word' has no meaning without a specification. So this is not an argument: all concepts are void if you don't specify them. You can disagree with a concept, but if a concept is well-defined and internally consistent, it is - by definition - not void. Useless maybe, but not void.
That's why I can't understand your position.
Too bad for you. I fully understand the leftist position (I consider everyone who does not see liberty as the only political goal as a leftist), I just disagree with it. Try to read more about liberty and its necessity, so one day, you might understand it. And if you're very lucky, one day, you might agree with me :p
-low taxation: I can't understand it: I should care about my wealth, not only in terms of how many money I can get/use/keep, but in how many things and services I get.. and if state produce for me more wealth than what he take from me: I'll take the bigger state!
Economic materialism is indeed very popular within the leftist world. As if wealth is the most important thing in life. If you follow your logic and it could be proven that fascism creates the biggest wealth, then you would support fascism? You'd support everyone regardless of their methods if they give you more wealth. If I can be honest, I would call that a position without any sense of morality. It is the position of egoists, retards and evil people.
-property: having an absolute right over thing doesn't mean being rich or happy. Most things you can have, without services get useless (think a home without a electric or water furniture, or a car without streets and police controls over them, or a supermarket full of food products to buy without any health control over them).
My political goal is not to get the people rich or happy. That is their own responsibility. My political goal is to let the people be free. To free the democratic slaves.
So giving up on a portion of the property right, in order to get a better wealth os acceptable? Of course!
I fully agree. I have the right to give up some of my property right in return for wealth. So does everyone else. You can do that by signing a contract. But nobody has the right to take my property right away against my will, even if that is in return for wealth. Even if I get a gazillion dollars in return, nobody has the right to not recognize my property right.
-less state: why? don't you see that where state lacks private make the same thing in a more dangerous way?
No, I don't see that. It is true that where the state does not realize its tasks (police, justice, defense), societies collapse. But I'm not defending that, remember? I'm not defending a Somalian anarchy.
I see you wrote market mechanisms permit people to choose, but that's a tale. Every evidence show the contrary (there are a long scientific literature over it).
To be precise: no substantial scientific literature has shown that. Market mechanisms (it's not really a mechanism; it's just a natural process, a natural order if you will) indeed permits people to chose according to their preferences.
Why to continue the representation of the state vs the private market, when is proved that market FAILS when it's leaved without control and regulation? Why to keep the dialogue in the terms used 3 centuries ago, while both terms of discussion (state and market) got very different things since them?
The economic debate is still private markets vs centralized planning. The latter has failed over and over again (and will always fail, see Mises and the economic calculation problem). Private markets work.
well..
thanks for sharing your ideas.
this discussion get too hard when we don't agree about facts (for example: failure of free markets, instability of a free market mechanism, dangers of lack of regulation and control, etc, etc)
I think it get useless and polemical to discuss about them.. so Iprefer to avoit it!
Two thing I want to answer is this:
A)
The difference between theft and the so-called harming behavior you've come up with is the initiation of violence.
I can't see the MORAL difference between making (initiating) violence and letting violence happen passively. I think it is an utilitaristic distinction, that is used to keep up the construction of this ideology.
If I have a responsability over other people life/rights I have it both ways: active and passive.
If not I haven't any..
But in moral it's natural to have different perceptions of fair and righteous!
B)
Economic materialism is indeed very popular within the leftist world. As if wealth is the most important thing in life. If you follow your logic and it could be proven that fascism creates the biggest wealth, then you would support fascism? You'd support everyone regardless of their methods if they give you more wealth. If I can be honest, I would call that a position without any sense of morality. It is the position of egoists, retards and evil people.
Obviously not. There are rights that are un-tradable, but it's in the identification of this rights that we disagree.
The taxation is not something I can include in this discussion.
the property itself is an economic issue, not a human right. Imo.
So I can easily give up over an economic benifit in order to get a bigger economic benefit.
The reason is maybe that I "build" the concept of property in a different way than you.
I can have something only BECAUSE OF the state. Without state property don't exist.
It's not something that is born with the man, it's not a natural right!
So there is no freedom I'm giving up with taxation, if money and property are a state-creation, it's normal that is the state that defy those "rights". Property is what state decide it is.
You can't claim state is taking too much (better you can do it in a democratic system in order to change state definition and rules, but not in a teorical way!)
thanks for sharing your ideas.
this discussion get too hard when we don't agree about facts (for example: failure of free markets, instability of a free market mechanism, dangers of lack of regulation and control, etc, etc)
I think it get useless and polemical to discuss about them.. so Iprefer to avoit it!
Two thing I want to answer is this:
A)
The difference between theft and the so-called harming behavior you've come up with is the initiation of violence.
I can't see the MORAL difference between making (initiating) violence and letting violence happen passively. I think it is an utilitaristic distinction, that is used to keep up the construction of this ideology.
If I have a responsability over other people life/rights I have it both ways: active and passive.
If not I haven't any..
But in moral it's natural to have different perceptions of fair and righteous!
B)
Economic materialism is indeed very popular within the leftist world. As if wealth is the most important thing in life. If you follow your logic and it could be proven that fascism creates the biggest wealth, then you would support fascism? You'd support everyone regardless of their methods if they give you more wealth. If I can be honest, I would call that a position without any sense of morality. It is the position of egoists, retards and evil people.
Obviously not. There are rights that are un-tradable, but it's in the identification of this rights that we disagree.
The taxation is not something I can include in this discussion.
the property itself is an economic issue, not a human right. Imo.
So I can easily give up over an economic benifit in order to get a bigger economic benefit.
The reason is maybe that I "build" the concept of property in a different way than you.
I can have something only BECAUSE OF the state. Without state property don't exist.
It's not something that is born with the man, it's not a natural right!
So there is no freedom I'm giving up with taxation, if money and property are a state-creation, it's normal that is the state that defy those "rights". Property is what state decide it is.
You can't claim state is taking too much (better you can do it in a democratic system in order to change state definition and rules, but not in a teorical way!)
this discussion get too hard when we don't agree about facts (for example: failure of free markets, instability of a free market mechanism, dangers of lack of regulation and control, etc, etc)
I think it get useless and polemical to discuss about them.. so Iprefer to avoit it!
I agree. I think the economic discussion is less interesting than the moral discussion. So let's agree to disagree on economics.
I can't see the MORAL difference between making (initiating) violence and letting violence happen passively. I think it is an utilitaristic distinction, that is used to keep up the construction of this ideology.
If I have a responsability over other people life/rights I have it both ways: active and passive.
If not I haven't any..
But in moral it's natural to have different perceptions of fair and righteous!
I will counter this argument twice.
First of all, people being hungry, poor or ill without getting the appropriate treatment does not equal violence. Violence is not respecting other people's human rights. You hitting my face is violence. Not having food is not. There is no right to be fed. There is no right to have a house. There is no right on water. No materialist claim is a human right, except for property rights.
But even if you would consider being hungry a kind of violation of one's human rights, there is a difference between initiating violence and letting violence happen by somebody else. I mean, being Stalin is worse than being Russian just after the Second World War and not opposing the Russian Communist Party. There is a big moral difference.
Also, you said that if your human rights are not actively and passively respected, you don't have any human rights. That's incorrect. Rights that are not respected are still very real. They do not disappear because they are not respected. If you'd lose them if they are not respected, you could never go to court because your rights are violated. Your reasoning does not make sense: Your rights are violated. Ergo, you have no rights. If you have no rights, your rights cannot be violated. Which is in contradiction with the starting point of your reasoning (being that your rights are violated).
Obviously not. There are rights that are un-tradable, but it's in the identification of this rights that we disagree.
The taxation is not something I can include in this discussion.
the property itself is an economic issue, not a human right. Imo.
So I can easily give up over an economic benifit in order to get a bigger economic benefit.
Property is indeed relevant in economic discussions, but that's not the core of the right on property. If you don't consider the right on property to be a human right, then the concept of human rights is void. If the right on property is no human right, then self-ownership is not a human right. If I do not own myself, how can I have rights? To have rights, one has to be an individual entity. But if I don't own myself, how can I claim that my rights are violated? Self-ownership is a requirement if you accept that human rights are real (even if we disagree on what they are exactly). And self-ownership can only exist if the right on property exists. If you don't accept the right on property to be a human right, you do not accept the existence of any human right, as one cannot define what a human is if self-ownership is not real.
The reason is maybe that I "build" the concept of property in a different way than you.
I can have something only BECAUSE OF the state. Without state property don't exist.
It's not something that is born with the man, it's not a natural right!
So there is no freedom I'm giving up with taxation, if money and property are a state-creation, it's normal that is the state that defy those "rights". Property is what state decide it is.
You can't claim state is taking too much (better you can do it in a democratic system in order to change state definition and rules, but not in a teorical way!)
Without property, I do not exist. So in contrary, a man is born with a natural right on property. Otherwise, there is no man, there is only mankind. The whole concept of individual human rights makes no sense if you do not accept the holiness of the right on self-ownership and ergo the right on property.
Your statist views (the state decides what property is) are in my opinion totalitarian, and thus dangerous.
I think it get useless and polemical to discuss about them.. so Iprefer to avoit it!
I agree. I think the economic discussion is less interesting than the moral discussion. So let's agree to disagree on economics.
I can't see the MORAL difference between making (initiating) violence and letting violence happen passively. I think it is an utilitaristic distinction, that is used to keep up the construction of this ideology.
If I have a responsability over other people life/rights I have it both ways: active and passive.
If not I haven't any..
But in moral it's natural to have different perceptions of fair and righteous!
I will counter this argument twice.
First of all, people being hungry, poor or ill without getting the appropriate treatment does not equal violence. Violence is not respecting other people's human rights. You hitting my face is violence. Not having food is not. There is no right to be fed. There is no right to have a house. There is no right on water. No materialist claim is a human right, except for property rights.
But even if you would consider being hungry a kind of violation of one's human rights, there is a difference between initiating violence and letting violence happen by somebody else. I mean, being Stalin is worse than being Russian just after the Second World War and not opposing the Russian Communist Party. There is a big moral difference.
Also, you said that if your human rights are not actively and passively respected, you don't have any human rights. That's incorrect. Rights that are not respected are still very real. They do not disappear because they are not respected. If you'd lose them if they are not respected, you could never go to court because your rights are violated. Your reasoning does not make sense: Your rights are violated. Ergo, you have no rights. If you have no rights, your rights cannot be violated. Which is in contradiction with the starting point of your reasoning (being that your rights are violated).
Obviously not. There are rights that are un-tradable, but it's in the identification of this rights that we disagree.
The taxation is not something I can include in this discussion.
the property itself is an economic issue, not a human right. Imo.
So I can easily give up over an economic benifit in order to get a bigger economic benefit.
Property is indeed relevant in economic discussions, but that's not the core of the right on property. If you don't consider the right on property to be a human right, then the concept of human rights is void. If the right on property is no human right, then self-ownership is not a human right. If I do not own myself, how can I have rights? To have rights, one has to be an individual entity. But if I don't own myself, how can I claim that my rights are violated? Self-ownership is a requirement if you accept that human rights are real (even if we disagree on what they are exactly). And self-ownership can only exist if the right on property exists. If you don't accept the right on property to be a human right, you do not accept the existence of any human right, as one cannot define what a human is if self-ownership is not real.
The reason is maybe that I "build" the concept of property in a different way than you.
I can have something only BECAUSE OF the state. Without state property don't exist.
It's not something that is born with the man, it's not a natural right!
So there is no freedom I'm giving up with taxation, if money and property are a state-creation, it's normal that is the state that defy those "rights". Property is what state decide it is.
You can't claim state is taking too much (better you can do it in a democratic system in order to change state definition and rules, but not in a teorical way!)
Without property, I do not exist. So in contrary, a man is born with a natural right on property. Otherwise, there is no man, there is only mankind. The whole concept of individual human rights makes no sense if you do not accept the holiness of the right on self-ownership and ergo the right on property.
Your statist views (the state decides what property is) are in my opinion totalitarian, and thus dangerous.
I will skip the part upon moral rights and active/passive rights..
I think my idea is clear enogh, I only want to add that a right is a giuridic position created by a RULE.
So the question on what is a right is a question on what is positively posed. For the rest morality is personal, I can't accept a moral in wich you can't shoot me, but you can watch me me die without doing anything. But that's my morality.
More interesting is the second part:
Property is indeed relevant in economic discussions, but that's not the core of the right on property. If you don't consider the right on property to be a human right, then the concept of human rights is void. If the right on property is no human right, then self-ownership is not a human right.If I do not own myself, how can I have rights? To have rights, one has to be an individual entity. But if I don't own myself, how can I claim that my rights are violated? Self-ownership is a requirement if you accept that human rights are real (even if we disagree on what they are exactly). And self-ownership can only exist if the right on property exists. If you don't accept the right on property to be a human right, you do not accept the existence of any human right, as one cannot define what a human is if self-ownership is not real.
I can't agree about it.
Property is not the right upon our bodies or our lifes.
Property is the real right over things. It is a giuridic link posed by the rule of state between a subject and an object. That's not a problem of definition (you use this definition to take conclusions that I can't accept) it's a petitio principi.
IF property is a human right THEN it is a human right.
I can't accept it.
What "self-ownership" mean?
It's not property, there are not rules above the property of myself over me (it will be very funny a rule upon a subject having a right over an object that is himself!!!).
The greater part of the rules over our lifes and bodies, in most state, are unavailable even to their owner.. that's not property (the right to own and dispose of things, even distruct them!) You can' t sell your arm, so it's not your property! It is a part of you
I think simply that you turn a part of fundamental human rights INTO property artificially. That lead you into a false conclusion. Property is not the "grundnorm" of rights. Is olnly one of the right a state CAN recognize.
I think my idea is clear enogh, I only want to add that a right is a giuridic position created by a RULE.
So the question on what is a right is a question on what is positively posed. For the rest morality is personal, I can't accept a moral in wich you can't shoot me, but you can watch me me die without doing anything. But that's my morality.
More interesting is the second part:
Property is indeed relevant in economic discussions, but that's not the core of the right on property. If you don't consider the right on property to be a human right, then the concept of human rights is void. If the right on property is no human right, then self-ownership is not a human right.If I do not own myself, how can I have rights? To have rights, one has to be an individual entity. But if I don't own myself, how can I claim that my rights are violated? Self-ownership is a requirement if you accept that human rights are real (even if we disagree on what they are exactly). And self-ownership can only exist if the right on property exists. If you don't accept the right on property to be a human right, you do not accept the existence of any human right, as one cannot define what a human is if self-ownership is not real.
I can't agree about it.
Property is not the right upon our bodies or our lifes.
Property is the real right over things. It is a giuridic link posed by the rule of state between a subject and an object. That's not a problem of definition (you use this definition to take conclusions that I can't accept) it's a petitio principi.
IF property is a human right THEN it is a human right.
I can't accept it.
What "self-ownership" mean?
It's not property, there are not rules above the property of myself over me (it will be very funny a rule upon a subject having a right over an object that is himself!!!).
The greater part of the rules over our lifes and bodies, in most state, are unavailable even to their owner.. that's not property (the right to own and dispose of things, even distruct them!) You can' t sell your arm, so it's not your property! It is a part of you
I think simply that you turn a part of fundamental human rights INTO property artificially. That lead you into a false conclusion. Property is not the "grundnorm" of rights. Is olnly one of the right a state CAN recognize.
Without property, I do not exist. So in contrary, a man is born with a natural right on property. Otherwise, there is no man, there is only mankind. The whole concept of individual human rights makes no sense if you do not accept the holiness of the right on self-ownership and ergo the right on property.
Your statist views (the state decides what property is) are in my opinion totalitarian, and thus dangerous.
same here.
That's false.
Self ownership does not have anything to do with property. Is a right of auto determination etc not to have and dispose of ourself!
To make an extreme example even a slave exist. He is, he has a will, and some rights too.
He can't have anything, but still he HAS to be fed (in the greater part of slavist systems) etc.
I don't believe there are naturla rights.
The whole concept of individual human rights makes no sense if you do not accept the holiness of the right on self-ownership and ergo the right on property.
the concept of human right is a creation of states.
It is needed by states to their specific goals.
Even in the history of the creation/recognition of the human rights you'll se them responding to the needs of people into states in the rise of modern democracies.
there's nothing holy in rights.
Your statist views (the state decides what property is) are in my opinion totalitarian, and thus dangerous.
same here.
That's false.
Self ownership does not have anything to do with property. Is a right of auto determination etc not to have and dispose of ourself!
To make an extreme example even a slave exist. He is, he has a will, and some rights too.
He can't have anything, but still he HAS to be fed (in the greater part of slavist systems) etc.
I don't believe there are naturla rights.
The whole concept of individual human rights makes no sense if you do not accept the holiness of the right on self-ownership and ergo the right on property.
the concept of human right is a creation of states.
It is needed by states to their specific goals.
Even in the history of the creation/recognition of the human rights you'll se them responding to the needs of people into states in the rise of modern democracies.
there's nothing holy in rights.
last thing (I promise I quit! :P )
Your statist views (the state decides what property is) are in my opinion totalitarian, and thus dangerous.
that's not statist.
Who makes the rules decide what are a right and what is not.
End.
If a man has a gun, point it at me, threaten me and give me an order he is creating a rule.
I can do as he order (follow the rule), or not (break the rule) and face the conseguence.
If another man has not the gun, but give me an order he is creating an imperfect rule.
I can do as he order (follow the rule), or not (break the rule) but the conseguence is probably the same...
The fact states make the greater part of rules in our times has should not confuse us..
Rules are made by everyone in every situation. Made by those that has the stregnht to impose them.
Mum make rules to kids. Companies to their employee. Armies over civil population. Bigger guy over smaller guy. Cute girl to desirous boy.. (take me to the cinema, buy me food, be kind, and at the end of the night... damn!!!)
:P
Your statist views (the state decides what property is) are in my opinion totalitarian, and thus dangerous.
that's not statist.
Who makes the rules decide what are a right and what is not.
End.
If a man has a gun, point it at me, threaten me and give me an order he is creating a rule.
I can do as he order (follow the rule), or not (break the rule) and face the conseguence.
If another man has not the gun, but give me an order he is creating an imperfect rule.
I can do as he order (follow the rule), or not (break the rule) but the conseguence is probably the same...
The fact states make the greater part of rules in our times has should not confuse us..
Rules are made by everyone in every situation. Made by those that has the stregnht to impose them.
Mum make rules to kids. Companies to their employee. Armies over civil population. Bigger guy over smaller guy. Cute girl to desirous boy.. (take me to the cinema, buy me food, be kind, and at the end of the night... damn!!!)
:P
How is self-ownership not a part of the right on property? Self-ownership means than a man owns himself. You said yourself that it would be funny if that were not the case. But accepting that people are the sole owner of themselves, means that at least some things (a body is a 'thing') are the property of one man and one man only, forever. How on Earth is that not a right on property?
I'm not saying "if property is a human right, then it is a human right". I'm saying that if human rights exists (which we agree on; not on what they are, but we agree that inalienable human rights exist), we first must define what humans are. And to do that, everybody must own himself (self-ownership). If not, the hole concept of human rights is void.
I can't accept it.
The true nature of the right on self-ownership luckily is not subject to your approval ;-)
The greater part of the rules over our lifes and bodies, in most state, are unavailable even to their owner.. that's not property (the right to own and dispose of things, even distruct them!) You can' t sell your arm, so it's not your property! It is a part of you
Why wouldn't I be able to sell my arm? I let a doctor cut it off and then sign a contract with someone else to sell it.Also, I can destruct my body (I can kill it), so my body seems a perfect fit to fall under your definition of property.
I'm not saying "if property is a human right, then it is a human right". I'm saying that if human rights exists (which we agree on; not on what they are, but we agree that inalienable human rights exist), we first must define what humans are. And to do that, everybody must own himself (self-ownership). If not, the hole concept of human rights is void.
I can't accept it.
The true nature of the right on self-ownership luckily is not subject to your approval ;-)
The greater part of the rules over our lifes and bodies, in most state, are unavailable even to their owner.. that's not property (the right to own and dispose of things, even distruct them!) You can' t sell your arm, so it's not your property! It is a part of you
Why wouldn't I be able to sell my arm? I let a doctor cut it off and then sign a contract with someone else to sell it.Also, I can destruct my body (I can kill it), so my body seems a perfect fit to fall under your definition of property.
the concept of human right is a creation of states.
No it's not. Not at all. Human rights are inalienable rights, regardless of what the states thinks about them.
that's not statist. Who makes the rules decide what are a right and what is not. End.
How on Earth is that not statist. If you wouldn't be statist, you'd say that nobody should make rules about what is right and not. You're saying: "I'm not statist. I'm just saying the state should make rules about what is right and wrong." It is similar to saying "I'm not a man. I just have a penis." Well, the penis is a part of what defines a man. And whether the state should make rules about right and wrong is what defines us as statists or non-statists.
If a man has a gun, point it at me, threaten me and give me an order he is creating a rule.
I can do as he order (follow the rule), or not (break the rule) and face the conseguence.
I don't see how this is relevant. This is just logic. I'm saying nobody should point a gun at you and impose a rule. Do you disagree?
If another man has not the gun, but give me an order he is creating an imperfect rule.
I can do as he order (follow the rule), or not (break the rule) but the conseguence is probably the same...
Again, I don't see how this is relevant.
The fact states make the greater part of rules in our times has should not confuse us..
Rules are made by everyone in every situation. Made by those that has the stregnht to impose them.
Mum make rules to kids. Companies to their employee. Armies over civil population. Bigger guy over smaller guy. Cute girl to desirous boy.. (take me to the cinema, buy me food, be kind, and at the end of the night... damn!!!)
And I'm saying we don't need a ruler. By the way, a company does not impose rules on its employees. And a cute girl does not impose rules on a boy. The boy and the employee agree with doing so out of free will.
No it's not. Not at all. Human rights are inalienable rights, regardless of what the states thinks about them.
that's not statist. Who makes the rules decide what are a right and what is not. End.
How on Earth is that not statist. If you wouldn't be statist, you'd say that nobody should make rules about what is right and not. You're saying: "I'm not statist. I'm just saying the state should make rules about what is right and wrong." It is similar to saying "I'm not a man. I just have a penis." Well, the penis is a part of what defines a man. And whether the state should make rules about right and wrong is what defines us as statists or non-statists.
If a man has a gun, point it at me, threaten me and give me an order he is creating a rule.
I can do as he order (follow the rule), or not (break the rule) and face the conseguence.
I don't see how this is relevant. This is just logic. I'm saying nobody should point a gun at you and impose a rule. Do you disagree?
If another man has not the gun, but give me an order he is creating an imperfect rule.
I can do as he order (follow the rule), or not (break the rule) but the conseguence is probably the same...
Again, I don't see how this is relevant.
The fact states make the greater part of rules in our times has should not confuse us..
Rules are made by everyone in every situation. Made by those that has the stregnht to impose them.
Mum make rules to kids. Companies to their employee. Armies over civil population. Bigger guy over smaller guy. Cute girl to desirous boy.. (take me to the cinema, buy me food, be kind, and at the end of the night... damn!!!)
And I'm saying we don't need a ruler. By the way, a company does not impose rules on its employees. And a cute girl does not impose rules on a boy. The boy and the employee agree with doing so out of free will.
Still nothing done with your team while you login almost daily for a month now .... So you definitely signed up only to post all this crap (again). Why??
And where in the Netherlands you're supposed to live ... everywhere??? Because I see very strange IP's, as if you always login at a different place. Or do you break Sokker rules and installed Tor to sign up (again) as a fake-Dutch person? If you do use Tor, it is 'funny' you write about morals while breaking known rules :/
Latest logging:
81.207.*.* 2014-12-17 18:06:32
84.83.*.* 2014-12-16 18:25:56
77.172.*.* 2014-12-15 20:32:59
82.73.*.* 2014-12-14 22:33:35
84.106.*.* 2014-12-14 11:07:19
(editado)
And where in the Netherlands you're supposed to live ... everywhere??? Because I see very strange IP's, as if you always login at a different place. Or do you break Sokker rules and installed Tor to sign up (again) as a fake-Dutch person? If you do use Tor, it is 'funny' you write about morals while breaking known rules :/
Latest logging:
81.207.*.* 2014-12-17 18:06:32
84.83.*.* 2014-12-16 18:25:56
77.172.*.* 2014-12-15 20:32:59
82.73.*.* 2014-12-14 22:33:35
84.106.*.* 2014-12-14 11:07:19
(editado)
How is self-ownership not a part of the right on property?
I already explained it
Self-ownership means than a man owns himself.
that is false.
Why to use property to define self ownership?
Self ownership is not the right to dispose of ourselves, as there is a difference between the agent and the object of that action.
But accepting that people are the sole owner of themselves, means that at least some things (a body is a 'thing') are the property of one man and one man only, forever. How on Earth is that not a right on property?
The human body is not a property. Deal with it.
most of states define them as not being subject to property. As air, for example, you can't claim the air that are inside of you is your.. you can claim you have the right to use it.
The true nature of the right on self-ownership luckily is not subject to your approval ;-)
ehm..
for sure. still this is not a contestation.
Why wouldn't I be able to sell my arm?
Becasue the state that make the rules over property, contracts, selling and human rights forbid it.
And if you do it outside the rules you can't claim any right.
Anyway I find useless to discuss about it.
That's a universally accepted giuridical fact. Not a matter of opinions.
I already explained it
Self-ownership means than a man owns himself.
that is false.
Why to use property to define self ownership?
Self ownership is not the right to dispose of ourselves, as there is a difference between the agent and the object of that action.
But accepting that people are the sole owner of themselves, means that at least some things (a body is a 'thing') are the property of one man and one man only, forever. How on Earth is that not a right on property?
The human body is not a property. Deal with it.
most of states define them as not being subject to property. As air, for example, you can't claim the air that are inside of you is your.. you can claim you have the right to use it.
The true nature of the right on self-ownership luckily is not subject to your approval ;-)
ehm..
for sure. still this is not a contestation.
Why wouldn't I be able to sell my arm?
Becasue the state that make the rules over property, contracts, selling and human rights forbid it.
And if you do it outside the rules you can't claim any right.
Anyway I find useless to discuss about it.
That's a universally accepted giuridical fact. Not a matter of opinions.
the concept of human right is a creation of states.
No it's not. Not at all. Human rights are inalienable rights, regardless of what the states thinks about them.
ehm..
You need SOME argument (apart the funny part of "inalienable rights" that comes from property..)
How on Earth is that not statist. If you wouldn't be statist, you'd say that nobody should make rules about what is right and not. You're saying: "I'm not statist. I'm just saying the state should make rules about what is right and wrong." It is similar to saying "I'm not a man. I just have a penis." Well, the penis is a part of what defines a man. And whether the state should make rules about right and wrong is what defines us as statists or non-statists.
No, I'm saying rules are made by who has the strenght to impose them.
I'm not discussing what SHOULD BE. I observe reality.
State make the rule.
There are no judgment about my preferences. There are never been any other kind of rules in human history (oh yes people WANT to blelive that rules comes from god/good/humannature/nature et etc, but it's easily shown it's false!)
And I'm saying we don't need a ruler.
I can't get it.
Rules comes from strenght positions between people.
you can't avoid them. Rules are going to continue to run, even if you ignore them.
By the way, a company does not impose rules on its employees.
ROTFL.
And a cute girl does not impose rules on a boy.
LOL.
The boy and the employee agree with doing so out of free will.
a free will in order to satisfy a natural need..
But it's funny where this will lead us.
I could say: state doesn't forbid to kill people. you can kill them, you only accept BY YOUR FREE WILL that state will punish you after it. That's a deal man.
LOL.
No it's not. Not at all. Human rights are inalienable rights, regardless of what the states thinks about them.
ehm..
You need SOME argument (apart the funny part of "inalienable rights" that comes from property..)
How on Earth is that not statist. If you wouldn't be statist, you'd say that nobody should make rules about what is right and not. You're saying: "I'm not statist. I'm just saying the state should make rules about what is right and wrong." It is similar to saying "I'm not a man. I just have a penis." Well, the penis is a part of what defines a man. And whether the state should make rules about right and wrong is what defines us as statists or non-statists.
No, I'm saying rules are made by who has the strenght to impose them.
I'm not discussing what SHOULD BE. I observe reality.
State make the rule.
There are no judgment about my preferences. There are never been any other kind of rules in human history (oh yes people WANT to blelive that rules comes from god/good/humannature/nature et etc, but it's easily shown it's false!)
And I'm saying we don't need a ruler.
I can't get it.
Rules comes from strenght positions between people.
you can't avoid them. Rules are going to continue to run, even if you ignore them.
By the way, a company does not impose rules on its employees.
ROTFL.
And a cute girl does not impose rules on a boy.
LOL.
The boy and the employee agree with doing so out of free will.
a free will in order to satisfy a natural need..
But it's funny where this will lead us.
I could say: state doesn't forbid to kill people. you can kill them, you only accept BY YOUR FREE WILL that state will punish you after it. That's a deal man.
LOL.
No, I did not install Tor. And my whereabouts are non of your business.
Also, your reasoning seems to imply that breaking rules is immoral. Which is plain nonsense obviously.
Also, your reasoning seems to imply that breaking rules is immoral. Which is plain nonsense obviously.
Self ownership is not the right to dispose of ourselves, as there is a difference between the agent and the object of that action.
This is Chinese. Care to explain?
The human body is not a property. Deal with it.
This is not an argument.
most of states define them as not being subject to property. As air, for example, you can't claim the air that are inside of you is your.. you can claim you have the right to use it.
Like I said before, nature (like the air) is no private property. So the comparison with air makes no sense.
Becasue the state that make the rules over property, contracts, selling and human rights forbid it.
And if you do it outside the rules you can't claim any right.
What kind of messed up reasoning is this? If you don't follow the rules, you can't claim any right? Rosa Parks did not follow the rules, did she? So she couldn't claim any right according to you?
No, I'm saying rules are made by who has the strenght to impose them.
I'm not discussing what SHOULD BE. I observe reality.
Well, I will only be discussing what should be and not what is.
I can't get it.
Rules comes from strenght positions between people.
you can't avoid them. Rules are going to continue to run, even if you ignore them.
I did not say 'no rules', I said 'no rulers'.
a free will in order to satisfy a natural need..
But it's funny where this will lead us.
I could say: state doesn't forbid to kill people. you can kill them, you only accept BY YOUR FREE WILL that state will punish you after it. That's a deal man.
LOL.
Not killing is a condition for society. So yes, the state must impose that. But working is a free choice. Eating is a free choice. Being a couple is a free choice. Lol all you want, that won't change a thing.
This is Chinese. Care to explain?
The human body is not a property. Deal with it.
This is not an argument.
most of states define them as not being subject to property. As air, for example, you can't claim the air that are inside of you is your.. you can claim you have the right to use it.
Like I said before, nature (like the air) is no private property. So the comparison with air makes no sense.
Becasue the state that make the rules over property, contracts, selling and human rights forbid it.
And if you do it outside the rules you can't claim any right.
What kind of messed up reasoning is this? If you don't follow the rules, you can't claim any right? Rosa Parks did not follow the rules, did she? So she couldn't claim any right according to you?
No, I'm saying rules are made by who has the strenght to impose them.
I'm not discussing what SHOULD BE. I observe reality.
Well, I will only be discussing what should be and not what is.
I can't get it.
Rules comes from strenght positions between people.
you can't avoid them. Rules are going to continue to run, even if you ignore them.
I did not say 'no rules', I said 'no rulers'.
a free will in order to satisfy a natural need..
But it's funny where this will lead us.
I could say: state doesn't forbid to kill people. you can kill them, you only accept BY YOUR FREE WILL that state will punish you after it. That's a deal man.
LOL.
Not killing is a condition for society. So yes, the state must impose that. But working is a free choice. Eating is a free choice. Being a couple is a free choice. Lol all you want, that won't change a thing.
And my whereabouts are non of your business.
Indeed, and that was not my point. The problem is your IP's and you know it.
Also, your reasoning seems to imply that breaking rules is immoral. Which is plain nonsense obviously.
Plain nonsense for you maybe, but not for normal honest people!
Indeed, and that was not my point. The problem is your IP's and you know it.
Also, your reasoning seems to imply that breaking rules is immoral. Which is plain nonsense obviously.
Plain nonsense for you maybe, but not for normal honest people!