Tea Party assholes laugh & cheer at a man being left to die [Archive]

citizen of industry

15th September 2011, 07:06

Unfortunately, no it isn't:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/get-your-goddamn-governme_b_252326.html

Also on the OP's point, at some point the answer has to become no, it's just a question of when.

Say it costs $100,000 to save the man. It probably makes economic sense to do so and then bill him later. What about $10 million? $100 million? At some point the answer is obviously no, it's just a question of where. Not to mention the "30 year old healthy man" example is contrived...healthcare costs come disproportionately from the old and the chronically unhealthy. We are pouring tons of money into people who will never be healthy or who will probably die soon anyway, not a great ROI for society.

Well that's quite spartan of you. Should we throw children born with birth defects on a hillside to die, because it's not "economical?" It doesn't make sense to have pharmaceutical executives making seven-figure incomes while someone with a disease doesn't receive adequate health care, someone who is less likely to be able to work the long hours required to pay off the huge debt.

Healthcare costs do come disproportionately from the old. In Japan, the population is declining rapidly and aging at the same rate. People aren't having kids. Why? Because they can't afford them. Most of society is now on temporary jobs with poor benefits because the corporations always cut labor costs. Then they don't have enough consumers at home so they chase markets overseas. It's a cycle. Should we let the elderly population die off? Do you want an 80 year old lady working full time to pay off a debt?

Zostrianos

15th September 2011, 07:18

Is it wrong that I wish a meteor hit that Teabagger convention? :blushing:

Dogs On Acid

15th September 2011, 08:16

it is disgusting that that is how they respond to things...

I'm all for throwing a hand grenade into the crowd....

:rolleyes:

Klaatu

16th September 2011, 02:13

Is it wrong that I wish a meteor hit that Teabagger convention? :blushing:

That is an interesting point. When I was a teen, I was somewhat into The Occult. I did a magic ritual where I had intended to make someone I hated very sick and die, by a specific disease (jaundice) I thought nothing of this until a few months later, when that person actually did become sick and died from that same disease! :crying:

Although it was most likely pure coincidence, I NEVER went there again (The Occult that is) becaust I have heard that what you do to someone WILL come back to you in some form, from the dark side. It's called Bad Karma.

Misanthrope

16th September 2011, 02:16

Disgusting

Look, I'm not a Stalinist, but I am kind of being less judgmental of the Bolsheviks when they put these kind of people in Labor camps.

hmmmm...

Judicator

16th September 2011, 04:46

Well that's quite spartan of you. Should we throw children born with birth defects on a hillside to die, because it's not "economical?" It doesn't make sense to have pharmaceutical executives making seven-figure incomes while someone with a disease doesn't receive adequate health care, someone who is less likely to be able to work the long hours required to pay off the huge debt.

We should leave it up to their parents how they want to spend their money on their childrens' healthcare. As a society we have to draw the line somewhere and decide that some prices are too high. Why are the sick entitled to more of society's resources than the healthy?

Healthcare costs do come disproportionately from the old. In Japan, the population is declining rapidly and aging at the same rate. People aren't having kids. Why? Because they can't afford them. Most of society is now on temporary jobs with poor benefits because the corporations always cut labor costs. Then they don't have enough consumers at home so they chase markets overseas. It's a cycle. Should we let the elderly population die off? Do you want an 80 year old lady working full time to pay off a debt?

People in poor countries can "afford" to have 10 kids, surely in rich countries people can afford even more.

Should we let the elderly population die off? Lol what do you think happens to people when they are old? Have you ever had a relative who has died of a heart attack or natural causes? Do you think society should have put them on mechanical life support and dragged their life out for another 4 months on taxpayer dollars?

RGacky3

16th September 2011, 08:19

Why are the sick entitled to more of society's resources than the healthy?

Because they are sick and its a society, thats the point of society, and becuase they need it more, healthcare is for people that need it.

Thats why healthcare should be a public service.

Should we let the elderly population die off? Lol what do you think happens to people when they are old? Have you ever had a relative who has died of a heart attack or natural causes? Do you think society should have put them on mechanical life support and dragged their life out for another 4 months on taxpayer dollars?

I think Society should treat people like human beings and allow elderly people to live out their years the best way they can.

Its not like society does'nt have the recourses for this.

citizen of industry

16th September 2011, 08:29

[QUOTE=Judicator;2234780]We should leave it up to their parents how they want to spend their money on their childrens' healthcare. QUOTE]

Which means working parents have poor healthcare, while wealthy families have access to great healthcare. Wow. Good society.

Drosophila

16th September 2011, 20:38

We should leave it up to their parents how they want to spend their money on their childrens' healthcare. As a society we have to draw the line somewhere and decide that some prices are too high. Why are the sick entitled to more of society's resources than the healthy?

Because the sick are the ones who need health care the most. Really not that hard to figure out. It should be the duty of the wealthy to give up some of their share to save lives.

People in poor countries can "afford" to have 10 kids, surely in rich countries people can afford even more.

Should we let the elderly population die off? Lol what do you think happens to people when they are old? Have you ever had a relative who has died of a heart attack or natural causes? Do you think society should have put them on mechanical life support and dragged their life out for another 4 months on taxpayer dollars?

Well that's a rather disgusting view of society. So if grandpa wants to live another 4 months so he can see his grandchildren that's a "waste of taxpayer dollars?"

Judicator

17th September 2011, 07:54

Because they are sick and its a society, thats the point of society, and becuase they need it more, healthcare is for people that need it.

Thats why healthcare should be a public service.

Why does society have to have a point? It's just a group of people that live in the same place and have some common traits.

I think Society should treat people like human beings and allow elderly people to live out their years the best way they can.

Its not like society does'nt have the recourses for this.

Who decides if another 2 weeks is worth $200,000? Some government bureaucrat?

Which means working parents have poor healthcare, while wealthy families have access to great healthcare. Wow. Good society.

It might not be bad if the difference between "poor" and "good" isn't large.

Well that's a rather disgusting view of society. So if grandpa wants to live another 4 months so he can see his grandchildren that's a "waste of taxpayer dollars?"

No, he should decide for himself if they should have $100,000 in inheritance or $50,000 in medical bills. Is he entitled to insist that the government take $150,000 from someone else because he feels that his 78.5 years wasn't enough?

Because the sick are the ones who need health care the most. Really not that hard to figure out. It should be the duty of the wealthy to give up some of their share to save lives.

Spendthrifts need money the most, but that doesn't mean it's the duty of the wealthy to give it to them. Not all violations of duties mean you are violating someone's rights, and if you aren't violating anyone's rights, how is government justified in stepping in to force you to change your behavior?

How much healthcare do they need? Do you think it's society's duty to spend money on people until everyone is of equal health? (so we would spend infinite resources searching for a cure on someone with a currently incurable disease)

We have reached the point where the marginal dollar spent on healthcare isn't "saving lives"....look at life expectancy over time in the US.

#FF0000

17th September 2011, 08:13

Why does society have to have a point? It's just a group of people that live in the same place and have some common traits. why do you think people decided to live and work together in tribes back in the beginning of time (i will give you three guesses)

Who decides if another 2 weeks is worth $200,000? Some government bureaucrat?

hopefully someone who isn't like you

RGacky3

17th September 2011, 08:52

Why does society have to have a point? It's just a group of people that live in the same place and have some common traits.

Because historically it always has had that point.

Who decides if another 2 weeks is worth $200,000? Some government bureaucrat?

The sick person decides.

It might not be bad if the difference between "poor" and "good" isn't large.

Except it is large.

No, he should decide for himself if they should have $100,000 in inheritance or $50,000 in medical bills. Is he entitled to insist that the government take $150,000 from someone else because he feels that his 78.5 years wasn't enough?

Yes he is ... first of all thats a false situation many people don't have the money at all.

SEcdon of all we are wealthy enough as a nation to supply healthcare for everyone.

Also if the other person wants his property to be proected and his buisiness to be secure, if he got his money from a corporation and he wants it to be recognised, well then there are some rules. If he feels entitled to property protection and corporate protection (I don't think he is), well then he's gotta live under civilization.

Public policy should be made with the public in mind, not what rich people want.

Spendthrifts need money the most, but that doesn't mean it's the duty of the wealthy to give it to them. Not all violations of duties mean you are violating someone's rights, and if you aren't violating anyone's rights, how is government justified in stepping in to force you to change your behavior?

Because the government also steps in and forces your property rights on other people.

How much healthcare do they need? Do you think it's society's duty to spend money on people until everyone is of equal health? (so we would spend infinite resources searching for a cure on someone with a currently incurable disease)

Does that happen in every other country other than the US?

We have reached the point where the marginal dollar spent on healthcare isn't "saving lives"....look at life expectancy over time in the US.

Yeah, and look at healthcare results in other countries.

Judicator

17th September 2011, 08:58

why do you think people decided to live and work together in tribes back in the beginning of time (i will give you three guesses)

Often you don't decide to join society, you're just born into it. Even before humans appeared apes were born into existing social structures. Society is just an emergent phenomenon that appears when higher primates are in the same area.

hopefully someone who isn't like you

Better get that bleeding heart of yours checked out.

RGacky3

17th September 2011, 09:05

Better get that bleeding heart of yours checked out.

Instead we should be bleeding for those poor rich people getting stolen from.

Veovis

17th September 2011, 10:46

No, he should decide for himself if they should have $100,000 in inheritance or $50,000 in medical bills. Is he entitled to insist that the government take $150,000 from someone else because he feels that his 78.5 years wasn't enough?

Yes.

Edit: Comrade Gacky beat me to it. That will teach me to refresh the thread before replying. :p

Judicator

17th September 2011, 10:51

The sick person decides.

The country would be bankrupt immediately, not to mention it's not their money to take in the first place.

Except it is large.

Nope, it isn't. A rich country like the UK has life expectancy of 80 years, China has 74. You can get the same surgeries in India that you do in the US for 1/10 the cost, etc.

Yes he is ... first of all thats a false situation many people don't have the money at all.

No, most people have made at least $150,000 over the course of their lives. They can have no kids and no fun their entire lives, and then spend it all to live an extra 4 months. Or they can blow it while they are still young. I'm not going to make that choice for them.

SEcdon of all we are wealthy enough as a nation to supply healthcare for everyone.

Also if the other person wants his property to be proected and his buisiness to be secure, if he got his money from a corporation and he wants it to be recognised, well then there are some rules. If he feels entitled to property protection and corporate protection (I don't think he is), well then he's gotta live under civilization.

Public policy should be made with the public in mind, not what rich people want.

The government is wealthy enough to a lot of things, so what?

Public policy should be made with the correct role of government in mind, which we obviously disagree on and aren't going to settle in this thread.

Because the government also steps in and forces your property rights on other people.

It "forces" my right to life on them as well, to use your awkward terminology. I suppose if the government didn't defend my property, I'd have to buy a gun. Is this preferable?

Does that happen in every other country other than the US?

No, because it's not anyone's duty to spend money until everyone is of equal health. Some government bureau decides that 12 weeks wait time is too long for heart surgery, so they should make it 10.

Yeah, and look at healthcare results in other countries.

Basically the same life expectancies.

RGacky3

17th September 2011, 11:42

The country would be bankrupt immediately, not to mention it's not their money to take in the first place.

Yeah, because every industrialized country but the US is bankrupt due to healthcare costs :laugh:.

It is'nt their money its the countries money, thats the point of a national health insurnace.

Nope, it isn't. A rich country like the UK has life expectancy of 80 years, China has 74. You can get the same surgeries in India that you do in the US for 1/10 the cost, etc.

We are talking about the US, a country without a national health insurance.

No, most people have made at least $150,000 over the course of their lives. They can have no kids and no fun their entire lives, and then spend it all to live an extra 4 months. Or they can blow it while they are still young. I'm not going to make that choice for them.

See the libertarians definition of freedom, its freedom for sale, i.e. freedom for the rich, a destitute choice for the poor.

How about we save everyone money, and have a national health insurance so we don't force that choice on people.

Libertarians are the type of guys that were they in a desert with a big ass load of water and someone was dying of thirst, they would make them suck them off first or something, Hey its a choice, it was that persons free choice.

What the better solution would be would be for him just to take the water.

The government is wealthy enough to a lot of things, so what?

Public policy should be made with the correct role of government in mind, which we obviously disagree on and aren't going to settle in this thread.

The country, I'm not only talking about the government.

The goernments role is whatever the public wants its role to be, and if the public wants their health care to be private, well then thats their choice, but we see the results and we see that it works worse for most people.

It "forces" my right to life on them as well, to use your awkward terminology. I suppose if the government didn't defend my property, I'd have to buy a gun. Is this preferable?

Sure, buy a guy, chances are whatever you can defend with a gun is'nt really a big deal in the bigger picture.

No, because it's not anyone's duty to spend money until everyone is of equal health. Some government bureau decides that 12 weeks wait time is too long for heart surgery, so they should make it 10.

Well take a trip to Europe, it works pretty well there

Basically the same life expectancies.

Because we're the same species dumbass, but that does'nt say anything about healthcare results, any study will tell you that the US has terrible results for higher cost than the rest of the industrialized world that has a national health service.

#FF0000

17th September 2011, 16:45

Often you don't decide to join society, you're just born into it. Even before humans appeared apes were born into existing social structures. Society is just an emergent phenomenon that appears when higher primates are in the same area.

Uh huh. Listen, the point I'm trying to get at is that people group up because it's easier to survive that way. Society does have a point and it's to make life and survival easier.

Better get that bleeding heart of yours checked out.

I'm sure yours would be bleeding if the hypothetical guy on his deathbed was you or someone you knew, rather than one of the nameless and faceless poor.

And anyway it's a good thing that actual libertarian politicians can hire pr people and are bright enough to say that somehow healthcare would be better if no one could afford health insurance or something instead of saying that it's not that bad for people to die in the name of economic efficiency.

I mean, shit, guy, you could've even argued that instead of pouring money into healthcare, we could focus on eliminating food deserts and more on health education so people aren't as unhealthy to begin with.

Bud Struggle

17th September 2011, 16:46

Yeah, because every industrialized country but the US is bankrupt due to healthcare costs :laugh:.

What has this to do with the topic? Your mind is wandering.

Now as far as the origional comments go--this is what the the Proletariat looks like. These aren't factory owners shouting this stuff out--these are the potential Communist and Anarchist Revoltionaries.

#FF0000

17th September 2011, 16:49

What has this to do with the topic?

Now as far as the origional comments go--this is what the the Proletariat looks like. These aren't factory owners shouting this stuff out--these are the potential Communist and Anarchist Revoltionaries.

A good chunk of tea partiers have post-graduate educations and make more than 100,000 a year. Not a huge amount but more than the general population.

The tea party is also baby tiny and made of bitter old people whose grandchildren figured "oh we'll let grandpa go to his meetings at least he is getting out of the house and not yelling about the blacks anymore so it can't be all bad" and are now really really embarrassed.

Bud Struggle

17th September 2011, 17:30

A good chunk of tea partiers have post-graduate educations and make more than 100,000 a year. Not a huge amount but more than the general population.
Some are smart. But this, "choir of death" isn't those guys. Thee people selling "let them die" are the "Jerry Springer" Proletariat that somehow Communism has got to come to terms with.

I'm doing prison outreach these days, and the academic ability of prison inmates is 6th grade (except for sexual predators which is 11th grade.)

There's a lot of "bottom" in society. Tht has to be accounted for.

The tea party is also baby tiny and made of bitter old people whose grandchildren figured "oh we'll let grandpa go to his meetings at least he is getting out of the house and not yelling about the blacks anymore so it can't be all bad" and are now really really embarrassed.

The Tea Party is is to the Republicans as the Progressives are to the Democrats.

eric922

17th September 2011, 18:10

As t the point about the Tea Party being the proletariat,I'll try and address that. The Tea Party is angry, and they have a right to be angry, however they are angry at the wrong people. They have been effectively brainwashed by right-wing propaganda into believing their problems are caused by the poor and the few crumbs the State deems to give them.

However for socialism to succeed these people will have achieve class consciousness and will realize that their enemy isn't people of different races, sexual orientation, people on well-fare, but the system that has created their economic problems a.k.a. capitalism.

#FF0000

17th September 2011, 18:12

Some are smart. But this, "choir of death" isn't those guys. Thee people selling "let them die" are the "Jerry Springer" Proletariat that somehow Communism has got to come to terms with.

I dunno. The fact that they could afford/get the day off to go to the debate makes me think these are probably the gun-owning-but-don't-know-how-to-use-ing, tactical-sunglasses-wearing, conservative-haircut-with-dad-goatee-having managerial/small business owner side of the tea party.

There's a lot of "bottom" in society. Tht has to be accounted for. Yup, and I think there's more and more every day as the workforce is made more and more temporary.

piet11111

17th September 2011, 18:26

Its especially hilarious considering that the USA spends more per person on healthcare than any other country in the world.
And this system is the best capitalism can give you guys ? :laugh:

eric922

17th September 2011, 18:35

Its especially hilarious considering that the USA spends more per person on healthcare than any other country in the world.
And this system is the best capitalism can give you guys ? :laugh:
It is the most pure form of capitalism we will see,but is also likely the worst. I'd say the very best system capitalism can give are the social-democracies of Europe, but of course they are now under attack and unfortunately for working people in those countries, may be gone in a few decades. Which is the great flaw in reformism, the capitalists will always seek to undo those reforms.

Judicator

17th September 2011, 21:59

Yeah, because every industrialized country but the US is bankrupt due to healthcare costs .

It is'nt their money its the countries money, thats the point of a national health insurnace.

No country has the sick person spending public money directly. Some bureaucrat spend the money.

It's the country's money in the same sense that your money is mine if I steal it from you.

We are talking about the US, a country without a national health insurance.

We are talking about the difference between rich and poor healthcare, but if you want to compare rich and poor in the US, feel free to provide life expectancy numbers. Don't foreget to control for other variables, like the chance that a poor person ignores doctors advice.

See the libertarians definition of freedom, its freedom for sale, i.e. freedom for the rich, a destitute choice for the poor.

How about we save everyone money, and have a national health insurance so we don't force that choice on people.

Libertarians are the type of guys that were they in a desert with a big ass load of water and someone was dying of thirst, they would make them suck them off first or something, Hey its a choice, it was that persons free choice.

What the better solution would be would be for him just to take the water.

National savings require that you force the choice on people (you force them to pay).

What the better solution would be would be for him just to take the water.

Right, and if I want your sister I'll just take her, a better solution!

The goernments role is whatever the public wants its role to be, and if the public wants their health care to be private, well then thats their choice, but we see the results and we see that it works worse for most people.

Worked out real well in the antebellum south. The white majority wanted slavery, so they had it.

Sure, buy a guy, chances are whatever you can defend with a gun is'nt really a big deal in the bigger picture.

Okay, people can defend their own lives with a gun, so nobody's life is a big deal in the bigger picture.

Because we're the same species dumbass, but that does'nt say anything about healthcare results, any study will tell you that the US has terrible results for higher cost than the rest of the industrialized world that has a national health service.

Length of life doesn't say anything about healthcare results? Tell me about this place you come from, where healthcare doesn't have an impact on length of life.

Are the Chinese a different species because they have a lower life expectancy?

Uh huh. Listen, the point I'm trying to get at is that people group up because it's easier to survive that way. Society does have a point and it's to make life and survival easier.

People group up because it's in their own interests. So societies' purpose would then be to allow people to continue pursuing their own interests.

And anyway it's a good thing that actual libertarian politicians can hire pr people and are bright enough to say that somehow healthcare would be better if no one could afford health insurance or something instead of saying that it's not that bad for people to die in the name of economic efficiency.

My point was simply individuals should make these kinds of tradeoffs, not government.

I mean, shit, guy, you could've even argued that instead of pouring money into healthcare, we could focus on eliminating food deserts and more on health education so people aren't as unhealthy to begin with.

What's the fun in that?

TheGodlessUtopian

17th September 2011, 22:08

TEABAGGER is an acronym for Totally Enragead About Blacks And Gays Getting Equal Rights.

Not that these things are currently happening.

MattShizzle

18th September 2011, 03:35

Not that these things are currently happening.

No, and those Tea Party assholes are a major reason.

bcbm

18th September 2011, 03:41

No, and those Tea Party assholes are a major reason.

not really

black magick hustla

18th September 2011, 03:57

Zav

18th September 2011, 05:00

*With great effort restrains self from putting the crowd into comas*

citizen of industry

18th September 2011, 07:33

americans are so obsessed with the media. whatever the media says about the opinions of people is mostly not true. i think devrim said something similar about how the "public opinion" is the medias opinion. for example if one saw fox news all day you would think the mayority of americans are brain damaged and in the tea party. or every time there is something like what happened with the longshoremen in seattle and you read the comment section of those news articles you would think everyone has a deep hatred for longshoremen and unions. communists should stop caring about the media in general, really. that fucking book "manufacturing consent" turned the american left into a bunch of paranoid bug eyed weirdos. stop worrying so much about libertarians and bachmann and whatever fucking wingnut gets some time in the tv. aaaaaaaaa this annoys me so much

I liked that book. I'm not big on Chomsky but I find the propaganda model to be quite accurate. I rarely read/watch/or listen to mainstream media. But occasionally I'll write a letter to the editor for kicks. Take the longshoreman, for example. I read an article and they quoted a bunch of cops and a judge. So of course the strikers were painted as violent hoodlums. So I pointed that out to the editor - why did you not quote any of the striking unionists? How is this piece objective? This is just police and government opinion. That goes under Chomsky's "sourcing" part of the propaganda model.

Drosophila

18th September 2011, 21:01

Dzerzhinsky's Ghost

18th September 2011, 22:03

I find the weird and creepy bloodlust of the GOP debate attendees to be thoroughly disturbing on all fronts.

Le Socialiste

19th September 2011, 08:25

I take it these people aren't fans of Jesus' "Good Samaritan" parable. :rolleyes:

Dzerzhinsky's Ghost

19th September 2011, 17:10

I take it these people aren't fans of Jesus' "Good Samaritan" parable. :rolleyes:

This is what I'm saying.

It amazes me that such avid fans of hazrat Isa (as) would totally ignore the altruism inherent in the faith. I believe there is even a story about giving people whom need it the clothes off your back, water to drink, food to eat, etc. and he who does not do this would be like if you refused Isa (as) himself. Even putting the obvious religion of choice aside it still amazes me that people think insane individualism and pathological narcissism via politico-ideaological policy is beneficial to the species as a whole instead of collectivism, altruism, brotherhood, etc.

ComradeMan

19th September 2011, 20:41

This is what I'm saying.

It amazes me that such avid fans of hazrat Isa (as) would totally ignore the altruism inherent in the faith. I believe there is even a story about giving people whom need it the clothes off your back, water to drink, food to eat, etc. and he who does not do this would be like if you refused Isa (as) himself. Even putting the obvious religion of choice aside it still amazes me that people think insane individualism and pathological narcissism via politico-ideaological policy is beneficial to the species as a whole instead of collectivism, altruism, brotherhood, etc.

Vos noenter zu der schul, alts vayrter fun G-t.- loosely translated "Nearer to shul, farther from G-d".

;)

RGacky3

20th September 2011, 14:28

No country has the sick person spending public money directly. Some bureaucrat spend the money.

It's the country's money in the same sense that your money is mine if I steal it from you.

Actually its up to the doctor, who consults the patient.

Its the countries money in the same way that a capitalists money is his even though someone else worked for it.

Its the countries money, if you don't like it ... move to a country with no society, your "property" is only yours because the state defends it as such.

We are talking about the difference between rich and poor healthcare, but if you want to compare rich and poor in the US, feel free to provide life expectancy numbers. Don't foreget to control for other variables, like the chance that a poor person ignores doctors advice.

The chance that a poor person ignores doctors advice? Why would poor people be any more likely to ignore a doctors advice? (here comes the obvious disdain for hte poor libertarians have).

We are talking about a good healthcare system vrs a bad one, life expectancy is'nt the measure of good healthcare by ANY measure, and by ANY measure the US does terrible, much worse than industrialized countries with a national healthcare system.

National savings require that you force the choice on people (you force them to pay).

Whatever, its semantics, but its insurance by definition, because you pay in, and you get it out when you need it.

Right, and if I want your sister I'll just take her, a better solution!

You could try.

Worked out real well in the antebellum south. The white majority wanted slavery, so they had it.

They did'nt ask the blacks did they? Also I don't recall slavery EVER being up for a public vote ...

Okay, people can defend their own lives with a gun, so nobody's life is a big deal in the bigger picture.

You having life is'nt withholding from anyone the means of living.

You did'nt get the point, if you want to have some patch of land that you don't want to share with anyone, and your gonna sit there with a gun, that probably would'nt be a big deal because people can get along fine and society can run without you and your little patch, problems come when its large industry or large swaths of land and so on.

Length of life doesn't say anything about healthcare results? Tell me about this place you come from, where healthcare doesn't have an impact on length of life.

Are the Chinese a different species because they have a lower life expectancy?

THe United State's life expectancy is below most of europes. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html)

Life expectancy is one issue, but there are tons and tons of other measures of what makes a good healthcare system, and almost universally, the USA is below the industrialized national healthcare systems, take for example, the WHO's rankings (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html), even though the US spends the second most on healthcare (http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_ 2005.html) (per capita), they are just barely above slovakia, also when it comes to performance, its just barely above Butan. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html)

Its idiotic for you to argue that a private healthcare system works better than a public one.

My point was simply individuals should make these kinds of tradeoffs, not government.

A democratic government is a collective of individuals, when you say individuals you mean the market, when you say the market you mean it should be based on money, not people.

RightWinger

21st September 2011, 14:37

See it for yourself here:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/audience-tea-party-debate-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

skip to 23:50

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?"

And so the audience cheered "yeah!", laughed, and cheered.

lol !

Judicator

22nd September 2011, 01:45

Oh you capitalists. Money is everything to you.

Property rights mostly, which would include money. Money was obviously everything to that person...he would have lived if he had more of it.

Actually its up to the doctor, who consults the patient.

Its the countries money in the same way that a capitalists money is his even though someone else worked for it.

Nope, the bureaucrat is the one that decides if the operation the doctor wants will be paid for or not.

Its the countries money in the same way that a capitalists money is his even though someone else worked for it.

Its the countries money, if you don't like it ... move to a country with no society, your "property" is only yours because the state defends it as such.

Your property is still yours after someone steals it...that's why you have a just claim to get it back.

The chance that a poor person ignores doctors advice? Why would poor people be any more likely to ignore a doctors advice? (here comes the obvious disdain for hte poor libertarians have).

It's not disdain, it's a fact: "In unadjusted analyses, the working poor were significantly less likely to receive preventive care." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810564/

We are talking about a good healthcare system vrs a bad one, life expectancy is'nt the measure of good healthcare by ANY measure

If your population lives 80 years on average vs. someone else's who lives 60, who do you think has better healthcare?

They did'nt ask the blacks did they? Also I don't recall slavery EVER being up for a public vote ...

Would they need to? Under majority rule democracy you don't need to ask the minority to take things from them.

Life expectancy is one issue, but there are tons and tons of other measures of what makes a good healthcare system, and almost universally, the USA is below the industrialized national healthcare systems, take for example, the WHO's rankings, even though the US spends the second most on healthcare (per capita), they are just barely above slovakia, also when it comes to performance, its just barely above Butan.

Its idiotic for you to argue that a private healthcare system works better than a public one.

The US is full of fatties. Fatties are expensive to care for.

A democratic government is a collective of individuals, when you say individuals you mean the market, when you say the market you mean it should be based on money, not people.

The market doesn't tell you what to buy, it only tells you what it will cost.

Life expectancy is one issue, but there are tons and tons of other measures of what makes a good healthcare system, and almost universally, the USA is below the industrialized national healthcare systems, take for example, the WHO's rankings, even though the US spends the second most on healthcare (per capita), they are just barely above slovakia, also when it comes to performance, its just barely above Butan.

Its idiotic for you to argue that a private healthcare system works better than a public one.

These lazy comparisons don't factor in demographic differences (the US is fat), nor do they disaggregate private and public insurance in the US (we have both) or private vs. public healthcare induced outcomes in the US.

Revolution starts with U

22nd September 2011, 01:55

Nope, the bureaucrat is the one that decides if the operation the doctor wants will be paid for or not.

If I am not mistaken, this is absolutely false for nearly all Socialized Healthcare systems.

It's not disdain, it's a fact: "In unadjusted analyses, the working poor were significantly less likely to receive preventive care." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810564/

To recieve, or ask for? Could they be less likely to recieve it because they can only afford worst doctors?
I honestly don't know...

If your population lives 80 years on average vs. someone else's who lives 60, who do you think has better healthcare?

Whoever has better health care? Life expectancy could be influenced by many factors; genetics, local food supply, culture, better medical conditions, etc.
Doesn't Okinawa have the highest life expectancy in the world?

Would they need to? Under majority rule democracy you don't need to ask the minority to take things from them.

Well, since demo-cracy means "people power" I would have to say any democracy that doesn't take into account individual and minority rights is not a real democracy at all. Democracy doesn't just mean the power to vote, or else the board of directors would be a democracy.

CommunityBeliever

22nd September 2011, 01:59

The US is full of fatties. Fatties are expensive to care for.Fatties are expensive to care for, which is a good thing if you are on the other end of the expenses :).

And it is an absolutely fantastic thing if you are a food company that is selling fattening foods to the fatties in the first place. I can envision a society without agents that have such twisted goals. We can arrive at such a a society by eliminating profiteering.

Judicator

22nd September 2011, 05:15

If I am not mistaken, this is absolutely false for nearly all Socialized Healthcare systems.

Bureaucrats, not doctors, decide X is covered, the price they will pay for it, Y isn't covered, etc.

Here the NHS is making the same cold utilitarian calculation I was attacked for even bringing up: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7969652/Cancer-drugs-Pay-for-your-own-and-the-NHS-will-shun-you.html

To recieve, or ask for? Could they be less likely to recieve it because they can only afford worst doctors?
I honestly don't know...

They go on to control for income and a couple of other factors and get similar results (less preventative care).

Whoever has better health care? Life expectancy could be influenced by many factors; genetics, local food supply, culture, better medical conditions, etc.
Doesn't Okinawa have the highest life expectancy in the world?

The same is true of any measure of health outcomes (cancer fatality rates, whatever).

Well, since demo-cracy means "people power" I would have to say any democracy that doesn't take into account individual and minority rights is not a real democracy at all. Democracy doesn't just mean the power to vote, or else the board of directors would be a democracy.

Right, and the rich are a minority.

Revolution starts with U

22nd September 2011, 05:37

Bureaucrats, not doctors, decide X is covered, the price they will pay for it, Y isn't covered, etc.

Here the NHS is making the same cold utilitarian calculation I was attacked for even bringing up: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7969652/Cancer-drugs-Pay-for-your-own-and-the-NHS-will-shun-you.html

Obviously that's a tragedy... which could easily be fixed by just allowing one to get what they need.
I also just want to note that under your system people would largely die to (and quicker) because they cannot pay for it. You're not upset about her death. I'm not even sure you're upset at the government, as they did exactly what you recommend they do; tell someone no. It's just a convenient piece of evidence for you.

They go on to control for income and a couple of other factors and get similar results (less preventative care).

Of course they are controlling for income if they are showing that income corresponds to less preventative care... are you even reading your posts? :rolleyes:
WHat are these "couple other factors?" The only one I am asking if they are controlling for is higher quality doctors.

The same is true of any measure of health outcomes (cancer fatality rates, whatever).

Exactly, so taking one stat alone is a terrible measure of an efficient healthcare system. A holistic approach is a much better measure.

Right, and the rich are a minority.

Right. And where they cannot provide their own protection, it should be provided for them. But what you are implicitly suggesting, that we protect their ability to oppress everyone else, is just ludicrous.

Judicator

22nd September 2011, 06:20

Obviously that's a tragedy... which could easily be fixed by just allowing one to get what they need.
I also just want to note that under your system people would largely die to (and quicker) because they cannot pay for it. You're not upset about her death. I'm not even sure you're upset at the government, as they did exactly what you recommend they do; tell someone no. It's just a convenient piece of evidence for you.

The primary point was that the bureaucrat is making the choice, not the doctor.

WHat are these "couple other factors?" The only one I am asking if they are controlling for is higher quality doctors.

Nope. I'll see if there are other studies. I don't know why doctor quality is going to have a massive impact on your likelihood to take medication...you think the good ones are going to be exceptionally persuasive?

Exactly, so taking one stat alone is a terrible measure of an efficient healthcare system. A holistic approach is a much better measure.

Take a bunch of measures together and they're still going to be impacted by all of the factors you mentioned. Holistic "quality of life" indicators are going to be lower for fat people.

Right. And where they cannot provide their own protection, it should be provided for them. But what you are implicitly suggesting, that we protect their ability to oppress everyone else, is just ludicrous.

They can't protect their land from the raging horde of Communists. The land either is theirs or it isn't. If you're saying it isn't, then obviously there's nothing to protect, but most current landowners justly bought the land from someone else.

Revolution starts with U

22nd September 2011, 06:32

The primary point was that the bureaucrat is making the choice, not the doctor.

And that's a tragedy. So, you don't care if she dies, correct? You only care that a bureaucrat made the choice?

Nope. I'll see if there are other studies. I don't know why doctor quality is going to have a massive impact on your likelihood to take medication...you think the good ones are going to be exceptionally persuasive?

I think higher quality doctors will be more knowledgeable, have better access to more medical goods and procedures, and yes, will be more persuasive. Persuasive people generally have sucess... duh :rolleyes:

Take a bunch of measures together and they're still going to be impacted by all of the factors you mentioned. Holistic "quality of life" indicators are going to be lower for fat people.

I think you are still missing the point... I'm making no proscriptive argument for measures of healtcare. I am dispelling the myth you are trying to propagate that length of life is the ultimate decider in quality of healthcare.

They can't protect their land from the raging horde of Communists. The land either is theirs or it isn't. If you're saying it isn't, then obviously there's nothing to protect, but most current landowners justly bought the land from someone else.

It isn't. No land is anybody's. Protecting their property IS protecting their ability to oppress everyone else, which is what you are suggesting, which is ludicrous. I don't care how they bought their land... people justly bought slaves. It doesn't make the concept of human or land ownership any more justifiable.

Drosophila

22nd September 2011, 19:55

And that's a tragedy. So, you don't care if she dies, correct? You only care that a bureaucrat made the choice?

I think higher quality doctors will be more knowledgeable, have better access to more medical goods and procedures, and yes, will be more persuasive. Persuasive people generally have sucess... duh :rolleyes:

I think you are still missing the point... I'm making no proscriptive argument for measures of healtcare. I am dispelling the myth you are trying to propagate that length of life is the ultimate decider in quality of healthcare.

It isn't. No land is anybody's. Protecting their property IS protecting their ability to oppress everyone else, which is what you are suggesting, which is ludicrous. I don't care how they bought their land... people justly bought slaves. It doesn't make the concept of human or land ownership any more justifiable.

I wouldn't bother arguing with the reactionary, murderous, and sadistic capitalists.

Judicator

24th September 2011, 01:35

I take it these people aren't fans of Jesus' "Good Samaritan" parable. :rolleyes:

Note the Samaritan was an individual, not a government bureaucracy.

Even putting the obvious religion of choice aside it still amazes me that people think insane individualism and pathological narcissism via politico-ideaological policy is beneficial to the species as a whole instead of collectivism, altruism, brotherhood, etc.

It's amazing to me that people believe because collectivism works well in small groups that it should work everywhere.

citizen of industry

24th September 2011, 01:50

It's amazing to me that people believe because collectivism works well in small groups that it should work everywhere.

It's amazing to me people believe individualism exists when they are themselves a social product (from their parents). When everything they wear, everything they eat, all the products they buy come from the collective activity of society. We already have social production in this society, along with a useless class of people that stand between production and distribution, turning over money and enriching themselves while doing nothing productive.

Judicator

24th September 2011, 02:02

It's amazing to me people believe individualism exists when they are themselves a social product (from their parents). When everything they wear, everything they eat, all the products they buy come from the collective activity of society. We already have social production in this society, along with a useless class of people that stand between production and distribution, turning over money and enriching themselves while doing nothing productive.

Who said social groups were incompatible with individualism?

If all middle men were worthless why would anyone pay them for anything? Who needs a wholesaler? I'm sure you can find a local pharmacy willing to buy 100,000 boxes of Tylenol.

And that's a tragedy. So, you don't care if she dies, correct? You only care that a bureaucrat made the choice?

No, both are unfortunate.

I think higher quality doctors will be more knowledgeable, have better access to more medical goods and procedures, and yes, will be more persuasive. Persuasive people generally have sucess... duh

You can take a horse to water....

It's more a function of the patients status than the doctor's charisma (consider the rate of medication adherence among the elderly and mentally ill).

I am dispelling the myth you are trying to propagate that length of life is the ultimate decider in quality of healthcare.

Ultimate decider? Your words not mine.

Protecting their property IS protecting their ability to oppress everyone else, which is what you are suggesting, which is ludicrous. I don't care how they bought their land... people justly bought slaves. It doesn't make the concept of human or land ownership any more justifiable.

No, it's simply preventing others from occupying or taking it. The native Americans weren't "oppressing" the colonial settlers by attempting to forcibly prevent US settlement of the land they occupied.

citizen of industry

24th September 2011, 02:37

Who said social groups were incompatible with individualism? If all middle men were worthless why would anyone pay them for anything? Who needs a wholesaler? I'm sure you can find a local pharmacy willing to buy 100,000 boxes of Tylenol.

In a society based on exchange, the wholesaler is necessary. In a collectively planned economy, the wholesaler is not necessary. And here you are speaking of distribution. Of course you have to distribute goods to various locations. I was speaking of landowners (not individual holdings; banks that own real estate and collect rent), lenders/usurers, stock brokers, investors etc. People who take a cut of the pie while standing outside the whole process.

Revolution starts with U

24th September 2011, 10:31

You can take a horse to water....

It's more a function of the patients status than the doctor's charisma (consider the rate of medication adherence among the elderly and mentally ill).

Why would that be any different from poor people to wealthy people?

Ultimate decider? Your words not mine.

Fair enough

No, it's simply preventing others from occupying or taking it. The native Americans weren't "oppressing" the colonial settlers by attempting to forcibly prevent US settlement of the land they occupied.

Far more tribes than not originally tried to share the land with the settlers. It wasn't the indians that first put up the fences. Nomadism is absolutely incompatible with propertied society.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th September 2011, 01:57

RGacky3

26th September 2011, 08:51

Nope, the bureaucrat is the one that decides if the operation the doctor wants will be paid for or not.

Ok, the same with an insurance company, except its in their (the insurance company) interest to NOT pay for it.

Your property is still yours after someone steals it...that's why you have a just claim to get it back.

Not really, its just you that says its yours, I can say the amazon river is mine if I want to as well, it won't make a difference unless its recognized as such.

It's not disdain, it's a fact: "In unadjusted analyses, the working poor were significantly less likely to receive preventive care." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810564/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810564/)

I wonder why that is? Could it be that they are poor?

If your population lives 80 years on average vs. someone else's who lives 60, who do you think has better healthcare?

I just gave you a shitload of statistics, give it up, your grasping at straws here.

Would they need to? Under majority rule democracy you don't need to ask the minority to take things from them.

Yes you do, because the minority has a vote.

(by the way, no one is saying that there should'nt be restrictions on democracy, i.e. not everything is up for a democratic vote).

The US is full of fatties. Fatties are expensive to care for.

So its come to this :D, sorry, the facts are the facts PRIVATE HEALTHCARE IS WORSE THAN PUBLIC HEALTHCARE.

The market doesn't tell you what to buy, it only tells you what it will cost.

healthcare is something everyone needs.

These lazy comparisons don't factor in demographic differences (the US is fat), nor do they disaggregate private and public insurance in the US (we have both) or private vs. public healthcare induced outcomes in the US.

should I compare medicare with private insurance as well???

the US is the only country without a national healthcare service for everyone, and the health care system IS BETTER.

The US being fat is a different issue, but other countries smoke more, drink more and so on. BTW, I'll bet you anything more socialized societies are more in shape an I'll bet there is a connection (higher wages, less time spent working, better access to healthy food and training facilities).

Judicator

3rd October 2011, 05:22

Why would that be any different from poor people to wealthy people?

The mentally ill are more likely to be poor, since it's very difficult to hold down a job with a severe mental illness. It's probably also hard to adhere to a drug regimen with mental illness. This is going to be true for any other proclivity that cause both poverty and low likelihood of following a drug regimen.

Far more tribes than not originally tried to share the land with the settlers. It wasn't the indians that first put up the fences. Nomadism is absolutely incompatible with propertied society.

Some did, some didn't, but why don't they have the right to defend others from encroaching on the land they are currently using?

Nomadism is perhaps incompatible with property rights, but as soon as you start developing agriculture there aren't a lot of ways to avoid property. You planted the crops, they're yours, and nobody else can really do anything with the land, which means you're taking exclusive use of the land...basically property.

Regulatory bodies making hard decisions, in no small part because of underfunding, is still a vastly superior system to the US one.

The idea that "bureaucrats have the power of life and death over ordinary citizens" under socialised healthcare systems like the NHS is a baseless canard. If you're dying, the NHS will treat you. Except that they won't just simply stabilise you before handing you a bill.

"Power of life and death" is a canard, but they do decide whether potentially life extending medications will be paid for. SOMEONE ultimately has to make a choice about whats worth paying for and what isn't, the question is just if it should be a bureaucrat or a consumer.

Not really, its just you that says its yours, I can say the amazon river is mine if I want to as well, it won't make a difference unless its recognized as such.

And if it's recognized and taken away, it's still yours.

I just gave you a shitload of statistics, give it up, your grasping at straws here.

I am simply pointing out that in terms of one average outcome, one that you'd expect would differ a lot if healthcare was really so terrible in one country, doesn't differ much.

Yes you do, because the minority has a vote.

(by the way, no one is saying that there should'nt be restrictions on democracy, i.e. not everything is up for a democratic vote).

Right, we obviously disagree if someone's property can be arbitrarily voted out of their hands.

So its come to this , sorry, the facts are the facts PRIVATE HEALTHCARE IS WORSE THAN PUBLIC HEALTHCARE.

Lazy comparisons that deliberately omit explanatory variables are lazy comparisons that deliberately omit explanatory variables.

should I compare medicare with private insurance as well???

Sure.

BTW, I'll bet you anything more socialized societies are more in shape an I'll bet there is a connection (higher wages, less time spent working, better access to healthy food and training facilities).

A socialist McDonald's still makes you fat.

RGacky3

3rd October 2011, 08:18

And if it's recognized and taken away, it's still yours.

Ok, but it has to be recognized by the community, and if it stops being that, it stops being yours.

I am simply pointing out that in terms of one average outcome, one that you'd expect would differ a lot if healthcare was really so terrible in one country, doesn't differ much.

When you compare cost to benefits, the US spends FAR FAR more, and has much worse outcomes .... So it does differ that much, hell, if they had equal outcomes it would be terrible considering the US spends far far more.

Right, we obviously disagree if someone's property can be arbitrarily voted out of their hands.

We disagree about the nature of property yes.

Lazy comparisons that deliberately omit explanatory variables are lazy comparisons that deliberately omit explanatory variables.

In other words your saying Facts don't count, are all the variables in all hte different countries? Common now.

Sure.

Well, its more efficient than private health insurance, DISPITE policies barring it from negotiating with drug companies and dispite the highly wasteful medicare part D. (http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/)

A socialist McDonald's still makes you fat.

Yeah, but you don't go there that often becaus you make enough money only working 35 hours a week, you can live off one income for the household and thus have cooked dinner as a family, theres a reason French people are healthier and leaner, its not culture, its the fact that they work less.

Revolution starts with U

3rd October 2011, 12:48

Some did, some didn't, but why don't they have the right to defend others from encroaching on the land they are currently using?

Nomadism is perhaps incompatible with property rights, but as soon as you start developing agriculture there aren't a lot of ways to avoid property. You planted the crops, they're yours, and nobody else can really do anything with the land, which means you're taking exclusive use of the land...basically property.
Agriculture existed side by side with nomadism for thousands of years. Agriculture developed roughly 12k bce, if not earlier, and really kicked off around 9k bce. It wasn't until 7k bce that you started seeing defensive walls, and then only limited. Real private property did not develop until sometime after 5k bce. So you're talking about 3-7k years.
It's not until there is a large surplus and its managers become a ruling class that anyone has the power to make property private. Without the existence of the state, it seems, people generally prefer common property.
You act as if threat of punishment is the only thing that stops people from stealing...

RGacky3

3rd October 2011, 12:57

Real private property did not develop until sometime after 5k bce.

Actually private property in the sense of Capitalist property (property where its possible to develop a market system) developed much later.

JFB.anon

6th October 2011, 14:01

They wouldn't be poor if they worked harder

RGacky3

6th October 2011, 14:03

They wouldn't be poor if they worked harder

Are you serious?

RGacky3

6th October 2011, 14:11

If you really believe that, then your a moronic asshole with no connection to reality.

And also factually wrong, worker productivity in the US has gone up 86% in non-farm industries since 1978, while wages have basically stagnated and even dropped a little bit. Also the typical American family works 26% more than they did in 1975.

So basically your A: full of shit, and B: An out-of-touch smug asshole for even assuming this because a normal rational empathetic human being with the basic ability to understand his surroundings would'nt assume that at all.

tradeunionsupporter

6th October 2011, 20:48

I hate the Tea Party.

Revolution starts with U

6th October 2011, 21:26

Don't hate the hate, brother. Love the hate, and thereupon obtain goodness :tt1:

But ya, those are some straight up boot-licking assholes. :lol:

MattShizzle

7th October 2011, 02:01

Are you serious?

With the "reactionary" label in hius name he likely is. Severe reactionaries do indeed think people are poor because "they want to be" or "they're lazy and would rather be poor than work hard." Or at least they claim to believe it.

#FF0000

7th October 2011, 03:58

They wouldn't be poor if they worked harder

k i'll go out and say it.

I work harder in half a day than bill gates has since he moved out of his parents garage.

Judicator

7th October 2011, 08:14

Ok, but it has to be recognized by the community, and if it stops being that, it stops being yours.

If you're using "the community" to mean "the legal system" then sure.

When you compare cost to benefits, the US spends FAR FAR more, and has much worse outcomes .... So it does differ that much, hell, if they had equal outcomes it would be terrible considering the US spends far far more.

It depends on which metric you use...and if the US medicare system picks the wrong things to subsidize, or overpays for certain items, whose fault is that?

In other words your saying Facts don't count, are all the variables in all hte different countries? Common now.

No I'm saying you can generate spurious correlations relatively easily.

Well, its more efficient than private health insurance, DISPITE policies barring it from negotiating with drug companies and dispite the highly wasteful medicare part D.

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/private-insurance-is-more-efficient-than-medicare%E2%80%93by-far/ (And at the same time it isn't)

Yeah, but you don't go there that often becaus you make enough money only working 35 hours a week, you can live off one income for the household and thus have cooked dinner as a family, theres a reason French people are healthier and leaner, its not culture, its the fact that they work less.

Cooking at home is cheaper and doesn't take that long, especially given the amount of TV the american watches each week. Russia, Chile, and several other countries have longer work hours than the US and aren't fat.

k i'll go out and say it.

I work harder in half a day than bill gates has since he moved out of his parents garage.

Sucks that his skills are in higher demand.

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 08:23

If you're using "the community" to mean "the legal system" then sure.

Perhaps, but it should be directly subject to a community democratic process, not the federal government, but the city or the county.

It depends on which metric you use...and if the US medicare system picks the wrong things to subsidize, or overpays for certain items, whose fault is that?

I'm talking about the US people, per person, not the government, And your right Medicare part D was a terrible idea, but most of the private system is way more expensive and much worse than medicare, which is not as good (due to the corporate welfare) than national healthcare systems.

Under no metric is the US system better than Socialized healthcare systems.

No I'm saying you can generate spurious correlations relatively easily.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck ...

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/private-insurance-is-more-efficient-than-medicare%E2%80%93by-far/ (http://and%20at%20the%20same%20time%20it%20isn't/)

link does'nt work ...

Cooking at home is cheaper and doesn't take that long, especially given the amount of TV the american watches each week. Russia, Chile, and several other countries have longer work hours than the US and aren't fat.

So I suppose Americans are juts dumber and lazier than the rest of the world ...

If you take out systemic problems thats really all your left with.

Russian and Chile also have much different cultures that hav'nt been developed by Catpialism for around 200 years.

Judicator

7th October 2011, 08:36

Perhaps, but it should be directly subject to a community democratic process, not the federal government, but the city or the county.

No. Rights shouldn't be given or taken away by "democratic process." Even if Texas unanimously agrees on the death penalty it can still be unjust.

link does'nt work ...

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/private-insurance-is-more-efficient-than-medicare%E2%80%93by-far/

This should.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck ...

It's a plausible explanation consistent with a few stylized facts and consistent with my political views, therefore it's true!

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 08:41

No. Rights shouldn't be given or taken away by "democratic process." Even if Texas unanimously agrees on the death penalty it can still be unjust.

Property is not a right ... Its a privilege, property is nothing more than denying access to other people.

It's a plausible explanation consistent with a few stylized facts and consistent with my political views, therefore it's true!

Under every metric is socialized medical systems more successful ... so ... yeah its true.

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/private-i...2%80%93by-far/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://healthblog.ncpa.org/private-insurance-is-more-efficient-than-medicare%E2%80%93by-far/)

This should.

Does'nt take into account that everyone on medicare is old, and medicare cannot deny patients ANYTHING, or cannot deny ANYONE, private insurance does, of coarse it will cost more, thats why you measure overhead, which Private insurance has much more.

Judicator

7th October 2011, 09:06

Property is not a right ... Its a privilege, property is nothing more than denying access to other people.

It's the right to deny access, among other things. Denying people access to things isn't unique to property. Free association means I can deny you access to my social club or church.

Under every metric is socialized medical systems more successful ... so ... yeah its true

Under every metric more people die in hospitals, therefore hospitals are very dangerous places...

Does'nt take into account that everyone on medicare is old, and medicare cannot deny patients ANYTHING, or cannot deny ANYONE, private insurance does, of coarse it will cost more, thats why you measure overhead, which Private insurance has much more.

Medicare routinely creates drug shortages due to their bureaucratic price controls, people aren't paid for things that aren't covered under medicare.

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 09:14

Under every metric more people die in hospitals, therefore hospitals are very dangerous places...

Really? So the World health organization, has it wrong, so basically facts don't work with you.

Medicare routinely creates drug shortages due to their bureaucratic price controls, people aren't paid for things that aren't covered under medicare.

The first part is Medicare part D, however people are much more happy with Medicare than with private insurance, they have a might higher approval rating.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

7th October 2011, 09:23

"Power of life and death" is a canard, but they do decide whether potentially life extending medications will be paid for. SOMEONE ultimately has to make a choice about whats worth paying for and what isn't, the question is just if it should be a bureaucrat or a consumer.

That's bullshit too.

Firstly, there shouldn't be any "consumers" in medicine. If I break an arm or develop cancer, I want to be able to get to the nearest hospital and get effective treatment, not faff around choosing from a bewildering array of products I'm barely qualified to judge the effectiveness of.

Secondly, bodies like NICE are in a far better position to make such decisions. They work with medics, patients and carers whose collective knowledge and experience far outweighs my own.

Medical treatment is a necessity, it shouldn't be subject to the vagaries of the market, as if it were remotely comparable to faddish consumer goods. Fuck markets.

Judicator

7th October 2011, 09:30

That's bullshit too.

Firstly, there shouldn't be any "consumers" in medicine. If I break an arm or develop cancer, I want to be able to get to the nearest hospital and get effective treatment, not faff around choosing from a bewildering array of products I'm barely qualified to judge the effectiveness of.

Secondly, bodies like NICE are in a far better position to make such decisions. They work with medics, patients and carers whose collective knowledge and experience far outweighs my own.

Medical treatment is a necessity, it shouldn't be subject to the vagaries of the market, as if it were remotely comparable to faddish consumer goods. Fuck markets.

Food is a necessity and yet the private market provides lots of it with modest regulation.

If you break an arm, somebody should care about how much it costs to fix. People are most frugal when they spend their own money, rather than somebody else's.

Judicator

7th October 2011, 09:31

Really? So the World health organization, has it wrong, so basically facts don't work with you.

Has what wrong? Look it up...lots of people die in hospitals.

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 09:32

Food is a necessity and yet the private market provides lots of it with modest regulation.

and HUGE HUGE HUGE subsidies, yet people still starve ...

If you break an arm, somebody should care about how much it costs to fix. People are most frugal when they spend their own money, rather than somebody else's.

when its collective money you have collective responsiblity ...

But I don't know why we are talking to you since you dissmiss facts even when they all point to the same thing.

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 09:33

Has what wrong? Look it up...lots of people die in hospitals.

if you really trying to make this argument it should tell everyone what they need to know about you and your connection to reality, your not an honest debator.

Judicator

7th October 2011, 09:39

if you really trying to make this argument it should tell everyone what they need to know about you and your connection to reality, your not an honest debator.

I'm providing a simple example of spurious correlation, a concept with which you are evidently unfamiliar.

RGacky3

7th October 2011, 09:53

You responded to multiple sources of different metrics of statistics from the WHO showing that socialized health insurance is better than private with "people die in hospitals, so you can make statistics say anything," and you expect people to take you seriously?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

7th October 2011, 10:12

Food is a necessity and yet the private market provides lots of it with modest regulation.

Yet millions of people still go hungry. In terms of production alone hunger should be a thing of the past, but in terms of distribution the capitalist price system is a complete failure. Even when availability of food isn't a problem, the quality of the food often is.

If you break an arm, somebody should care about how much it costs to fix. People are most frugal when they spend their own money, rather than somebody else's.

Frugality is the virtue of misers.

Judicator

8th October 2011, 00:41

Yet millions of people still go hungry. In terms of production alone hunger should be a thing of the past, but in terms of distribution the capitalist price system is a complete failure. Even when availability of food isn't a problem, the quality of the food often is.

The capitalist price system ensures that the tradeoffs made when you buy and sell reflect the real costs of production. If you try to have any planned economy where prices don't float, you encourage huge shortages or black markets.

In terms of production it's not surprising that some individuals are still hungry...they don't produce a lot.

Frugality is the virtue of misers.

Frugality would have averted our current financial situation, since US homeowners would have decided maybe it's a bad idea to get a house you can't afford.

You responded to multiple sources of different metrics of statistics from the WHO showing that socialized health insurance is better than private with "people die in hospitals, so you can make statistics say anything," and you expect people to take you seriously?

Picking a single variable (more public or more private healthcare) and immediately claiming it causes all variation in health outcomes among countries is dishonest and misleading.

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence that universal free healthcare isn't a great idea:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221703004120
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa642.pdf
http://www.rand.org/health/projects/hie.html

Thirsty Crow

8th October 2011, 00:58

In terms of production it's not surprising that some individuals are still hungry...they don't produce a lot.

No shit, Sherlock. But then again, it's not that surprising that millions and millions of people around the world, who would otherwise be able to work, don't do so. After all, there is no need for their labour, and they are effectively the human surplus.

So, another question could be posed: why the hell should we live like that?

Bud Struggle

8th October 2011, 01:37

Frugality is the virtue of misers.

And the world's experiments in Communism sor far.

I've been in the USSR and Cuba. Both were/are frugal countries.

Agent Equality

8th October 2011, 02:40

The capitalist price system ensures that the tradeoffs made when you buy and sell reflect the real costs of production. If you try to have any planned economy where prices don't float, you encourage huge shortages or black markets.

The capitalist price system ensures that those without the money to do so die in the streets and go hungry and starve. There is MORE than enough resources and productive power in this world for everyone to benefit from them but capitalism is not about benefiting everyone it possibly can. Its about exploiting everyone it possibly can and making a profit out of it.

Its only about benefiting a small majority who thus controls the vast amount of resources that would otherwise be available to the rest of the population.

In the "supply and demand" sense. There is a SHIT load of supply and there is a SHIT load of demand which continues to be ignored by capitalism.

Prices and black markets are no excuse to allow hundreds of millions to go hungry every. single. year.

Revolution starts with U

8th October 2011, 05:12

"But need is not effective economic demand. Effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power."
~Henry Hazlitt

Judicator

8th October 2011, 07:02

No shit, Sherlock. But then again, it's not that surprising that millions and millions of people around the world, who would otherwise be able to work, don't do so. After all, there is no need for their labour, and they are effectively the human surplus.

So, another question could be posed: why the hell should we live like that?

I suppose in a socialist paradise the government would pay them to dig holes and fill them back up.

The capitalist price system ensures that those without the money to do so die in the streets and go hungry and starve. There is MORE than enough resources and productive power in this world for everyone to benefit from them but capitalism is not about benefiting everyone it possibly can. Its about exploiting everyone it possibly can and making a profit out of it.

Prices and black markets are no excuse to allow hundreds of millions to go hungry every. single. year.

Capitalism does not force certain people to have low human capital and others to have high human capital. Capitalism does allow people with varying levels of human capital to make the most of it. If you excessively reallocate/abolish property, this will be even more disastrous for the poor, since nobody will have any incentive to invest for the future.

Consider the quality of life of the poor in countries with weak property rights (Nigeria, Kenya, Angola) vs. in those with strong property rights (Finland, US, UK): http://www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/userfiles/file/2011execsummary.pdf

And you're saying property rights are harmful to the poor?

Revolution starts with U

8th October 2011, 07:17

Capitalism does not force certain people to have low human capital and others to have high human capital. Capitalism does allow people with varying levels of human capital to make the most of it.
Sure. Private property and the market itself hypothetically doesn't force anything on anybody (id say theory, but theory requires evidence, and this would just be rehashing the same argument ad naseum. you'll come around some day, or you may not.)
Historical capitalism, established despite 6k+ years off oppression and bloodshed does.

If you excessively reallocate/abolish property, this will be even more disastrous for the poor, since nobody will have any incentive to invest for the future.
Consider the quality of life of the poor in countries with weak property rights (Nigeria, Kenya, Angola) vs. in those with strong property rights (Finland, US, UK): http://www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/userfiles/file/2011execsummary.pdf

And you're saying property rights are harmful to the poor?

This is a fair criticism (on a semi-side note, it's why I could never identify as a leninist). If a minority (the vanguard) abolishes property, they will almost certainly do so in a way that protects their interest. But, on the same note, if the mass of worker's themselves do it, they will most likely do so in their interest.
But I would offer to you; consider the...
1) Historical struggles of labor which have demanded dignity for the poor, before it was kosher (sry LaSombra :lol:)
2) Rule of law
3) Amount of ownership expressed by the working class brought about bye 1)

RGacky3

8th October 2011, 09:24

Picking a single variable (more public or more private healthcare) and immediately claiming it causes all variation in health outcomes among countries is dishonest and misleading.

but when that is the ONLY universal variable amung all the countries and their results are better than the private one, across the board, then we have something, we arn't comparing 1 and 1, we are comparing the industrialized world.

If 100 people who excercized and ate their greens ALL lived longer and healtheir than 100 that did not, its pretty fair to make a corrolation.

Thirsty Crow

8th October 2011, 10:34

I suppose in a socialist paradise the government would pay them to dig holes and fill them back up.

You're quite a funny bloke/gal. But it's sad, in fact, that all of the time spent here didn't do you any good at becoming better informed about the broad currents of the revolutionary left (ever heard of the overarching goal of shortening the necessary work time?).

Though I should say, I'm surprised by your honesty here in admitting that global capitalism systematically excludes hundreds of millions, even billions, from access into its necessary labor force, thus rendering them practically superfluous as human beings (probably you'd say that their low human capital has nothing to do the basic operations of the world market; but the thing is, huge numbers of people with "low human capital" are an absolute necessity for this global mode of production to remain in operation; if a concrete individual X were to have a different human capital, higher than it actually is - then we'd have to have another individual of a correspondingly low human capital).

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

8th October 2011, 11:29

The capitalist price system ensures that the tradeoffs made when you buy and sell reflect the real costs of production.

Bullshit. It's a fucking casino, and just like in a casino the game is fucking rigged.

If you try to have any planned economy where prices don't float, you encourage huge shortages or black markets.

I'm saying there shouldn't even be any prices at all.

In terms of production it's not surprising that some individuals are still hungry...they don't produce a lot.

It's hard to produce much if one is born into poverty. :rolleyes:

Frugality would have averted our current financial situation, since US homeowners would have decided maybe it's a bad idea to get a house you can't afford.

Who was it who gave those people the loans, again?

And the world's experiments in Communism sor far.

I've been in the USSR and Cuba. Both were/are frugal countries.

You know damn well that I do not seek to emulate those countries, so why the fuck do you keep banging on about them?

MattShizzle

10th October 2011, 21:32

And the world's experiments in Communism sor far.

I've been in the USSR and Cuba.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/MattGo74/Notthisshit-1.jpg

And - Judicator - seriously advocating letting people go hungry or not medically treated - and their children too- just because "they don't produce much??!?!?!"

Reactionary asshole.

Judicator

11th October 2011, 03:48

Sure. Private property and the market itself hypothetically doesn't force anything on anybody (id say theory, but theory requires evidence, and this would just be rehashing the same argument ad naseum. you'll come around some day, or you may not.)
Historical capitalism, established despite 6k+ years off oppression and bloodshed does.

I think there are two claims we have to separate:
1) There are numerous examples of capitalist countries using military aggression against other countries
2) Economic choices under capitalism are forced

Are you arguing that (2) is true because (1) is true, or can you defend (2) on its own?

But, on the same note, if the mass of worker's themselves do it, they will most likely do so in their interest. But I would offer to you; consider the...

1) Historical struggles of labor which have demanded dignity for the poor, before it was kosher (sry LaSombra :lol:)
2) Rule of law
3) Amount of ownership expressed by the working class brought about bye 1)

So then we agree property rights are essential to economic flourishing, it's just a question of who holds the property (workers, or anyone who wants to)?

but when that is the ONLY universal variable amung all the countries and their results are better than the private one, across the board, then we have something, we arn't comparing 1 and 1, we are comparing the industrialized world.

If 100 people who excercized and ate their greens ALL lived longer and healtheir than 100 that did not, its pretty fair to make a corrolation.

Having universal healthcare isn't a binary variable...some cover more things and some cover less. If we offer everyone in the US emergency care alone, does that count as universal healthcare? If we give everyone a free flu vaccine, does that count?

My point is simply the issue is more complex than you'd like it to be.

Though I should say, I'm surprised by your honesty here in admitting that global capitalism systematically excludes hundreds of millions, even billions, from access into its necessary labor force, thus rendering them practically superfluous as human beings (probably you'd say that their low human capital has nothing to do the basic operations of the world market; but the thing is, huge numbers of people with "low human capital" are an absolute necessity for this global mode of production to remain in operation; if a concrete individual X were to have a different human capital, higher than it actually is - then we'd have to have another individual of a correspondingly low human capital).

There are millions, or perhaps billions, of people who aren't in the labor force. Many children, for example. I wouldn't say that capitalism "systematically denies them" entry.

I don't think a particular distribution of human capital is needed to have functional regional or global economies, any more than a particular ratio of oil to iron ore in the ground. They are just two factors of production and prices adjust until the market clears.

Consider the world today versus 200 years ago...there are far more professional & high skilled workers today than before.

[LARGE CAT]

And - Judicator - seriously advocating letting people go hungry or not medically treated - and their children too- just because "they don't produce much??!?!?!"

Reactionary asshole.

They aren't going to produce much in any economic system. The choice (separate from the choice of whether or not we should have capitalism) is whether or not we should give them a handout. I didn't say we shouldn't.

MattShizzle

11th October 2011, 04:05

They aren't going to produce much in any economic system. The choice (separate from the choice of whether or not we should have capitalism) is whether or not we should give them a handout. I didn't say we shouldn't.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i68/Vectracious/Opelaus/Forum%20Pics/31feb_ORIG-UnbelievableBullshitAirplaneIIAnimated.gif

Revolution starts with U

11th October 2011, 05:31

I think there are two claims we have to separate:
1) There are numerous examples of capitalist countries using military aggression against other countries
2) Economic choices under capitalism are forced

Are you arguing that (2) is true because (1) is true, or can you defend (2) on its own?

I am arguing:
1)For the sake of argument, lets say the market is not coercive.
a)Capitalist nations are known to use military aggression
b)The distribution of property in society is unjustly based on 10k years of aggression, bloodshed, and plunder
2)The property system forces property on everyone, regardless of their stance on the issue.
a)nomadic forraging is illegal
b)the property-less members of society are forced to accept the terms of the propertied lest they starve

So then we agree property rights are essential to economic flourishing, it's just a question of who holds the property (workers, or anyone who wants to)?

Not exactly. I am saying, under a property system, democratic ownership is ethically preferable, and I would argue more efficient, than private ownership.
But the property system, in the sense that property means anything at all, is not really necessary in the first place. It's only really scarcity that allows it to exist at all.

Judicator

11th October 2011, 05:57

I am arguing:
1)For the sake of argument, lets say the market is not coercive.
a)Capitalist nations are known to use military aggression
b)The distribution of property in society is unjustly based on 10k years of aggression, bloodshed, and plunder
2)The property system forces property on everyone, regardless of their stance on the issue.
a)nomadic forraging is illegal
b)the property-less members of society are forced to accept the terms of the propertied lest they starve

(1b) So your claim here is that any property owner bears the "sins of his father" going back 10k years, even after it has gone through a long series of just transfers? Why should the "injustice" carry over to unrelated third parties? If I steal $100,000 from a bank and use it to buy a BMW, why should the BMW dealership be liable for my theft?

(2) This is in the same sense that any law is forced upon anyone, which we are all forced to accept lest we rot in jail. What's the point that's specific to property?

Not exactly. I am saying, under a property system, democratic ownership is ethically preferable, and I would argue more efficient, than private ownership.
But the property system, in the sense that property means anything at all, is not really necessary in the first place. It's only really scarcity that allows it to exist at all.

Ethically, do you see a distinction between capitalism + wealth transfers and democratic ownership of property? I don't, but maybe you see something inherently good about property ownership?

If democratic ownership is in fact more efficient, why hasn't it supplanted other methods of production, as the assembly line supplanted previous methods of production? Is it some big capitalist conspiracy? I think at the very least with a work democracy you lose the benefits of division of labor - not everyone has business acumen.

Right if nothing was scarce we wouldn't need property, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Manifesto

11th October 2011, 06:05

Yahoo! commenters are the worst fucking people.

Geiseric

11th October 2011, 06:11

dude, what's ultimately the goal of libertarians? To have a society based off whoever was born in the best conditions? It's just confusing why anybody would think as methodically reactionary and induvidualist as most libertarians. It's gonna end up like today no matter what, it's still capitalism lol.

Revolution starts with U

11th October 2011, 07:23

(1b) So your claim here is that any property owner bears the "sins of his father" going back 10k years, even after it has gone through a long series of just transfers? Why should the "injustice" carry over to unrelated third parties? If I steal $100,000 from a bank and use it to buy a BMW, why should the BMW dealership be liable for my theft?

The dealer shouldn't necessarily be liable unless he knew it was stolen. But any economic transactions made, or production gained from the stolen money is void.

(2) This is in the same sense that any law is forced upon anyone, which we are all forced to accept lest we rot in jail. What's the point that's specific to property?

I'm not necessarily going to die if I don't accept murder or rape laws... as horrendous as that is.
1)If I don't accept the property system, I will starve. Where is there to go? It's all owned and needs paid for.
Shit the Russians put a flag under the north pole to claim it when the glaciers recede :lol:
2)The propertyless person has no choice but to accept the terms of the propertied. Unlike a normal barter where I trade you a chicken for a barrel of corn, and we both semantically "profit" from the deal; the propertyless person has nothing to offer but labor, a thing he doesn't want to give up anyway.

Ethically, do you see a distinction between capitalism + wealth transfers and democratic ownership of property? I don't, but maybe you see something inherently good about property ownership?
Ownership had no right to own in the first place.
The system is like me robbing you, and then paying you, then sending in my thugs to tax you.
I say instead of forced redistribution, we just discontinue the forcing of private property in the means of production.

If democratic ownership is in fact more efficient, why hasn't it supplanted other methods of production, as the assembly line supplanted previous methods of production? Is it some big capitalist conspiracy? I think at the very least with a work democracy you lose the benefits of division of labor - not everyone has business acumen.

Workplace democracy doesn't necessarily mean no management, more like management is recallable and elected.
There are co-ops and democratic workplaces that are doing very well. Evidence shows they are more ressillient to economic recession, as you expect democracy to be over dictatorship ;).
The question "why havn't they supplanted" is not a very answerable question. They're a pretty recent concept born of the labor struggle. Unlike the assembly line, they do not benefit the ruling class with higher production at the expense of labor.
This is not to say they are unproductive, far from it. They can be and are very productive. But they lack the ability to siphon the monies gained from increases in productivity away from labor and into ownership. Why would the ownership class (the ruling class) invest in that?

Right if nothing was scarce we wouldn't need property, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Most of the current scarcity in the world is artificially created solely by the ownership system. Consider the current state of the waste of supermarkets. You can look this up. 60% of their daily waste is browning but still edible food. If you cannot sell it, you throw it away... unless the benevolent dictator that is the owner, or his crony the manager, decides to generously give his heart to us, the lowly populace.

RGacky3

11th October 2011, 08:21

Having universal healthcare isn't a binary variable...some cover more things and some cover less. If we offer everyone in the US emergency care alone, does that count as universal healthcare? If we give everyone a free flu vaccine, does that count?

My point is simply the issue is more complex than you'd like it to be.

Universal coverage, no one consideres emergency care to be health care, your asking to define something that EVERYONE ALREADY HAS DEFINED.

And the facts stand.

Your arguing against "the world goes around the Sun" arguing "Well what really is the definition of 'around.'"

Judicator

11th October 2011, 08:31

The dealer shouldn't necessarily be liable unless he knew it was stolen. But any economic transactions made, or production gained from the stolen money is void.

How can the economic transaction be void, while at the same time the dealer not be responsible? He has the money, can he keep it or not (assuming no reasonable knowledge that the cash was ill-gotten)?

I'm not necessarily going to die if I don't accept murder or rape laws... as horrendous as that is.
1)If I don't accept the property system, I will starve. Where is there to go? It's all owned and needs paid for.
Shit the Russians put a flag under the north pole to claim it when the glaciers recede
2)The propertyless person has no choice but to accept the terms of the propertied. Unlike a normal barter where I trade you a chicken for a barrel of corn, and we both semantically "profit" from the deal; the propertyless person has nothing to offer but labor, a thing he doesn't want to give up anyway.

(1) Can you clarify what you mean by "not accept?" Do you mean reject in theory, or reject via action? If you do the latter (committing a crime) you'll get the corresponding penalty. This is the sense in which everyone is forced to accept all laws, property or otherwise.

(2) What do you mean by "terms?" They have to obey all of the laws, which include property, lest they pay the penalty for violating them. Labor isn't as homogenous as you say it is - someone trained as an engineer could probably do reasonably well in many mathematically oriented fields, so they have something to offer any firm. What's significant about the claim that labor is the only thing a landless individual has to offer?

The system is like me robbing you, and then paying you, then sending in my thugs to tax you.
I say instead of forced redistribution, we just discontinue the forcing of private property in the means of production.

The "robbery" occurs because the worker is ostensibly underpaid?

The question "why havn't they supplanted" is not a very answerable question. They're a pretty recent concept born of the labor struggle. Unlike the assembly line, they do not benefit the ruling class with higher production at the expense of labor.
This is not to say they are unproductive, far from it. They can be and are very productive. But they lack the ability to siphon the monies gained from increases in productivity away from labor and into ownership. Why would the ownership class (the ruling class) invest in that?

What they would have is a competitive edge. Consider a group of individuals in a cooperative. They are faced with two options:
1) Continue working, gaining both the return on capital and the return on their labor.
2) Sell the business and work elsewhere, getting a wage there, and the return on capital offered by the market.

If they are truly more efficient, (1) should produce higher returns than (2). This gives them room to undercut capitalists, who are (apparently) disadvantaged by their inefficient production setup.

Consider the current state of the waste of supermarkets. You can look this up. 60% of their daily waste is browning but still edible food. If you cannot sell it, you throw it away... unless the benevolent dictator that is the owner, or his crony the manager, decides to generously give his heart to us, the lowly populace.

You can only get a fixed amount of food off of all the arable land in the world. If food isn't scarce, than farmland can't be scarce. But we know that land is scarce, or would you say this is also artificial?

Revolution starts with U

11th October 2011, 13:26

How can the economic transaction be void, while at the same time the dealer not be responsible? He has the money, can he keep it or not (assuming no reasonable knowledge that the cash was ill-gotten)?

EIther way' it's clearly not his money. Why should the saver be forced to pay for the dealer's lifestyle merely because he was robbed? The dealer should face no punishment, perhaps, except for the return of the ill-gotten goods.

(1) Can you clarify what you mean by "not accept?" Do you mean reject in theory, or reject via action? If you do the latter (committing a crime) you'll get the corresponding penalty. This is the sense in which everyone is forced to accept all laws, property or otherwise.

It is only because of the property system that nomadic forraging, homelessness, and vagrancy are crimes. I can not accept the murder system, and not have to commit murder; meaning I can be against the arrest of murders, or the death penalty, etc. If I do not accept the property system I WILL have to commit a crime to do so.
Clearly property, unlike other crimes, creates its own criminal network around it. There is no such thing as theft or trespassing in a propertyless society (at least not as far as we understand it).
Take for example the Nez Perce. If you were out on the hunt, or went to visit some family, basically away from your house for an extended period of time, other members of the tribe could come and take freely from your stuff. And as long as they were respectful about it, YOU would be the one looked down upon if you complained about it.

(2) What do you mean by "terms?" They have to obey all of the laws, which include property, lest they pay the penalty for violating them.
I mean that "become a tool for some master or starve." Those are the terms. Sure, some people have a third choice; become a master. But not everyone is that malprincipled, skilled, and/or motivated to be a master.
Labor isn't as homogenous as you say it is - someone trained as an engineer could probably do reasonably well in many mathematically oriented fields, so they have something to offer any firm. What's significant about the claim that labor is the only thing a landless individual has to offer?
I don't know where I claimed labor was homogenous. I have myself worked in a variety of fields.
It's the tool < master phenomemon that is significant. Being only a tool he has no say in the direction his labor is to be used. His only choice is a choice between masters. Granted, their may be a benevolent dictator who offers a little freedom for the serf, and this may encourage/force others to compete likewise. I still see no reason this would justify the position of the master... other than the childish justification of "mine."

The "robbery" occurs because the worker is ostensibly underpaid?

The ostensible underpayment of the worker is just a symptom of the core corruption. The robbery occurs against all of society when someone puts up a fence, writes a deed, and says "mine."
So someone bought up all the land in your area and called in the defense forces to keep you off. Then opened a factory. You have no where to go, you're surrounded by desert. You used to just run around, find some berries and tubers, trap some critters, and go on the occasional hunt. Now you cannot.
The land is his. The courts and police will arrest you. But hey, you can work in his factory and he will pay you. Then you can buy food from him, or someone who works for him, or the guy he golfs with on weekends... What a great deal, eh?
He could have just came up and said "hey, I have this great idea, but I need to partition the land for different purposes. I can feed all of us, well. Are you interested?" But if he does that, he can't siphon all the wealth created.

What they would have is a competitive edge. Consider a group of individuals in a cooperative. They are faced with two options:
1) Continue working, gaining both the return on capital and the return on their labor.
2) Sell the business and work elsewhere, getting a wage there, and the return on capital offered by the market.

Co-op labor has an $8 avg advantage in wages over regular private business. The problem is not in wages, nor in productivity.
... There's not really a problem that any other capitalist business faces. (And remember, the co-op is a market enterprise. Its socialism by a capitalist method at best; pseudo-public enterprise.) They don't recieve as much in investment. That's really the only difference. This lack of investment actually works in their favor, its part of what makes them so resillient to recession.
You asked why haven't they outcomepeted. They compete well. The reason they haven't outcompeted private enterprise overall is merely because it is not in the material interests of the ruling class.
There was quasi-capitalist enterprise in feudal society, why did it take 1000 years to outcompete feudalism?

You can only get a fixed amount of food off of all the arable land in the world. If food isn't scarce, than farmland can't be scarce. But we know that land is scarce, or would you say this is also artificial?
1)For human purposes, food is artificially scarce. We have enough land, and we have enough food to feed everyone. It's just not profitable.
2)Landed property is an articial scarcity.
3)Profit-based distribution is an artificial scarcity
4)Private/oligarchical enterprise (seen in the division of internal income) is an artificial scarcity

Revolution starts with U

11th October 2011, 13:29

I mean really socialists have the most to complain about with co-ops as it really just becomes the workers exploiting themselves :rolleyes: because they still operate within the for profit market.

On a side note; I have decided to never use the term "free market" again... I mean, contradiction in terms much? There's nothing "free" in a market :lol:. I will say the "open market" from now on.

RGacky3

11th October 2011, 13:54

I mean really socialists have the most to complain about with co-ops as it really just becomes the workers exploiting themselves :rolleyes: because they still operate within the for profit market.

Actually they don't, the profit market is the market for investors, i.e. shareholders or bank loans, also the requirement to pay owners and executives with the surplus the most possible, cooperatives don't have any of those things.

workers exploiting themselves is an oxymoron, its like saying your your own slave.

On a side note; I have decided to never use the term "free market" again... I mean, contradiction in terms much? There's nothing "free" in a market :lol:. I will say the "open market" from now on.

Good idea.

Revolution starts with U

11th October 2011, 14:48

Actually they don't, the profit market is the market for investors, i.e. shareholders or bank loans, also the requirement to pay owners and executives with the surplus the most possible, cooperatives don't have any of those things.

Co-ops still have to suppress wages like everyone else to remain profitable, most anyway... at least most in the industrial economy. They still have to forsake safety and health standards like everyone else. They are still in it for the good of the company, rather than society. They are exploiting themseleves.

They are a good incubator for socialist development. But nothing more. The challenge they represent to the capitalist system is a slow, evolutionary one. That's fine. If we can improve the life of one worker that is a sucess, if not at the expense of the rest of humanity. But the biggest and best evolutionary changes happen in revolutionary leaps. This is as true in the natural order as it is in human society.

RGacky3

11th October 2011, 15:25

Co-ops still have to suppress wages like everyone else to remain profitable

They don't, unless they are engaged in a price war.

A general profit model is (revenues)-(wages+fixed capital costs)=Profit, which goes to the owners, goes to extra pay for executives, goes to cash holdings or whatever.

In a simple capitalist enterprise, you NEED a profit to go to the owners (which is how they make their living), and in a corporation you NEED a profit to maximise shareholder value.

In a Cooperative any extra profit would simply go to the workers, so the only time they would need a profit would be if they want to expand or they want a pay raise.

They still have to forsake safety and health standards like everyone else. They are still in it for the good of the company, rather than society. They are exploiting themseleves.

THey don't have to forsake safety and health standards because they have no PROFIT mandate from shareholders or a capitalist, there is no requirement to maximise profits.

Thye are doing it for the good of themselves (and I suppose the company), rather than society, but the definition of of a insititutional structure is not motivation.

THey can't be exploiting themselves, its a contradiction in terms.

They are a good incubator for socialist development. But nothing more. The challenge they represent to the capitalist system is a slow, evolutionary one. That's fine. If we can improve the life of one worker that is a sucess, if not at the expense of the rest of humanity. But the biggest and best evolutionary changes happen in revolutionary leaps. This is as true in the natural order as it is in human society.

I actually don't think they post a real callenge to the greater Capitalist system, unless they become the institution of choice for public policy.

I'm not saying they are revolutionary organizations.

Revolution starts with U

11th October 2011, 15:36

They don't, unless they are engaged in a price war.

A general profit model is (revenues)-(wages+fixed capital costs)=Profit, which goes to the owners, goes to extra pay for executives, goes to cash holdings or whatever.

In a simple capitalist enterprise, you NEED a profit to go to the owners (which is how they make their living), and in a corporation you NEED a profit to maximise shareholder value.

In a Cooperative any extra profit would simply go to the workers, so the only time they would need a profit would be if they want to expand or they want a pay raise.

Yes, and because they operate in a capitalist marketplace (mind you I am only talking about the for profit ones, specifically in more industrial or technological markets) THEY, the workers are the owners. They still need to make a profit, for themselves. The co-op exists for the good of the co-op, not society.

THey don't have to forsake safety and health standards because they have no PROFIT mandate from shareholders or a capitalist, there is no requirement to maximise profits.

Some of them have investors. Mondragoran for example. They also, again ARE the owners, and need to make a profit, for themselves. If the market calls for it they must cut costs like any other business.
They are by far not as bad as private enterprise. Wages don't go down as much, health and safety remain reatively high.
But they're still only quasi-public efforts in a private marketplace.

THey can't be exploiting themselves, its a contradiction in terms.

I would argue a drug addict expolits themself for short-term gain.

I actually don't think they post a real callenge to the greater Capitalist system, unless they become the institution of choice for public policy.

I'm not saying they are revolutionary organizations.
Socialism is by defintion revolutionary in the capitalist order. Again, at best we can call them quasi-socialist. I am a big proponent of them, and they are to be my main point of focus in the larger society. But they're really nothing more than proverbial merchant trains coming to stop at the local village to sell trinkets to the serfs.

Judicator

12th October 2011, 04:29

EIther way' it's clearly not his money. Why should the saver be forced to pay for the dealer's lifestyle merely because he was robbed? The dealer should face no punishment, perhaps, except for the return of the ill-gotten goods.

The saver has every right to get back the value of his property - but only from the thief. The merchant isn't responsible to keep track of the property of third parties, or pay damages when he unknowingly acquires stolen cash.

It is only because of the property system that nomadic forraging, homelessness, and vagrancy are crimes. I can not accept the murder system, and not have to commit murder; meaning I can be against the arrest of murders, or the death penalty, etc. If I do not accept the property system I WILL have to commit a crime to do so.

Clearly property, unlike other crimes, creates its own criminal network around it. There is no such thing as theft or trespassing in a propertyless society (at least not as far as we understand it).

I don't know how broadly you are thinking of the "property system" but laws against vagrancy and homelessness vary from state to state, and are somewhat separate from property rights.

Tresspassing, as you note, is a crime only because we have property rights, just as homicide is a crime only because we have laws against murder. Why does you posting on these forums, apparently opposing property rights, require that you trespass?

If you were out on the hunt, or went to visit some family, basically away from your house for an extended period of time, other members of the tribe could come and take freely from your stuff. And as long as they were respectful about it, YOU would be the one looked down upon if you complained about it.

Which would leave you very little incentive to invest in anything. Why would anyone spend weeks making arrowheads or something useful if their neighbors could just slack off and then take from them?

I mean that "become a tool for some master or starve." Those are the terms. Sure, some people have a third choice; become a master. But not everyone is that malprincipled, skilled, and/or motivated to be a master.

And a fourth choice: go to Appalachia and live on squirrel meat and moonshine. But I digress. The poorest 10% spend something like 1/3 of their income on food. If the option were truly "work or starve" this figure would have to be closer to 100%.

Also, if it was in fact the case that those who couldn't find work would starve, you'd observe a large (say, hundreds of thousands) number of people starving in the US every year. You don't.

I don't know where I claimed labor was homogenous. I have myself worked in a variety of fields.

You claimed that labor was "the only thing" the worker had to offer - whereas say a farmer-owner would be able to offer an assortment of crops. I was merely pointing out that you have an assortment of skills to offer, which are arguably distinct in the same sense that different goods are distinct.

Being only a tool he has no say in the direction his labor is to be used. His only choice is a choice between masters. Granted, their may be a benevolent dictator who offers a little freedom for the serf, and this may encourage/force others to compete likewise.

He has say in where his skills are used by seeking employment in different places. Someone with journalism skills seeks employment at a newspaper (good luck lol) knowing that his skills will be used to write articles. Same idea for any other job. If you want to cut trees down, be a lumberjack. Etc. You choose how your labor is used based on the career you choose.

The robbery occurs against all of society when someone puts up a fence, writes a deed, and says "mine."
The land is his. The courts and police will arrest you. But hey, you can work in his factory and he will pay you. Then you can buy food from him, or someone who works for him, or the guy he golfs with on weekends... What a great deal, eh?
He could have just came up and said "hey, I have this great idea, but I need to partition the land for different purposes. I can feed all of us, well. Are you interested?" But if he does that, he can't siphon all the wealth created.

Let's suppose everyone agrees on a law allowing anyone who develops the land (farming or building a railroad, probably) in the Western US to put up a fence and call it theirs. And let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this is truly uninhabited land. What's unjust about doing this? How is it "robbery" to allow individuals to acquire property which formerly belonged to the government?

You asked why haven't they outcomepeted. They compete well. The reason they haven't outcompeted private enterprise overall is merely because it is not in the material interests of the ruling class.
There was quasi-capitalist enterprise in feudal society, why did it take 1000 years to outcompete feudalism?

So now you're saying worker co-ops are more efficient than normal firms in the same sense that capitalism is more efficient than feudalism? Worker co-ops, regular firm structures, assembly lines, inventory management systems...these all seem more like example of how to run a firm efficient *under capitalism* as you said. I'm wondering why this supposedly very efficient technology has failed to compete.

Do the "material interests of the ruling class" prevent worker co-ops from charging lower prices than their competitors?

1)For human purposes, food is artificially scarce. We have enough land, and we have enough food to feed everyone. It's just not profitable.
2)Landed property is an articial scarcity.
3)Profit-based distribution is an artificial scarcity
4)Private/oligarchical enterprise (seen in the division of internal income) is an artificial scarcity

Land has multiple uses, and we don't have enough land to do everything we want with it at once. This is what makes it scarce. Even if the government did not have property laws, not everyone would be able to own 10 acres of beachfront property, it still wouldn't make economic sense for the US to convert all of its agricultural production to corn ethanol production.

Not sure what you mean by 3 and 4.

RGacky3

12th October 2011, 08:53

Yes, and because they operate in a capitalist marketplace (mind you I am only talking about the for profit ones, specifically in more industrial or technological markets) THEY, the workers are the owners. They still need to make a profit, for themselves. The co-op exists for the good of the co-op, not society.

All indsutries work in the market place, the salvation army is non-profit but works in the market place, but they are not for profit. I believe, that unless they have some external ownership.

Take for example the Pilgrams who came to the US, internally they were a cooperative community, however they were actually chartered by the London company and other investors, making them a for profit institution, because they had profit obligations to the London company.

The workers make their money in Saleries or wages, unless they want higher compensation they don't need a profit, Profit is revenue - (variable capital cost( + (fixed capital cost), anything extra that comes it just goes to variable capital cost.

The definition of profit is'nt the purpose of production, obviously its for the good of hte cooperative, or the individual members, but thats not the defining factor of a communist institution.

Some of them have investors. Mondragoran for example. They also, again ARE the owners, and need to make a profit, for themselves. If the market calls for it they must cut costs like any other business.
'

Mondragon as far as I know has no profit obligation to any investors, however it is a for profit organization (legally).

And your right they are subject to the market, but less so, infact much less so, since their main obligation is too their workers, who's main money comes from compensation, NOT profits.

However, when it comes to who controls the product, it IS the prodcer, which by Marx's definition, makes it a communist institution, which operates, in a Capitalist Market system.

The same way Capitalist institutions operated in feaudal systems.

They are by far not as bad as private enterprise. Wages don't go down as much, health and safety remain reatively high.
But they're still only quasi-public efforts in a private marketplace.

I totally agree, but I'm looking at this from a purely micro level.

I would argue a drug addict expolits themself for short-term gain.

Yeah, but I'm talking economic exploitation, and using a Marxist definition.

Revolution starts with U

12th October 2011, 17:15

The saver has every right to get back the value of his property - but only from the thief. The merchant isn't responsible to keep track of the property of third parties, or pay damages when he unknowingly acquires stolen cash.

Uh.. ya. At least in this country he is. Sure, most of the time these laws have a clause of knowing it was stolen. And (I can tell you from personal experience) according to that knowledge clause, you can't even suspect the property was stolen.

I don't know how broadly you are thinking of the "property system" but laws against vagrancy and homelessness vary from state to state, and are somewhat separate from property rights.

BUt there are always laws against vagrancy and homelessness... there has to be because they are just extentsions of trespassing.

Tresspassing, as you note, is a crime only because we have property rights, just as homicide is a crime only because we have laws against murder.
No, that's not "just like" at all. Read it again.

Which would leave you very little incentive to invest in anything. Why would anyone spend weeks making arrowheads or something useful if their neighbors could just slack off and then take from them?

Idk, why did they?
It's always funny to me when people just blatantly dismiss reality...

And a fourth choice: go to Appalachia and live on squirrel meat and moonshine. But I digress. The poorest 10% spend something like 1/3 of their income on food. If the option were truly "work or starve" this figure would have to be closer to 100%.

Yes, thank you very much statist worker protection laws, welfare programs, investment in homeless shelters, and stuff like that.

Also, if it was in fact the case that those who couldn't find work would starve, you'd observe a large (say, hundreds of thousands) number of people starving in the US every year. You don't.

Yes, thank you statist worker protection laws, welfare, investment in food banks and homelss shelters, and stuff like that. Because guess what, before that, you often did see people starving, sometimes to death.

He has say in where his skills are used by seeking employment in different places. Someone with journalism skills seeks employment at a newspaper (good luck lol) knowing that his skills will be used to write articles. Same idea for any other job. If you want to cut trees down, be a lumberjack. Etc. You choose how your labor is used based on the career you choose.

Yes, he has the choice to work for one master or another, or become a master himself. We have been over this already (as we have almost all of these topics. The endless back and forth, no one willing to admit when they are wrong... it gets really tiring, eh? Im sure it does for you as well)

Let's suppose everyone agrees on a law allowing anyone who develops the land (farming or building a railroad, probably) in the Western US to put up a fence and call it theirs. And let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this is truly uninhabited land. What's unjust about doing this? How is it "robbery" to allow individuals to acquire property which formerly belonged to the government?
Why are you assuming the government's ownership is illegitimate (I know why, I think. Because you know property is only valid as long as you have bigger guns, right? Probably not :lol:)?

So now you're saying worker co-ops are more efficient than normal firms in the same sense that capitalism is more efficient than feudalism? Worker co-ops, regular firm structures, assembly lines, inventory management systems...these all seem more like example of how to run a firm efficient *under capitalism* as you said. I'm wondering why this supposedly very efficient technology has failed to compete.

Been over this many times too... I would kindly ask you to start reading before posting. They have not failed to compete. They compete very well. They are actually far superior in resistance to recession.

Do the "material interests of the ruling class" prevent worker co-ops from charging lower prices than their competitors?

No. We have already been over this and I would kindly ask you to start reading before posting. The only difference is their ability to attract large investments. And that actually works to their favor!

Land has multiple uses, and we don't have enough land to do everything we want with it at once. This is what makes it scarce. Even if the government did not have property laws, not everyone would be able to own 10 acres of beachfront property, it still wouldn't make economic sense for the US to convert all of its agricultural production to corn ethanol production.

You must be talking to someone else, and not me? Because this has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Not sure what you mean by 3 and 4.
The profiteer can distribute only as much as allows him to siphon wealth from the transaction. Cost-effective distribution would allow for more distribution, as it only has to maintain revenues AT cost, not over. And certainly not for the benefit of some profiteer. It represents an artificial scarcity of distribution.
Maintaining high salary at the expense of wages is, an extension of the for profit system, also forcing companies to distribute less to satisfy these high salaries at the expense of wages.

Judicator

13th October 2011, 02:00

Uh.. ya. At least in this country he is. Sure, most of the time these laws have a clause of knowing it was stolen. And (I can tell you from personal experience) according to that knowledge clause, you can't even suspect the property was stolen.

So then when the merchant doesn't have any reason to suspect theft the money he gets is justifiably his.

BUt there are always laws against vagrancy and homelessness... there has to be because they are just extentsions of trespassing.

Private individuals can kick people off of their property whether or not there are vagrancy laws. Vagrancy laws only prevent people from using public spaces in certain ways. You can have private property without vagrancy laws.

No, that's not "just like" at all. Read it again.

[you said] Clearly property, unlike other crimes, creates its own criminal network around it. There is no such thing as theft or trespassing in a propertyless society (at least not as far as we understand it).

There is no such thing as unlawful homicide where there are no laws against murder.

Idk, why did they?
It's always funny to me when people just blatantly dismiss reality...

Lol did they? Look at North America when Columbus arrived vs. Europe.

Yes, thank you very much statist worker protection laws, welfare programs, investment in homeless shelters, and stuff like that.

How does OSHA help non-wage laborers survive in Appalachia?

Anyway, so then you agree, as things stand (or "in reality" as you love to say), it isn't slavery?

Yes, thank you statist worker protection laws, welfare, investment in food banks and homelss shelters, and stuff like that. Because guess what, before that, you often did see people starving, sometimes to death.

So then you agree, today, that "become a tool for some master or starve" is not really a choice faced by American workers, and therefore they aren't, by your definition, slaves.

Why are you assuming the government's ownership is illegitimate

Illegitimate? Read again.

I would kindly ask you to start reading before posting. They have not failed to compete. They compete very well. They are actually far superior in resistance to recession.

They have failed to turn their supposed structural advantage over other forms of running a company into market dominance. Most capital expenditures are funded with retained earnings, so these supposedly efficient co-ops shouldn't have trouble getting the money to expand.

Don't know how you're measuring resistance to recession, but I welcome evidence on this point. Also I am curious why you think less access to capital markets ("lack of investment") helps a company which lacks cash.

No. We have already been over this and I would kindly ask you to start reading before posting. The only difference is their ability to attract large investments. And that actually works to their favor!

They can still get bank loans and retained earnings, which would allow them to expand. Despite all of this, they don't.

You must be talking to someone else, and not me? Because this has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You were claiming that food is artificially scarce, despite the fact that land is scarce and food production is just a function of how you allocate scarce land.

The profiteer can distribute only as much as allows him to siphon wealth from the transaction. Cost-effective distribution would allow for more distribution, as it only has to maintain revenues AT cost, not over. And certainly not for the benefit of some profiteer. It represents an artificial scarcity of distribution.

The business makes the same amount of money either way. So there's the same amount of money available for "distribution" to vendors, workers, capital providers, etc.

Maintaining high salary at the expense of wages is, an extension of the for profit system, also forcing companies to distribute less to satisfy these high salaries at the expense of wages.

A firm in a competitive marketplace can't get workers at below-market rates. You pay whatever the market will bear and if you pay less you'll find yourself understaffed. This is true independent of your other costs, such as high salaries for yourself.

Revolution starts with U

13th October 2011, 04:35

So then when the merchant doesn't have any reason to suspect theft the money he gets is justifiably his.

I would argue no, but society has deemed it as such. Even in theses cases tho, it is very hard to argue against reasonably knowing.

Private individuals can kick people off of their property whether or not there are vagrancy laws. Vagrancy laws only prevent people from using public spaces in certain ways. You can have private property without vagrancy laws.

Only if they have bigger guns :lol: for real, if Im carrying an AK or something and you have a .22 pistol... how fast do you think you are getting me off your property?
If I reject the property system, meaning I act in opposition to it, you have to force me to comply with your view. If I reject murder, meaning the same, I have to force you to comply with my view.

There is no such thing as unlawful homicide where there are no laws against murder.

There is still such a thing as killing (murder, you didn't need the unlawful part, is a legal term). In a property-less society its really far more of a give and take.
Consider:

Hawkes (1990, 1992, 1993a, 1993b), Kent (1996) and Kaplan and Hill
(1985a, b), for example, have found consistent and stark differences in the provision rates of
different hunters/gatherers. Better hunters contribute significantly more to the sharing network
and others contribute significantly less, even over time periods long enough to permit
reciprocation of sharing acts. In many instances better hunters go uncompensated for their
efforts, and strangely, care is often exercised in ensuring that compensation of more productive
agents is avoided. There also appears to be little pressure for those who consistently produce
less to increase their output or effort; see, for example Lee (1979), Hawkes (1993a), Kent
(1996), and Woodburn (1982).

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/2/9.html

Jones (1984 (http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/2/9.html#blurton1984)) went further with his notion of "tolerated theft" wherein an individual would not expend the effort to resist the theft of an object or recover it if the cost of confronting the thief was greater than the value of the object

Boehm (1999 (http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/2/9.html#boehm1999)) remarks that he "had to examine scores of forager ethnographies to find a few dozen usable reports of egalitarian sanctioning (of theft), and I believe that the sensitivity of most hunter-gatherers to subtle social cues is a factor in this relatively modest level of reported political conflict

Lol did they? Look at North America when Columbus arrived vs. Europe.

That's a very outrageous analogy seeing as how Mexico City at the time (Tenochtitlan) was the cleanest and most populous city in the world at the time of Columbus' arrival.

But that aside, the fact of the matter is that civilzation, unless brought down upon us by gods or aliens, had to develop within pre-stratification society.

How does OSHA help non-wage laborers survive in Appalachia?

:lol: what? How does murder laws help oranges grow? That's basically what you just asked

Anyway, so then you agree, as things stand (or "in reality" as you love to say), it isn't slavery?

I never argued it was slavery proper in the first place, but no. The numerous historical examples of some slaves living in relative luxury forces me to not accept a theory that slavery is defined by the lack of economic abundance.

So then you agree, today, that "become a tool for some master or starve" is not really a choice faced by American workers, and therefore they aren't, by your definition, slaves.

Where would I have ever offered that definition of slavery?

Illegitimate? Read again.

Much apologies, I meant legitimate. (Freudian slip? :lol:)

They have failed to turn their supposed structural advantage over other forms of running a company into market dominance.
And this is important because? They still exist and thrive. I really do not get where you are trying to go with this?

Most capital expenditures are funded with retained earnings, so these supposedly efficient co-ops shouldn't have trouble getting the money to expand.

They don't really. Again, they survive, grow, and prosper (largely financed through the other co-ops a self-reciprocating system). If you ask why they are not the most dominant means of market activity, my answer would be because they offer benefits in direct opposition to class society, and by that measure, the self-interests of individual members of the ruling class.

Stop acting as if there is a problem with co-ops. There is not. They do very well, and largely accomplish exactly what they set out to do.

Don't know how you're measuring resistance to recession, but I welcome evidence on this point. Also I am curious why you think less access to capital markets ("lack of investment") helps a company which lacks cash.

It makes them less reliant upon the changing whims of the investment sector.
I believe the wikipedia article on it can get you started, there are numerous studies of co-ops you can also look up. Have at it, comrade... personal responsiblity and all that ;)

They can still get bank loans and retained earnings, which would allow them to expand. Despite all of this, they don't.

Except they do. So...

You were claiming that food is artificially scarce, despite the fact that land is scarce and food production is just a function of how you allocate scarce land.

Food in modern society is artificially scarce. We produce enough of it to feed all the people and their chickens and cows. So I don't know what you are trying to get at...

The business makes the same amount of money either way. So there's the same amount of money available for "distribution" to vendors, workers, capital providers, etc.

Yes, go on?

A firm in a competitive marketplace can't get workers at below-market rates. You pay whatever the market will bear and if you pay less you'll find yourself understaffed. This is true independent of your other costs, such as high salaries for yourself.
Yep, and that is why Ben and Jerry's, who retained the corporate model, could not hold to their principle of a 7% difference between the compensation of the lowest worker to the highest. It's kind of hard to attract a CEO from Harvard Business school when you offer 500k/yr as opposed to 6m.
And yet co-ops continue to grow and prosper? Hmm.. t'would seem the need for excessive executive salaries is specific to a pure capitalist productive method...?

Judicator

13th October 2011, 06:37

I would argue no, but society has deemed it as such. Even in theses cases tho, it is very hard to argue against reasonably knowing.

Why not? What do you mean its hard to argue against reasonably knowing? You mean everyone should reasonably know if property is stolen or not?

If I reject the property system, meaning I act in opposition to it, you have to force me to comply with your view. If I reject murder, meaning the same, I have to force you to comply with my view.

In both cases, if you try to occupy my property (because you reject my right to property) or try to kill me (because you reject my right to life), I will have to defend myself, or the state will justifiably do so on my behalf.

There is still such a thing as killing (murder, you didn't need the unlawful part, is a legal term). In a property-less society its really far more of a give and take.

Sure, perhaps instead of unlawful I should say unjust. Without an idea of right to life (or some justice-related prohibition on killing), there's no such thing as murder. Same idea for property.

[Article about hunters]

That's interesting. Don't the best hunters usually get laid the most? In a community where it's hard to even have a formal legal system, it makes sense that they would

That's a very outrageous analogy seeing as how Mexico City at the time (Tenochtitlan) was the cleanest and most populous city in the world at the time of Columbus' arrival.

But that aside, the fact of the matter is that civilzation, unless brought down upon us by gods or aliens, had to develop within pre-stratification society.

The Aztecs appear to have had a feudal system of property rights http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/aztec/aztec_property.html

There has been social stratification since before our species even existed. Complex social hierarchies in great apes are routinely observed.

How does murder laws help oranges grow? That's basically what you just asked

The answer to both questions would be "it doesn't." Just as murder laws are largely irrelevant to orange growth, "statist worker protection laws" are largely irrelevant to those who choose to be self-sufficient in rural Appalachia.

Why are you assuming the government's ownership is [legitimate]?

I said:
"Let's suppose everyone agrees on a law allowing anyone who develops the land (farming or building a railroad, probably) in the Western US to put up a fence and call it theirs. And let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this is truly uninhabited land. What's unjust about doing this? How is it "robbery" to allow individuals to acquire property which formerly belonged to the government?"

Are you granting me that if the government's ownership is legitimate, then this is fine?

And this is important because? They still exist and thrive. I really do not get where you are trying to go with this?

It would mean co-ops are either a mediocre or completely unscalable business model. You were claiming they were more efficient. I am claiming that they are less efficient. This does not prevent them from existing.

If you ask why they are not the most dominant means of market activity, my answer would be because they offer benefits in direct opposition to class society, and by that measure, the self-interests of individual members of the ruling class.

Right, and my follow up question is what the ruling class could actually do to prevent the spread of worker co-ops. They cannot simply will it.

Stop acting as if there is a problem with co-ops. There is not. They do very well, and largely accomplish exactly what they set out to do.

I don't know what the goals of co-ops are, so I can't say either way.

Except they do. So...

So...where are all of the worker co-ops in large capital intensive industries?

Food in modern society is artificially scarce. We produce enough of it to feed all the people and their chickens and cows. So I don't know what you are trying to get at...

That it's not artificial. Regardless of property arrangements you have, land is scarce. We could dedicate all of this scarce resource towards one purpose, but this doesn't change the fact that it's scarce. Consequently, anything requiring land as a factor input is scarce.

Yes, go on?

So the amount of distribution available isn't artificially scarce, it's a function of the economics of the business.

Yep, and that is why Ben and Jerry's, who retained the corporate model, could not hold to their principle of a 7% difference between the compensation of the lowest worker to the highest. It's kind of hard to attract a CEO from Harvard Business school when you offer 500k/yr as opposed to 6m.

I think you have your numbers mixed up. The 7% number was what they gave to charity, worker/exec salaries could be different by a factor of 5...which is about enough to get regular skilled accountants and middle managers and so on. They could also probably fudge the salary numbers a bit (no pun intended) with stock options.

CEO pay was a good bit lower 10 years ago so idk how low 500k really is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A3204-2000Apr12

And yet co-ops continue to grow and prosper? Hmm.. t'would seem the need for excessive executive salaries is specific to a pure capitalist productive method...?

Not really, we had capitalism and lower executive salaries 50 or 100 years ago.

Revolution starts with U

13th October 2011, 07:27

Why not? What do you mean its hard to argue against reasonably knowing? You mean everyone should reasonably know if property is stolen or not?

I am saying it varies by court. I am also saying consort case law. Personal responsiblity :thumbup1:
For example:
(
Also, in many states (Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio), for example), the burden to prove criminal intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_intent) is not as stringent or is nonexistent.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#cite_note-ORC-2) This means that one can be charged with the crime - usually a minor degree of felony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony) - even if the person did not know the item in question was stolen. In the Ohio case of State v. Awad, the goods did not need to actually be stolen, just represented as such.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#cite_note-awad-3)

In both cases, if you try to occupy my property (because you reject my right to property) or try to kill me (because you reject my right to life), I will have to defend myself, or the state will justifiably do so on my behalf.
What? How are you defending yourself? Are you now suggesting your property is yourself? Is it anything in existence I touch, or just those things as defended by law? I'm just standing there washing my feet in the pond and watching the bluegill chase the water spiders :lol:

Sure, perhaps instead of unlawful I should say unjust. Without an idea of right to life (or some justice-related prohibition on killing), there's no such thing as murder. Same idea for property.

Yes, it is the same thing. An idea, to be defended.
But it's not the same thing in the sense of the actions needed taken on defense of the idea. See above
(Im just standing there. You have to attack me to get me off your property.)

That's interesting. Don't the best hunters usually get laid the most? In a community where it's hard to even have a formal legal system, it makes sense that they would

I would suggest you consult the information provided...
(the answer is a resounding no)

The Aztecs appear to have had a feudal system of property rights http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/aztec/aztec_property.html

You're right, which is one of the reasons why I said it was an outrageous claim.

There has been social stratification since before our species even existed. Complex social hierarchies in great apes are routinely observed.

And? Is that stratification the same between gorillas and chimps? (no) Between chimps and bonobos? Between homo erectus and homo ergaster, homo habilis, homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens, culturally modern homo sapiens?
Suffice it to say, natural is what happens and works, not what has happened and worked. And besides even that critique of your argument, the observable evidence of social stratification in pre-property society is so small as to be non-existent. There may be differences in gender roles, but women are not seen as inferior (other than in the sense of "stupid women always gossiping" or w/e). There may be hunt leaders or something, but they are elected positions and their decisions are non-binding.

I said:
"Let's suppose everyone agrees on a law allowing anyone who develops the land (farming or building a railroad, probably) in the Western US to put up a fence and call it theirs. And let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this is truly uninhabited land. What's unjust about doing this? How is it "robbery" to allow individuals to acquire property which formerly belonged to the government?"

Are you granting me that if the government's ownership is legitimate, then this is fine?

What would make the government's claim any more legitimate than the individuals? You can put up a fence all you want as an individual. Try getting me not to climb it without using violence.

It would mean co-ops are either a mediocre or completely unscalable business model. You were claiming they were more efficient. I am claiming that they are less efficient. This does not prevent them from existing.

It depends on how you define effecient. They are more resillient than the corporate model, and generally offer higher wages for non-executives. They, like all democracies, better weather the storm of bad leadership and unexpected decline.

Right, and my follow up question is what the ruling class could actually do to prevent the spread of worker co-ops. They cannot simply will it.

Idk, continue to offer higher executive salaries at the expense of wages. Executive salaries which normally require attendance and completion of their quasi-educational indoctrination programs including but not limited to college. (Oh ya, lots of socialists in university. Ya, cuz liking government and supporting the status quo is socialism :rolleyes:)
Continue to spend billions of dollars of that money siphoned off the workers to petition the state to act on behalf of their interests. Some of that money also includes the money spent on propaganda and think tanks.
Continue to gamble money siphoned off the backs of the worker, through hook and crook, capitalism and the FED, to gamble on people's livelihood causing boom and crash and increasing the percieved need for dependancy on the ruling class?

Idk, the ruling class can and does many things. I see them, you say they don't exist. One time I imagined I wasn't smart and industrious enough to be a member of the ruling class... maybe that is part of the reason I reject the class distinction.

I don't know what the goals of co-ops are, so I can't say either way.

Hard work makes the world go 'round :thumbup1:

So...where are all of the worker co-ops in large capital intensive industries?

Groovin and a'movin, doin the thing. Your free to do your own research :D

That it's not artificial. Regardless of property arrangements you have, land is scarce. We could dedicate all of this scarce resource towards one purpose, but this doesn't change the fact that it's scarce. Consequently, anything requiring land as a factor input is scarce.

:lol: All things are naturally scarce. Artificial scarcity wouldn't even make sense if because a thing was naturally scarce it could not be artifically scarce as well. Even your ideas. Sure people can read your words on your paper, or listen to you talk, but they can't have your ideas. They can only have an approximate translation of your ideas. And yet the capitalist system has deemed artifical scarcity in ideas to be more beneficial to the interests of the ruling class than communal access to information.

So the amount of distribution available isn't artificially scarce, it's a function of the economics of the business.

The functions of the economics of the business are to create a series of artificial scarcity in pursuit of personal profit.

I think you have your numbers mixed up. The 7% number was what they gave to charity, worker/exec salaries could be different by a factor of 5...which is about enough to get regular skilled accountants and middle managers and so on. They could also probably fudge the salary numbers a bit (no pun intended) with stock options.

I was wrong. It was 7x, not 7%.

Ben & Jerry's used to have a policy that no employee's rate of pay shall exceed seven times that of entry-level employees. In 1995, entry-level employees were paid $8 hourly, and the highest paid employee was President and Chief Operating Officer Chuck Lacey, who earned $150,000 annually. When Ben Cohen resigned as Chief Executive Officer and Ben & Jerry's announced the search for a new CEO in 1995, the company ended the seven-to-one-ratio policy

Not really, we had capitalism and lower executive salaries 50 or 100 years ago.
Compared to worker wages?
Even if so, it still does not make the co-operative method any less viable. :thumbup1:

Judicator

14th October 2011, 03:41

I am saying it varies by court. I am also saying consort case law. Personal responsiblity.

I am not asking about what the courts actually do, I'm asking about what they should do.

I said "So then when the merchant doesn't have any reason to suspect theft the money he gets is justifiably his." You said "I would argue no." I am wondering why you would argue no.

What? How are you defending yourself? Are you now suggesting your property is yourself? Is it anything in existence I touch, or just those things as defended by law? I'm just standing there washing my feet in the pond and watching the bluegill chase the water spiders

In both cases you are defending yourself in the sense that you (or the state) are preventing your rights from being violated, or taking some kind of retaliatory action when they are.

My claim is ultimately that there's nothing special about property rights in the way that they are "imposed" on others that makes them distinct from, say, prohibitions on killing.

Yes, it is the same thing. An idea, to be defended. But it's not the same thing in the sense of the actions needed taken on defense of the idea. See above
(Im just standing there. You have to attack me to get me off your property.)

So looking at what you said above, i think we need to clarify some terms:
- Killing has no moral overtones - there is still killing in an amoral society. However, what i'll call murder (or maybe more accurately, morally reprehensible killing)

- Similarly, occupation of land has no moral overtones - people still occupy land in . However, when you introduce property rights, you create the idea of unjust occupation, i.e. tresspassing. This is analogous to the sense in which morally reprehensible killing only appears when there are moral problems with killing.

In SAT Analogy form, I would say killing is to property occupation as unjust killing is to trespassing. If you agree on this, then I'm probably just missing your point :blushing: .

The killing analogy to your parenthetical point would be something like: Im just about to kill you. You have to attack me to get me to stop. How is this different?

I would suggest you consult the information provided...
(the answer is a resounding no)

Cool, I'll read it over and respond later.

You're right, which is one of the reasons why I said it was an outrageous claim.

So the claim was that places with strong property rights should generally be more prosperous than those with weak property rights. I invoked North America (in general) as an example of a place with weak property rights, and Europe as an example of a place with strong property rights. You are now saying because the Aztecs had strong property rights, it's a bad example?

See below; I'm thinking of the yellow region, you are thinking of the orange and some of the green:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Ameicas_1000_BCE_crop.png

And? Is that stratification the same between gorillas and chimps? (no) Between chimps and bonobos? Between homo erectus and homo ergaster, homo habilis, homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens, culturally modern homo sapiens?

And so stratification has always been with us, within our species and our ancestral species. For example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959190023J

"Social stratification characterizes primate societies, and the conventional assumption is that high rank should enable one to produce more offspring...."

And besides even that critique of your argument, the observable evidence of social stratification in pre-property society is so small as to be non-existent.

I think this goes back to the above point about whether or not hunters get more sex, which is debateable:

http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/Papers/Hawkes.BirdEvAnth2002.pdf
http://faculty.washington.edu/easmith/HunterRS.pdf

All things are naturally scarce. Artificial scarcity wouldn't even make sense if because a thing was naturally scarce it could not be artifically scarce as well.

Exactly, most things are naturally scarce. Artificial scarcity describes a narrow range of things, IP such as mp3 files, where my use doesn't diminish yours.

Compared to worker wages?
Even if so, it still does not make the co-operative method any less viable.

Yeah. I was responding to your second sentence. Apologies for causing confusion by quoting the whole thing.

Again, as it's unclear what your definition of "success" is for a co-op. If the goal is simply "power to the workers" then they accomplish their goal by definition.

Revolution starts with U

14th October 2011, 04:19

I am not asking about what the courts actually do, I'm asking about what they should do.

I said "So then when the merchant doesn't have any reason to suspect theft the money he gets is justifiably his." You said "I would argue no." I am wondering why you would argue no.

Perhaps because it is not his. Or perhaps because, growing up in Ohio, I have been conditioned by my social relations to think so. Either way, I would not impose my will upon society (other than, you know, my belief that systems are more ethical when more people are involved seriously with the decision making process; democracy). I only encourage them to adopt them.

In both cases you are defending yourself in the sense that you (or the state) are preventing your rights from being violated, or taking some kind of retaliatory action when they are.

You would be defending your property, not yourself. That's an important distinction. I would be defending myself, not you.

My claim is ultimately that there's nothing special about property rights in the way that they are "imposed" on others that makes them distinct from, say, prohibitions on killing.

Ya, there are. If act against the murder system, I have to impose my will upon you. I have to make you agree with me, by killing you. If I reject the property system, you have to make me agree with you by fining, imprisoning, or possibly killing me.

So looking at what you said above, i think we need to clarify some terms:
- Killing has no moral overtones - there is still killing in an amoral society. However, what i'll call murder (or maybe more accurately, morally reprehensible killing)

Murder/homocide is, I believe, defined as acting upon the intent to kill.

- Similarly, occupation of land has no moral overtones - people still occupy land in . However, when you introduce property rights, you create the idea of unjust occupation, i.e. tresspassing. This is analogous to the sense in which morally reprehensible killing only appears when there are moral problems with killing.

Every culture ever has had some kind of prohibition against killing. That is not true of property (unless you vastly stretch the definition of property).

In SAT Analogy form, I would say killing is to property occupation as unjust killing is to trespassing. If you agree on this, then I'm probably just missing your point :blushing: .

My point is that prohibitions of killing are valid, while prohibitions of property (private property, in the sense of a prohibition against free acess) are not. Why are they not? Because:
1) If I don't believe the murder system is just I can just not kill anybody and continue on my days. If I don't believe the property system is just I still have no choice but to accept it, or face probable/possible punishment.
2) If I act against the murder system, by murdering, I must make the victim come to my position; that I am justified in killing him. If I act against the property system, the "victim" must make me come to his position; that he is justified in calling that property his.

The killing analogy to your parenthetical point would be something like: Im just about to kill you. You have to attack me to get me to stop. How is this different?

No, it wouldn't. You keep identifying your property as part of yourself. Why is that?
It would be like me standing there smokin a doob and you yelling at me with a gun in your hand telling me to get off your property.

"You got a gun. I got a plant. Who's the criminal?" ~Kottonmouth Kings

So the claim was that places with strong property rights should generally be more prosperous than those with weak property rights. I invoked North America (in general) as an example of a place with weak property rights, and Europe as an example of a place with strong property rights. You are now saying because the Aztecs had strong property rights, it's a bad example?

You claimed the americas had weak property rights. The Aztecs didn't.
You also implicitly claimed that the state of the americas was far worse than europe. Mexico City was the cleanest and most populous city in the world at that time.

See below; I'm thinking of the yellow region, you are thinking of the orange and some of the green:

Why don't we go and ask those people in those yellow regions if they would rather live the way they did, or the way they do now?
I'll tell you.. it's going to be really hard since people came up there, put up fences, killed the tresspassers, and called in the government to move the rest into litle camps....
I'm all for technological progress, but its not as if civilization is a neccessary prerequisite for having a happy and involving community.

And so stratification has always been with us, within our species and our ancestral species. For example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959190023J

"Social stratification characterizes primate societies, and the conventional assumption is that high rank should enable one to produce more offspring...."

Notice the term assumption. I haven't even looked at that article and I bet, since I studied anthropology in school, that I can tell what it says. I bet it says that, even in primate societies, which are vastly different than human societies, the alpha is not the one who has the most children. He may think he is, but he's not. Monkeys routinely "cheat on their spouses" with the weaker but more debonnaire monkeys.
And again, chimps, gorrillas, bonobos, and orangutans have wildly different cultures from each other, let alone from us. Bonobos, for instance, are serial orgy-ists. Gorrillas kill their own male children. They are wildly different.
Why don't you try showing me a study of a pre-property society that has any real effectual social stratification. Again, read the links I provided you (I expect you to show me the same courtesy I am about to show you).

Exactly, most things are naturally scarce. Artificial scarcity describes a narrow range of things, IP such as mp3 files, where my use doesn't diminish yours.

Yes, and also that we produce enough food to feed the world, and yet don't because it is not economically profitable.

Yeah. I was responding to your second sentence. Apologies for causing confusion by quoting the whole thing.

:thumbup1:

Again, as it's unclear what your definition of "success" is for a co-op. If the goal is simply "power to the workers" then they accomplish their goal by definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

They have the objective of creating and maintaining sustainable jobs and generating wealth, to improve the quality of life of the worker-members, dignify human work, allow workers’ democratic self-management and promote community and local development.
The free and voluntary membership of their members, in order to contribute with their personal work and economic resources, is conditioned by the existence of workplaces.
As a general rule, work shall be carried out by the members. This implies that the majority of the workers in a given worker cooperative enterprise are members and vice versa.
The worker-members’ relation with their cooperative shall be considered as different to that of conventional wage-based labour and to that of autonomous individual work.
Their internal regulation is formally defined by regimes that are democratically agreed upon and accepted by the worker-members.
They shall be autonomous and independent, before the State and third parties, in their labour relations and management, and in the usage and management of the means of production

I have some excellent toilet paper, would you like me to wipe your ass for you too? ;) :lol:

Revolution starts with U

15th October 2011, 20:15

Sometimes you type up a long response, then something happens and you lose it :rolleyes:
Suffice it to say, don't link me things you have not read. I will read them. And I don't want to make you look the fool and feel bad about yourself. It is better to just read the paper, and make sure you know what it means before trying to use it to further an argument.

Data ~~> Theory not the other way around

And so stratification has always been with us, within our species and our ancestral species. For example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959190023J

"Social stratification characterizes primate societies, and the conventional assumption is that high rank should enable one to produce more offspring...."

I would advise you to read the second sentence in that abstract, as it specifically says this conventional assumption is wrong.

I think this goes back to the above point about whether or not hunters get more sex, which is debateable:

http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/Papers/Hawkes.BirdEvAnth2002.pdf

I am not seeing where this touches on the subject. Perhaps you could, if you have actually read it, enlighten me?

(http://faculty.washington.edu/easmith/HunterRS.pdf)http://faculty.washington.edu/easmith/HunterRS.pdf
(http://faculty.washington.edu/easmith/HunterRS.pdf)
This is actually a good paper, and again I was midway through a nice detailed response, but lots it.
But what you failed to see, since you probably did not read it, is that it was specifically talking about reproductive rates. There is minimal evidence in any of the 5 cases for the good hunter to be preferentially treated in society.
Again, if you would have read the data I presented you, it talked all about the same things. There simply is no significant evidence of any meaningful stratification in pre-property society.

Judicator

17th October 2011, 03:11

Perhaps because it is not his. Or perhaps because, growing up in Ohio, I have been conditioned by my social relations to think so. Either way, I would not impose my will upon society (other than, you know, my belief that systems are more ethical when more people are involved seriously with the decision making process; democracy). I only encourage them to adopt them.
Why isn’t it his? It was a just transfer of property between two consenting, reasonably informed individuals. Why should the shopkeeper’s patrons’ unjust transactions with other parties be relevant?
I am not looking for a causal account of your belief, but a justification.

My point is that prohibitions of killing are valid, while prohibitions of property (private property, in the sense of a prohibition against free acess) are not. Why are they not? Because:
1) If I don't believe the murder system is just I can just not kill anybody and continue on my days. If I don't believe the property system is just I still have no choice but to accept it, or face probable/possible punishment.
2) If I act against the murder system, by murdering, I must make the victim come to my position; that I am justified in killing him. If I act against the property system, the "victim" must make me come to his position; that he is justified in calling that property his.

I can respond to your other points about killing, but in the interest of avoiding a giant quote-fest I think your point here captures what you were saying elsewhere.
1) You seem to be saying if you don’t agree with murder laws, you still can’t kill people (practically speaking, presumably because of consequences). You are also saying if you don’t agree with property laws, you can’t occupy someone’s property (similar to murder). Okay, fine. I think we agree here.
2) Someone defending their right (to life, property, free speech, whatever) has to get the would-be violator to stop (i.e. force them to comply). The murderer or thief need not force his belief onto anyone, he just murders and steals anyway. In both cases, the defender of rights uses force to uphold them.

No, it wouldn't. You keep identifying your property as part of yourself. Why is that?
It would be like me standing there smokin a doob and you yelling at me with a gun in your hand telling me to get off your property.
Probably because the concept of self-defense often includes property, but this is more of a side point about semantics.
I am saying in either case force must be used to get the rights-violator to stop.

You claimed the americas had weak property rights. The Aztecs didn't.
You also implicitly claimed that the state of the americas was far worse than europe. Mexico City was the cleanest and most populous city in the world at that time.

Are you claiming they are the exception or the rule? Do you think because the Aztecs had decent property rights, North America did in general? Or do you think that North America as a whole had stronger property rights than Europe?

Why don't we go and ask those people in those yellow regions if they would rather live the way they did, or the way they do now?
I'll tell you.. it's going to be really hard since people came up there, put up fences, killed the tresspassers, and called in the government to move the rest into litle camps....
I'm all for technological progress, but its not as if civilization is a neccessary prerequisite for having a happy and involving community.
The point was that those people had far weaker property rights, and the Aztecs appear to be the exception rather than the rule.

Notice the term assumption. I haven't even looked at that article and I bet, since I studied anthropology in school, that I can tell what it says. I bet it says that, even in primate societies, which are vastly different than human societies, the alpha is not the one who has the most children. He may think he is, but he's not. Monkeys routinely "cheat on their spouses" with the weaker but more debonnaire monkeys.
I don’t have the actual full text, but based on the abstract the point appears to be that:
1) Social stratification exists
2) However, it doesn’t bring the expected benefits of higher offspring
Again, even on this point (#2) evidence seems mixed. In groups with a low number of males, it should be relatively easy for the alpha to police procreation, but in a larger group there is more cheating: http://books.google.com/books?id=sBu9rUprPywC&pg=PA369&lpg=PA369&dq=harcourt+1979+gorillas&source=bl&ots=MZEbkGxfIf&sig=y1rVDUZ2_uyhPoan6SR8FHmg99E&hl=en&ei=84KbTrb8MeWKsAKc-anABA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=twopage&q&f=false (pg 277)

I have some excellent toilet paper, would you like me to wipe your ass for you too?

No, but from now on I’ll be sure to consult Wikipedia whenever I want to know what you think.
I said: “Again, as it's unclear what your definition of "success" is for a co-op”…You link me to wiki.

Suffice it to say, don't link me things you have not read. I will read them. And I don't want to make you look the fool and feel bad about yourself. It is better to just read the paper, and make sure you know what it means before trying to use it to further an argument.

Again, if you would have read the data I presented you, it talked all about the same things. There simply is no significant evidence of any meaningful stratification in pre-property society.
You presented me with a paper on the simulation of the tolerated theft theory, showing that under their simulation parameters, with some males and females on a grid with simulated food…tolerated theft was the dominant strategy. Supposing this were true based on actual evidence (based on what some of the links indicate) this would not mean that there’s no stratification of any kind, only that people generally received the same amounts of food following a hunt.

I am not seeing where this touches on the subject. Perhaps you could, if you have actually read it, enlighten me?

Sure. The general point of the paper is that hunting serves as a costly signal of status. Hunting doesn’t provide a skilled hunter with any extra meat, which raises the question of why hunters bother putting in a lot of effort in the first place. The answer is that hunting serves as a way to differentiate themselves from others (the signal part) and cannot be easily imitated by others (is costly).

In their words, this is the puzzle they are trying to explain:
“Because hunting successes can be so unpredictable and the meat then go mostly to others, whether by demand sharing, tolerated theft, or normative rules of distribution, the nutritional beneﬁts a hunter can expect for himself and his family are not great enough to make hunting an effective provisioning strategy. This is strong provocation to look for other reasons why men hunt.”

So they present a couple of benefits to being a successful hunter:
First: “There is increasing evidence that good hunters in many societies enjoy greater social, political, and reproductive success than do poorer competitors. Ache foragers of eastern Paraguay are an especially well-studied case….” (p61)
And: “Hill and Hurtado’s demographic data show little difference in survival risk for the children of
better hunters. But men rated as better hunters had much higher fertility” (p61)

This is actually a good paper, and again I was midway through a nice detailed response, but lots it.
But what you failed to see, since you probably did not read it, is that it was specifically talking about reproductive rates. There is minimal evidence in any of the 5 cases for the good hunter to be preferentially treated in society.

Okay, if you end up finding it again please post it. The costly signaling explanation (brought up also in the first paper) is referred to in this paper and this paper agrees that it is somewhat well supported. You're right that it raises problems the first 3 explanations.

Revolution starts with U

17th October 2011, 19:31

Why isn’t it his? It was a just transfer of property between two consenting, reasonably informed individuals. Why should the shopkeeper’s patrons’ unjust transactions with other parties be relevant?
I am not looking for a causal account of your belief, but a justification.

Because the person he made the trade with had no right to make the trade in the first place.
Its funny that a capitalist is incentivising theft in order to strengthen the property system :lol:
I mean.. that is basically how private property works, but its still funny.

I can respond to your other points about killing, but in the interest of avoiding a giant quote-fest I think your point here captures what you were saying elsewhere.
1) You seem to be saying if you don’t agree with murder laws, you still can’t kill people (practically speaking, presumably because of consequences). You are also saying if you don’t agree with property laws, you can’t occupy someone’s property (similar to murder). Okay, fine. I think we agree here.

No. That is not what I said. I said if I don't agree with murder laws I don't have to become a criminal (by killing someone). If I don't agree with property laws, I must become a criminal (by being a theif, tresspasser, or vagrant).

2) Someone defending their right (to life, property, free speech, whatever) has to get the would-be violator to stop (i.e. force them to comply). The murderer or thief need not force his belief onto anyone, he just murders and steals anyway. In both cases, the defender of rights uses force to uphold them.

In the case of murder the defender must use force. In the case of theft (not robbery) the property holder must use aggression.

Probably because the concept of self-defense often includes property, but this is more of a side point about semantics.
I am saying in either case force must be used to get the rights-violator to stop.

Except it is retalliatory force in the cases of murder, rape, and robbery. It is aggressive force in defense of property. Again, Im just sitting by your pond smokin a doob and you come up with a gun telling me to get out.
How could I possibly be the agressor in this scenario, unless you think your property is part of yourself?

Are you claiming they are the exception or the rule? Do you think because the Aztecs had decent property rights, North America did in general? Or do you think that North America as a whole had stronger property rights than Europe?

Im claiming everything about your analogy was wrong. Nothing more, nothing less. This was not intended to get into a debate about NA vs Euro.

I don’t have the actual full text, but based on the abstract the point appears to be that:
1) Social stratification exists
2) However, it doesn’t bring the expected benefits of higher offspring
Again, even on this point (#2) evidence seems mixed. In groups with a low number of males, it should be relatively easy for the alpha to police procreation, but in a larger group there is more cheating: http://books.google.com/books?id=sBu9rUprPywC&pg=PA369&lpg=PA369&dq=harcourt+1979+gorillas&source=bl&ots=MZEbkGxfIf&sig=y1rVDUZ2_uyhPoan6SR8FHmg99E&hl=en&ei=84KbTrb8MeWKsAKc-anABA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=twopage&q&f=false (pg 277)

Yup. Just as I predicted. I had to study this stuff, brosephus :thumbup:

No, but from now on I’ll be sure to consult Wikipedia whenever I want to know what you think.
I said: “Again, as it's unclear what your definition of "success" is for a co-op”…You link me to wiki.

I have no definition of success for a co-op. They have their own; and it is clearly listed on the wiki article. I explained this all when I linked it. Maybe you need some Ginko Belloba (?) to clear up these memory and comprehension issues you are having?

You presented me with a paper on the simulation of the tolerated theft theory, showing that under their simulation parameters, with some males and females on a grid with simulated food…tolerated theft was the dominant strategy. Supposing this were true based on actual evidence (based on what some of the links indicate) this would not mean that there’s no stratification of any kind, only that people generally received the same amounts of food following a hunt.

Sure. The general point of the paper is that hunting serves as a costly signal of status. Hunting doesn’t provide a skilled hunter with any extra meat, which raises the question of why hunters bother putting in a lot of effort in the first place. The answer is that hunting serves as a way to differentiate themselves from others (the signal part) and cannot be easily imitated by others (is costly).

Being thought of differently is not stratification. Even being thought of as worse than is not stratification. Stratification would mean I have some kind of personal power over you.

So they present a couple of benefits to being a successful hunter:
First: “There is increasing evidence that good hunters in many societies enjoy greater social, political, and reproductive success than do poorer competitors. Ache foragers of eastern Paraguay are an especially well-studied case….” (p61)
And: “Hill and Hurtado’s demographic data show little difference in survival risk for the children of
better hunters. But men rated as better hunters had much higher fertility” (p61)

I'm still not seeing where they get any special privelages. If you are a better hunter, it probably generally means you are healthy and strong. Is it any surprise then that you would have higher fertility rates?
In one of the cultures, the good hunters tended to marry younger wives. That was about the only quasi-stratification (they are not promised these wives, the wives choose them) I could find in any of the papers either of us linked.

Judicator

18th October 2011, 08:46

Because the person he made the trade with had no right to make the trade in the first place.

Why not? I'll ask again...Why should the shopkeeper’s patrons’ unjust transactions with other parties be relevant [to the shopkeeper]?

No. That is not what I said. I said if I don't agree with murder laws I don't have to become a criminal (by killing someone). If I don't agree with property laws, I must become a criminal (by being a theif, tresspasser, or vagrant).

If you don't agree with property laws, fine, just don't steal...

If you are shit broke and are compelled to steal (which I'm assuming is the point you're trying to get at?), whether you agree with the idea of property rights is irrelevant, you're going to steal anyway.

In the case of murder the defender must use force. In the case of theft (not robbery) the property holder must use aggression.

How is this not force in both cases? Is there some fine point you're trying to make about a distinction between force and aggression?

Except it is retalliatory force in the cases of murder, rape, and robbery. It is aggressive force in defense of property. Again, Im just sitting by your pond smokin a doob and you come up with a gun telling me to get out.
How could I possibly be the agressor in this scenario, unless you think your property is part of yourself?

I told you to get off. By not doing so you're violating my rights. I have to use force, or someone does on my behalf, to get this to stop.

Im claiming everything about your analogy was wrong. Nothing more, nothing less. This was not intended to get into a debate about NA vs Euro.

Everything? or just the specific case of the Aztecs?

Yup. Just as I predicted. I had to study this stuff, brosephus

:thumbup:

I have no definition of success for a co-op. They have their own; and it is clearly listed on the wiki article. I explained this all when I linked it. Maybe you need some Ginko Belloba (?) to clear up these memory and comprehension issues you are having?

Then just say so. I think at some point you switched the debate from which was "economically efficient" to which was "successful"...and success at that point seemed like it could be whatever you wanted, so I wanted to clarify what you meant. Evidently you meant exactly what was on wikipedia. Should I assume that your conception of socialism is also exactly what's on wikipedia, etc?

Being thought of differently is not stratification. Even being thought of as worse than is not stratification. Stratification would mean I have some kind of personal power over you.

So you're claiming that:
1) Rankings along social status are not stratification?
2) Individuals with high social status have no greater ability to control/influence anyone else than individuals with low social status? (If they did, this would be personal power)

Unfortunately their source link is broken, but it linked to a university website so it may be legit:
http://www.webref.org/anthropology/s/social_stratification.htm
"social stratification: the ranking of subgroups in a society according to wealth, power, and prestige."

I'm still not seeing where they get any special privelages. If you are a better hunter, it probably generally means you are healthy and strong. Is it any surprise then that you would have higher fertility rates?
In one of the cultures, the good hunters tended to marry younger wives. That was about the only quasi-stratification (they are not promised these wives, the wives choose them) I could find in any of the papers either of us linked.

Special privileges meaning what? Merit-based stratification isn't stratification?

The paper I was referring to that you quoted here said the high status males have more partners as well (they attract more cheaters). I don't think it's just that they have better swimmers.

Revolution starts with U

18th October 2011, 09:22

Why not? I'll ask again...Why should the shopkeeper’s patrons’ unjust transactions with other parties be relevant [to the shopkeeper]?

I will answer again "because the patron had no right to make a deal with the shopkeeper in the first place."

If you don't agree with property laws, fine, just don't steal...

If you are shit broke and are compelled to steal (which I'm assuming is the point you're trying to get at?), whether you agree with the idea of property rights is irrelevant, you're going to steal anyway.

No. I have no idea why this is so hard to understand... I really don't. It has nothing to do with being shit broke, or anything like that.
If I view private property as an unjust institution, I might just happen upon a lovely little pond in the wilderness. I might stop to admire it. I might also have some "property owner" come out and threaten me with violence to move along.
If I view private property as an unjust institution I might see an apple tree and decide to eat an apple. I might also have some "owner" come out and threaten me with violence if I don't pay him for that apple.
If I vew murder laws as an unjust institution, I'm not going to go out and murder people, necessarily. I might just walk around and not think we should throw people in jail for murder.
If you live in a society with murder laws, you don't have to convince me to follow them.
If you live in a society with private property, you have to convince me to follow it, with violence.

How is this not force in both cases? Is there some fine point you're trying to make about a distinction between force and aggression?

Ya, there is a difference.
If I steal from you, YOU have to initiate the violence. Im not saying stealing is right. I am saying the definition of "stealing" is open to interpretation.

I told you to get off. By not doing so you're violating my rights. I have to use force, or someone does on my behalf, to get this to stop.

You told me to get off. YOU are violating my rights. YOU have to use force, or someone does on your behalf, to get this to stop. Or you could just let me enjoy the pond and not be such a dick about it ;)

Did you not notice when you typed that, the circular reasoning it took to get there? Private property is justified because private property is a right.

Everything? or just the specific case of the Aztecs?

Your use of "america was propertyless, europe was not, american living standards rose after europe came." It was entirely wrong. And not only that, its really just saying "those savages need colonialism."

Then just say so. I think at some point you switched the debate from which was "economically efficient" to which was "successful"...and success at that point seemed like it could be whatever you wanted, so I wanted to clarify what you meant. Evidently you meant exactly what was on wikipedia. Should I assume that your conception of socialism is also exactly what's on wikipedia, etc?

Literally none of this happened...
Let's go over some points we have already gone over:
1) Worker co-ops continue to grow and prosper, as such they are economically efficient
2) Worker co-ops are not enough by themselves to be socialism. They are, at best, quasi-socialist institutions within a capitalist socio-economic system.
3) Worker co-ops have their own definition of success, I have no need to put one on them
4) Worker co-ops are more resillient to economic recession than typical private instituons (worker co-ops, #2, are not typical private institutions, but they are private)
5) Worker co-ops generally provide higher wages than competitive typical private institutions
6) The reason they have not overtaken the marketplace is that these high wages generally come at the cost of high executive salaries, and as such the ruling class has no material interest in their support.

So you're claiming that:
1) Rankings along social status are not stratification?
2) Individuals with high social status have no greater ability to control/influence anyone else than individuals with low social status? (If they did, this would be personal power)

What ranking is taking place? As far as I know the most productive are generally incentivised to hide and downplay their sucesses. Someone simply doing better than someone else is not evidence of social stratification; there has to be some kind of personal power involved. Generally these societies have no such concept of power (influence maybe, but not necessarily from the good hunters, as such) and decisions are made personally; decisions are not binding on the individual.

Special privileges meaning what? Merit-based stratification isn't stratification?

What stratification? Again, simply having a good hunter is not evidence of stratification. Where is the power play involved? What makes him of a "ruling class?"

The paper I was referring to that you quoted here said the high status males have more partners as well (they attract more cheaters). I don't think it's just that they have better swimmers.
I mentioned that one society, and it was the only one in which any stratification could be found... and they are pretty modern hunter-gatherers considering that the article mentions their use of motorized boats :lol:

durhamleft

18th October 2011, 21:32

What a bunch of savages, it is disgusting that that is how they respond to things...I'm all for throwing a hand grenade into the crowd....What a bunch of assholes...:cursing:

Not see the irony?

Judicator

18th October 2011, 23:52

I will answer again "because the patron had no right to make a deal with the shopkeeper in the first place."

This doesn't make you entitled to take money from the shopkeeper, since he has done nothing wrong.

No. I have no idea why this is so hard to understand... I really don't. It has nothing to do with being shit broke, or anything like that.

Consider the possibility that it's a bad argument.

If I view private property as an unjust institution, I might just happen upon a lovely little pond in the wilderness. I might stop to admire it. I might also have some "property owner" come out and threaten me with violence to move along.
If I view private property as an unjust institution I might see an apple tree and decide to eat an apple. I might also have some "owner" come out and threaten me with violence if I don't pay him for that apple.

You are making a hidden assumption of complete ignorance of local property laws. If you view property as an unjust institution, this doesn't prevent you from obeying property laws.

If I vew murder laws as an unjust institution, I'm not going to go out and murder people, necessarily. I might just walk around and not think we should throw people in jail for murder.

If you view murder laws as unjust, you might just happen upon some asshole banging your wife. You might restrain yourself. You might also think "fuck it" and kill him. You might be surprised when some "police officer" comes and tells you you're going to jail (except in Texas).

Ya, there is a difference.
If I steal from you, YOU have to initiate the violence. Im not saying stealing is right. I am saying the definition of "stealing" is open to interpretation.

I have to USE violence or the threat thereof in both cases, to stop murder or theft. In both cases, the right-violator is aggressor...whether it's murder, theft, breach of contract, wire fraud, etc.

Theft, by definition, doesn't involve violence. Are you really spending all this time trying to explain that? :laugh: We are talking about force in response to rights violation.

You told me to get off. YOU are violating my rights. YOU have to use force, or someone does on your behalf, to get this to stop. Or you could just let me enjoy the pond and not be such a dick about it

Did you not notice when you typed that, the circular reasoning it took to get there? Private property is justified because private property is a right.

No, I'm not. You are on my property. One of my rights that comes with property is the right to kick you off. By occupying my property, you're violating my rights. I have to use force, just as I would to stop any rights violator.

We are talking about the options faced by someone who rejects private property, as compared to the options faced by someone who rejects prohibitions on murder.

Your use of "america was propertyless, europe was not, american living standards rose after europe came." It was entirely wrong. And not only that, its really just saying "those savages need colonialism."

My point was simply America was propertyless, Europe was not. America was poor, Europe was not.

The second bit about "those savages" I think you injected because of your preconceptions about other OI members.

1) Worker co-ops continue to grow and prosper, as such they are economically efficient
2) Worker co-ops are not enough by themselves to be socialism. They are, at best, quasi-socialist institutions within a capitalist socio-economic system.
3) Worker co-ops have their own definition of success, I have no need to put one on them
4) Worker co-ops are more resillient to economic recession than typical private instituons (worker co-ops, #2, are not typical private institutions, but they are private)
5) Worker co-ops generally provide higher wages than competitive typical private institutions
6) The reason they have not overtaken the marketplace is that these high wages generally come at the cost of high executive salaries, and as such the ruling class has no material interest in their support.

(1) I already pointed out that they can easily pay themselves higher wages by accepting a below market return on capital. This probably accounts for the lower (4), to the extent (4) is even true.
(2) If socialism means worker control of means of production...within the co-op...workers control the means of production. Who cares who they transact with?
(3) Sure
(4) See 1
(5) If they're growing slowly that would mean they have relatively low retained earnings. Unless they have shares and pay dividends (which would make them just a corporation that happens to be owned by workers), they aren't paying out any return on equity. So it's unsurprising they pay out higher wages.
(6) Presumably they can grow and support themselves, the question is why that's not enough to overtake anyone else.

What ranking is taking place? As far as I know the most productive are generally incentivised to hide and downplay their sucesses. Someone simply doing better than someone else is not evidence of social stratification; there has to be some kind of personal power involved. Generally these societies have no such concept of power (influence maybe, but not necessarily from the good hunters, as such) and decisions are made personally; decisions are not binding on the individual.

Women are ranking the men in desirability and picking the best ones. You can have power and social influence, even before there formal concepts for them. Yes, enforcement is informal, norms can be flexible, but this doesn't mean that there can't also be hierarchy.

Do you really think you have to write who owns what and who outranks whom on a stone tablet for it to count as stratification?

What stratification? Again, simply having a good hunter is not evidence of stratification. Where is the power play involved? What makes him of a "ruling class?"

The stratification is that there's one group (good hunters) that have more prestige than another (crappy hunters).

Can we agree, at least, that they have some status (they're the best hunters) that they derive real benefits from (they get laid)? Now the question is how much this status translates into ability to get other people do do what you want (beyond sleep with you)?

Revolution starts with U

19th October 2011, 00:30

This doesn't make you entitled to take money from the shopkeeper, since he has done nothing wrong.

Ya, he did. He engaged in a trade with someone which had no right to engage in a trade with him. He "recieved stolen goods."

Consider the possibility that it's a bad argument.

I always do. I also consider the possiblity that 99% of people have never been swayed from a position within the context of a debate in their entire lives. Maybe later they will think it over and change their mind. But most will never give up their position ever.

I think my explanation is the better one, as you have made no real criticism of it, yet. I await this poignant criticism, as it may help me to better understand the world ;)

You are making a hidden assumption of complete ignorance of local property laws. If you view property as an unjust institution, this doesn't prevent you from obeying property laws.

No, it matters not whether I know of the laws or not. I am flat out saying I disagree with them, that they are not worth following. YOU have to aggress against me in order to get me to change my position.
This is different than with murder laws. I think they are not worth following. Nothing changes. I still haven't murdered someone, I just don't think (hypothetically) they should be punished for it.

If you view murder laws as unjust, you might just happen upon some asshole banging your wife. You might restrain yourself. You might also think "fuck it" and kill him. You might be surprised when some "police officer" comes and tells you you're going to jail (except in Texas).

What does this have to do with anything?

I have to USE violence or the threat thereof in both cases, to stop murder or theft. In both cases, the right-violator is aggressor...whether it's murder, theft, breach of contract, wire fraud, etc.

To stop murder you may have to use violence. To stop theft (not robbery) you have to use aggression, you have to intitiate the violence.

Theft, by definition, doesn't involve violence. Are you really spending all this time trying to explain that? :laugh: We are talking about force in response to rights violation.

And you are implicitly assuming property is a right. I am not assuming anything is a right, even life.
What I am arguing is that in murder, the murderer is the aggressor. In theft, the property-holder is the aggressor.

No, I'm not. You are on my property. One of my rights that comes with property is the right to kick you off. By occupying my property, you're violating my rights. I have to use force, just as I would to stop any rights violator.

... implicitly assuming property to be a right, and all that. We've been over this, what, 10x?

We are talking about the options faced by someone who rejects private property, as compared to the options faced by someone who rejects prohibitions on murder.

The options in the former are to be aggressed against, or accept the property system.

My point was simply America was propertyless, Europe was not. America was poor, Europe was not.

America was not propertyless; Aztecs, Maya, Olmecs, etc.
America was not poor: Mexico City was the most populous and cleanest city on the planet. Native Americans were quite content with their way of life.

The second bit about "those savages" I think you injected because of your preconceptions about other OI members.

No. I injected it because you are assuming native americans wanted the property system, that they are better off for it... that those filthy savages needed colonialism for their own good.

(1) I already pointed out that they can easily pay themselves higher wages by accepting a below market return on capital. This probably accounts for the lower (4), to the extent (4) is even true.

And yet they continue to grow and prosper and as such are economically effecient.
If you think it is not true, read the data. Maybe it isn't. But you often dismiss the data of others without even looking at it.

(2) If socialism means worker control of means of production...within the co-op...workers control the means of production. Who cares who they transact with?

Me and every other socialist on the planet?

(4) See 1

I see it

(5) If they're growing slowly that would mean they have relatively low retained earnings. Unless they have shares and pay dividends (which would make them just a corporation that happens to be owned by workers), they aren't paying out any return on equity. So it's unsurprising they pay out higher wages.

Some of them do have shares and pay dividends, and yet still tend to offer higher wages for the average worker. They generally tend to be "just corporations that happen to be owned by the workers" which is why they are not socialist. Im glad you are starting to get it.

(6) Presumably they can grow and support themselves, the question is why that's not enough to overtake anyone else.

Well, they have "overtaken anyone else" specifically the companies that could be offering the services they do, but don't.
They also are growing, which means they are overtaking their competitors.
So is your problem "they are not the dominant model therefore they fail?"

Women are ranking the men in desirability and picking the best ones. You can have power and social influence, even before there formal concepts for them. Yes, enforcement is informal, norms can be flexible, but this doesn't mean that there can't also be hierarchy.

Heirarchy, sure. Stratification, no.

Do you really think you have to write who owns what and who outranks whom on a stone tablet for it to count as stratification?

No, you just have to have some kind of exercisable political power.

Can we agree, at least, that they have some status (they're the best hunters) that they derive real benefits from (they get laid)? Now the question is how much this status translates into ability to get other people do do what you want (beyond sleep with you)?
Well, everyone else is getting laid too. But other than that, sure, we can agree.

Judicator

19th October 2011, 01:14

Ya, he did. He engaged in a trade with someone which had no right to engage in a trade with him. He "recieved stolen goods."

He traded with someone he had no reason to believe was a criminal. He isn't liable for the crime. We don't usually think of all of the New York bars and restaurants who served drinks to the mafia as wrongdoers. You think they are?

No, it matters not whether I know of the laws or not. I am flat out saying I disagree with them, that they are not worth following. YOU have to aggress against me in order to get me to change my position.
This is different than with murder laws. I think they are not worth following. Nothing changes. I still haven't murdered someone, I just don't think (hypothetically) they should be punished for it.

To disagree with the laws, you have to know them. So to clarify your original example, this person skipping through a private forest is willfully violating property laws.

So in the first case, you are aware of the law and you willfully disobey it. In the second case, you are aware of the law and you obey it. In the second case, had you chosen to disobey the law, the police would have to aggress against you, just as in the property case. In the first case, had you chosen to obey the law, nothing changes.

I think my explanation is the better one, as you have made no real criticism of it, yet. I await this poignant criticism, as it may help me to better understand the world

:thumbup:

... implicitly assuming property to be a right, and all that. We've been over this, what, 10x?

Yes it's becoming frustrating.

Your original thesis was that the property system is forced on everyone, in a way that was distinct from the way in which murder laws are forced on everyone. Your evidence is that in the case of murder, the murderer is the first to commit violence, while in the case of property crimes, the thief commits no violence.

However, in both cases, force must be used to get them to comply with the law. The manner in which this force must be used is the same (actual violence or threat of violence).

America was not propertyless; Aztecs, Maya, Olmecs, etc.
America was not poor: Mexico City was the most populous and cleanest city on the planet. Native Americans were quite content with their way of life.

America, by and large, was propertyless.

Happiness has little to do with their level of economic activity or technological development.

I injected it because you are assuming native americans wanted the property system, that they are better off for it... that those filthy savages needed colonialism for their own good.

If I thought I knew what was best for other people I'd be a liberal.

1-6

1) So many arguments, so little time.
2) Who cares with respect to whether or not the worker co-op can be properly called socialist
5) So then there's nothing economically special about a worker co-op. They pay themselves dividends in the form of wages.
6) No, my claim was that their economic advantage was marginal at best and probably a slight disadvantage at any level of scale.

Heirarchy, sure. Stratification, no.

Stratification is just strong hierarchies, so perhaps this is just semantics.

tradeunionsupporter

19th October 2011, 01:16

The Tea Party is Fascist.

Revolution starts with U

19th October 2011, 01:25

He traded with someone he had no reason to believe was a criminal. He isn't liable for the crime. We don't usually think of all of the New York bars and restaurants who served drinks to the mafia as wrongdoers. You think they are?

Hell yes! And I think this is one of the major problems of capitalism; that I can just loot and plunder and be called a hero for it...

To disagree with the laws, you have to know them. So to clarify your original example, this person skipping through a private forest is willfully violating property laws.

Yup. And the property holder must aggress against him to enforce his claim to property, or have someone do it on his behalf.

So in the first case, you are aware of the law and you willfully disobey it. In the second case, you are aware of the law and you obey it. In the second case, had you chosen to disobey the law, the police would have to aggress against you, just as in the property case. In the first case, had you chosen to obey the law, nothing changes.

No, I was the aggressor. The police were the defenders. (In the second case)

:thumbup:

:thumbdown:

Yes it's becoming frustrating.

Ignorance can be that way when somoene points it out ;)

Your original thesis was that the property system is forced on everyone, in a way that was distinct from the way in which murder laws are forced on everyone. Your evidence is that in the case of murder, the murderer is the first to commit violence, while in the case of property crimes, the thief commits no violence.

However, in both cases, force must be used to get them to comply with the law. The manner in which this force must be used is the same (actual violence or threat of violence).

1 is aggression. The other is defense.

America, by and large, was propertyless.

Than that is probably what you should have said :lol:

Happiness has little to do with their level of economic activity or technological development.

Well, now we're getting into a debate on what it means to be poor... but okay. They were poor, but happy being poor.

If I thought I knew what was best for other people I'd be a liberal.

And liberals are....? Capitalists, that's right :lol:
You do think you know what is best for people. That is why you intrinsically think property is a right.

1) So many arguments, so little time.

You deny that an enterprise that grows and prospers is economically efficient by definition?

2) Who cares with respect to whether or not the worker co-op can be properly called socialist

I don't really. You can call it socialist. It's at best quasi-socialism.

5) So then there's nothing economically special about a worker co-op. They pay themselves dividends in the form of wages.

Nope, not really. They're just capitalist companies that happen to be privately owned by the workers.

6) No, my claim was that their economic advantage was marginal at best and probably a slight disadvantage at any level of scale.

And your evidence for this claim? Have you even looked at any of the data, or did you make your mind up long before this debate even began? ;)

Judicator

19th October 2011, 02:57

Hell yes! And I think this is one of the major problems of capitalism; that I can just loot and plunder and be called a hero for it...

The "moral wrong" that occurs, though, is limited to the looting and plundering.

1 is aggression. The other is defense.

Defending your property is defense. This should be obvious.

You do think you know what is best for people. That is why you intrinsically think property is a right.

I don't claim to know how others would best spend their time and money.

Nobody can derive ethical beliefs from what's best for anyone, since what's best is a function of ethical beliefs.

They were poor, but happy being poor.

I suppose the fact that you can still be happy despite a life expectancy of 30 and constant struggle to survive is a testament to human endurance.

1-6

1) Consider a worker who could make 30k/year in wages and 30k/year in capital gains, but instead opts to put the money in a co-op and pay himself 45k/year in a co-op and 5k/year in capital gains. The 10k he could have made is gone forever.

2) It's socialism. The workers control the means of production.

5) Okay, sure.

6) Well your statement in 5 concedes the point anyway. Before the debate I had no reason to expect that co-ops were more efficient in general, and I still don't.

Revolution starts with U

19th October 2011, 04:16

]The "moral wrong" that occurs, though, is limited to the looting and plundering.

And the legal wrong was accepting the property. Again, this is the law in many states, like Ohio.

Defending your property is defense. This should be obvious.

Only if you consider your property yourself, really. Other than that, it is aggression.

I suppose the fact that you can still be happy despite a life expectancy of 30 and constant struggle to survive is a testament to human endurance.

Constant struggle? You do know that hunter gatherers worked less than agriculturalists? (The benefit of agriculture was abundance, not less work)

1) Consider a worker who could make 30k/year in wages and 30k/year in capital gains, but instead opts to put the money in a co-op and pay himself 45k/year in a co-op and 5k/year in capital gains. The 10k he could have made is gone forever.

So?

2) It's socialism. The workers control the means of production.

Worker control of the MoP alone is not sufficient for socialism.
Regardless tho, forget the semantics and stick to the issue at hand.

5) Okay, sure.

;)

6) Well your statement in 5 concedes the point anyway. Before the debate I had no reason to expect that co-ops were more efficient in general, and I still don't
I suspect no amount of evidence would have swayed you from that position.

Face it, you have offered nothing to this debate. It's a wonder I even continued to engage you :lol:

So far we have established:
1) You think running up on me with a gun when Im just quietly enjoying the waves on a pond is me aggressing against you
2) Private property is a monopoly. And yes, monopolies are bad. But private property is okay because it is the only way to protect against monopolies
3) Private property is different than statism because you can leave your job, even tho you can leave your country.
4) You did not know what worker co-ops were, in any way. And you have not been willing to find out, short of having it shoved down your throat
5) If A steals from B and trades with C, C is now the justified property owner of A's goods
6) You were uninformed about the nature of the americas vs europe prior to european conquest
7) You presumably remain ignorant about the nature of preclass society, as it seems you cannot fathom the idea that the productive are not given special privelage.

Does that about sum it up? :cool:

Judicator

20th October 2011, 04:24

And the legal wrong was accepting the property. Again, this is the law in many states, like Ohio.

Law and justice are distinct.

Only if you consider your property yourself, really. Other than that, it is aggression.

No, then it would be self-defense, otherwise it's just defense. Lol you said so yourself "You would be defending your property, not yourself. That's an important distinction." You claimed it's an important distinction, when really it isn't for the purposes of determining who commit

Constant struggle? You do know that hunter gatherers worked less than agriculturalists? (The benefit of agriculture was abundance, not less work)

Who said agriculturalists were the reference point to gauge what constitutes a struggle?

So?

So he's losing out on 10k, which is inefficient.

Does that about sum it up?
[1-7]

Hardly. Most of the points you're making are wrong or weren't even brought up.

1 - If we're really going to make it about semantics, just see definition #3: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggression
2 - I don't know where the term "monopoly" entered the conversation, until you brought it up just now.
3 - Ditto for "statism"
4 - I knew that they were relatively uncommon and had not become the preferred method of organization, indicating that they likely possessed some structural feature preventing them from spreading.
5 - It's interesting that you think that, but okay. My claim was simply that only A violated B's rights.
6 - I was correct in thinking America was largely propertyless. You picked out the narrow exception, but the claim remained true.
7 - I expected that better hunters would drive some benefit from being productive and that one such benefit would be prestige.

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 04:55

Law and justice are distinct.

How is it justice that if I steal all of your stuff, sell it, then kill myself.. you're screwed, never to be compensated for your stuff. The thief had no right to the goods, and as such had no right to make the trade. As such, anything gained in the trade is not the business owners.

No, then it would be self-defense, otherwise it's just defense. Lol you said so yourself "You would be defending your property, not yourself. That's an important distinction." You claimed it's an important distinction, when really it isn't for the purposes of determining who commit

Ok, so define how me standing there playing a guitar, and you running up on me with a gun telling me to move is you defending yourself against me?

Who said agriculturalists were the reference point to gauge what constitutes a struggle?

Okay, they work shorter hours than most of us do now. What struggle were they under?

So he's losing out on 10k, which is inefficient.

He chose to work there. You also just made this up. They have higher wages, and derive generally more benefits.
The point is that the coops grow and prosper. They are efficient by definition.

1 - If we're really going to make it about semantics, just see definition #3: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggression

? Im not sure what you are trying to say here. And your link talks heavily about the one who started the attack being the aggressor. It really just further proves my point. Property is aggression.

2 - I don't know where the term "monopoly" entered the conversation, until you brought it up just now.

Apologies. Must have been with Kapitalys, or someone else :blushing:

3 - Ditto for "statism"

Are you saying that statism is in fact the same thing as private property? If not, Im not sure I get what you are saying here.

4 - I knew that they were relatively uncommon and had not become the preferred method of organization, indicating that they likely possessed some structural feature preventing them from spreading.

Spreading is a bad term, as they do spread. But I gave you that structural feature; they offer no incentive to the ruling class to support them.

5 - It's interesting that you think that, but okay. My claim was simply that only A violated B's rights.

C implicitly violated A's rights by accepting a trade with B, even if unkowingly.

6 - I was correct in thinking America was largely propertyless. You picked out the narrow exception, but the claim remained true.

You claime that America was propertyless. Then you later reverted to "largely."

7 - I expected that better hunters would drive some benefit from being productive and that one such benefit would be prestige.
You claimed they would "get laid more" and with the exception of one studied group (that uses motorized boats :lol:), they do not.

Judicator

20th October 2011, 06:03

How is it justice that if I steal all of your stuff, sell it, then kill myself.. you're screwed, never to be compensated for your stuff. The thief had no right to the goods, and as such had no right to make the trade. As such, anything gained in the trade is not the business owners.

The theft victim would still have a claim your estate.

Either way someone's on the hook for doing nothing wrong...the victim of the theft or the shopkeeper who is a victim of fraud.

Ok, so define how me standing there playing a guitar, and you running up on me with a gun telling me to move is you defending yourself against me?

There, presumably on my property? I am defending my property. Not all defense is self-defense. Why would you think it is?

Okay, they work shorter hours than most of us do now. What struggle were they under?

The struggle to survive. They faced all kinds of threats that seem like an afterthought today.

He chose to work there. You also just made this up. They have higher wages, and derive generally more benefits.
The point is that the coops grow and prosper. They are efficient by definition.

I was demonstrating by way of example how a co-op could persist despite its inefficiency. If they are efficient by definition, they should be efficient in all cases, including the one I illustrated above. But they aren't.

1-7 again

1) Whoops I meant definition #2, emphasis added
"any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights."
2) no worries, I mix up you socialists/etc sometimes too ;)
3) no I just didn't see where points about statism came up in our conversation
4) no support from the ruling class (i.e. they don't use capital markets), fine. I responded wondering why they couldn't finance expansion with retained earnings. On top of that it's surprising that a worker co-op has never taken out a bank loan (ruling class), used a business credit card (ruling class), or taken out a lease.
5) You mean C violated B's rights? A is the thief, B is the theft victim, C is the shopkeeper.
B's relevant right here is property. When A steals, B's right to property is violated. When A subsequently sells the stolen goods, he is doing so on false pretenses and C is a victim. As long as C is acting in good faith/without negligence, he can't be considered party to the crime so I'm doubtful he is violating B's rights.
6) I think this is a semantics point, so I believe we agree here. What I was saying would be akin to saying "Somalis are poor" even though some Somalis are rich.
7) The paper mentioned benefits for hunters in both the Ache (higher fertility rates) and the Hadza (second wives and younger wives). You're saying just the Ache used motorboats?

Revolution starts with U

20th October 2011, 06:39

The theft victim would still have a claim your estate.

Either way someone's on the hook for doing nothing wrong...the victim of the theft or the shopkeeper who is a victim of fraud.

The shopkeeper accepted a trade with goods of which the trader had no right to. Perhaps he should have practiced due dilligence. Either way, he did, even if through no fault of his own, something wrong.

There, presumably on my property? I am defending my property. Not all defense is self-defense. Why would you think it is?

Seems rather childish, if you ask me. "It's MINE! Wahhh :crying:"

But thanks for admitting it is okay to use aggression against someone if they commit the "crime" of standing there.

I was demonstrating by way of example how a co-op could persist despite its inefficiency. If they are efficient by definition, they should be efficient in all cases, including the one I illustrated above. But they aren't.

So, "because they are not the dominant model of business in the world today, they fail"... does that about sum it up?

1) Whoops I meant definition #2, emphasis added
"any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights."

Yep, and you, the property owner, are infringing on my right to pursue happiness :thumbup1:

2) no worries, I mix up you socialists/etc sometimes too ;)

:D

3) no I just didn't see where points about statism came up in our conversation

Were we not talking about how "states are not as just as property becuae you can leave your job" or was that another debate as well? :lol:

4) no support from the ruling class (i.e. they don't use capital markets), fine. I responded wondering why they couldn't finance expansion with retained earnings. On top of that it's surprising that a worker co-op has never taken out a bank loan (ruling class), used a business credit card (ruling class), or taken out a lease.

They do finance expansion with retained earnings. I implore you to read up about them.
They have done those as well, although they are largely financed through cooperative orginazations. The ruling class will loan to them, as it gains interest on the loan. Im not sure about a business credit card. They have to take a lease, as they work in propertied society.

B's relevant right here is property. When A steals, B's right to property is violated. When A subsequently sells the stolen goods, he is doing so on false pretenses and C is a victim. As long as C is acting in good faith/without negligence, he can't be considered party to the crime so I'm doubtful he is violating B's rights.

See above.
Ignorance is no excuse. Perhaps it should be a different degree of punishment.

7) The paper mentioned benefits for hunters in both the Ache (higher fertility rates) and the Hadza (second wives and younger wives). You're saying just the Ache used motorboats?
The community did not perscribe higher fertility rates upon them. They just had them. And this is to be expected; if you are healthy and strong you are both more likely to be a good hunter, and have stronger fertility.

Judicator

21st October 2011, 00:35

The shopkeeper accepted a trade with goods of which the trader had no right to. Perhaps he should have practiced due dilligence. Either way, he did, even if through no fault of his own, something wrong.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument (as I think we have been) that the trader shopkeeper did practice due diligence to the extent deemed reasonable. That is to say, his intentions are good.

Now let's look at the consequences. As a result of the trade, the original theft victim is no worse off.

So since his intentions were morally acceptable and there wasn't a moral difference in the state of the world before and after the trade, I don't see where he could be said to have done anything wrong.

Seems rather childish, if you ask me. "It's MINE! Wahhh "

But thanks for admitting it is okay to use aggression against someone if they commit the "crime" of standing there.

So you agree its defense, you just think it's childish?

So, "because they are not the dominant model of business in the world today, they fail"... does that about sum it up?

No I think its fairer to say that they will likely remain niche players into the forseeable future, because evidently they aren't very scalable.

Yep, and you, the property owner, are infringing on my right to pursue happiness

So then you agree you ARE acting as an aggressor?

Were we not talking about how "states are not as just as property becuae you can leave your job" or was that another debate as well?

I think that was another debate, but good for you if you established that ;)

They do finance expansion with retained earnings. I implore you to read up about them.
They have done those as well, although they are largely financed through cooperative orginazations. The ruling class will loan to them, as it gains interest on the loan. Im not sure about a business credit card. They have to take a lease, as they work in propertied society.

That's cool, I'll try to.

See above.
Ignorance is no excuse. Perhaps it should be a different degree of punishment.

You might be thinking of the idea that Ignorance of the LAW is no excuse for doing something illegal, but the guilty mind, the "mens rea," is essential in criminal law and I think also essential to questions of justice. The shopkeeper isn't strictly liable for what happens to the property of a third party, and when he does buy it after having taken reasonable precautions to avoid buying stolen property, he lacks the guilty mind so can't be said to have done anything wrong.

The community did not perscribe higher fertility rates upon them. They just had them. And this is to be expected; if you are healthy and strong you are both more likely to be a good hunter, and have stronger fertility.

The fertile women in the community chose to have sex with them more often than with lower status males. The high fertility is a consequence of their high social status that comes with being a good hunter. Merit-based status is still status.

Revolution starts with U

21st October 2011, 02:41

Let's assume, for the sake of argument (as I think we have been) that the trader shopkeeper did practice due diligence to the extent deemed reasonable. That is to say, his intentions are good.

Now let's look at the consequences. As a result of the trade, the original theft victim is no worse off.

So since his intentions were morally acceptable and there wasn't a moral difference in the state of the world before and after the trade, I don't see where he could be said to have done anything wrong.

His intentions are irrelevant. He made a trade with someone of which he had no right to.
How is the original theft victim no worse off?

So you agree its defense, you just think it's childish?

I agree you can define it as defense. I think it's a poor definition. Im standing there, you are running up on me with a gun and claiming to be defending yourself. How is that not absurd?

No I think its fairer to say that they will likely remain niche players into the forseeable future, because evidently they aren't very scalable.

Perhaps. That is beside the point. Nobody said capitalists would willingly accept socialism (no thats not me saying its socialism).

So then you agree you ARE acting as an aggressor?

No. Where would you get the idea I would, as I have consistently said property is aggression?
Again, Im just standing there. You initiate the violence. Unless you say crossing some arbitrary line is aggression... and isn't that what children do?

That's cool, I'll try to.

I mean, you might even like them better than me. I think they are a good alternative to the typical private business. But they are still private enterprise, still subject to putting the needs of production over the needs of people, still subject to market consolidating tactics.

You might be thinking of the idea that Ignorance of the LAW is no excuse for doing something illegal, but the guilty mind, the "mens rea," is essential in criminal law and I think also essential to questions of justice.
So you think if I get arrested for possession or something that I can claim "I didn't know" and get away with it?

The shopkeeper isn't strictly liable for what happens to the property of a third party, and when he does buy it after having taken reasonable precautions to avoid buying stolen property, he lacks the guilty mind so can't be said to have done anything wrong.

Except that, in Ohio and many other states, he is still in the wrong. He's not as in the wrong as someone willfully accepting stolen property, and probably rightly so. But he will still face some kind of punishment.

The fertile women in the community chose to have sex with them more often than with lower status males. The high fertility is a consequence of their high social status that comes with being a good hunter. Merit-based status is still status.
Again, only one society had them getting more women. And another had them getting younger women. In all the other cases there was no significant differences in mating choice between the good hunters and the not-so-good.
Besides the point, this is in no way stratification, in any meaningful institutionalized sense of the word.

Judicator

22nd October 2011, 05:53

His intentions are irrelevant. He made a trade with someone of which he had no right to.
How is the original theft victim no worse off?

Intent is relevant in nearly any crime or injustice - it's the difference between murder and manslaughter, etc.
He has every right to trade with someone who he reasonably believes to be an honest person.
The original theft victim is no worse off because the thief has deprived him of his property. The original theft victim has been deprived of the property (the moral wrong) whether the thief sells it or not.

I agree you can define it as defense. I think it's a poor definition. Im standing there, you are running up on me with a gun and claiming to be defending yourself. How is that not absurd?

I'm claiming it's defense, not defending *myself.* We've been over this already - not all defense is self-defense. Anyway, how is "childishness" morally relevant at all? Why does what you decide you want to use my property for (using my pond, or building a factory, or stealing my apples) relevant anyway?

No. Where would you get the idea I would, as I have consistently said property is aggression?
Again, Im just standing there. You initiate the violence. Unless you say crossing some arbitrary line is aggression... and isn't that what children do?

I got that idea when I defined aggression as:
""any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.""
And you replied "Yep..."

Violating any pre-specified right is aggression, per the above definition. Not all aggression is violent aggression.

Except that, in Ohio and many other states, he is still in the wrong. He's not as in the wrong as someone willfully accepting stolen property, and probably rightly so. But he will still face some kind of punishment.

He's not "as in the wrong," but he's still doing something wrong? What is it? Accepting property that, to him, is no different than anything else he buys?

Again, only one society had them getting more women. And another had them getting younger women.

I think the second one had younger and more often. And the societies examined in that particular study need not be the universe of societies which have differential mating behaviors based on hunting ability.

Besides the point, this is in no way stratification, in any meaningful institutionalized sense of the word.

At this point it seems more like semantics. I'm saying prestige is a component of stratification, some anthropologists agree with me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-component_theory_of_stratification others probably don't.

Revolution starts with U

22nd October 2011, 07:09

Intent is relevant in nearly any crime or injustice - it's the difference between murder and manslaughter, etc.

:lol: Those are both crimes!

He has every right to trade with someone who he reasonably believes to be an honest person.
The original theft victim is no worse off because the thief has deprived him of his property. The original theft victim has been deprived of the property (the moral wrong) whether the thief sells it or not.

So; "no moral wrong, if you dismiss that one moral wrong?" :lol:

I'm claiming it's defense, not defending *myself.* We've been over this already - not all defense is self-defense. Anyway, how is "childishness" morally relevant at all? Why does what you decide you want to use my property for (using my pond, or building a factory, or stealing my apples) relevant anyway?

Im saying its childish, and as a society we need to grow up. We can practice possession, personal autonomy, and industry freely, without the concept of ownership, and arguably much better.

I got that idea when I defined aggression as:
""any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.""
And you replied "Yep..."

Yep, rights are not absolute. And the right to private property (as opposed to possession) is aggression against persons acting freely, and should not be a protected right.

He's not "as in the wrong," but he's still doing something wrong? What is it? Accepting property that, to him, is no different than anything else he buys?

Yep. Tho I agree with the idea, I am not the one that thought it up. Again, in many states knowledge is irrelevant.

*Some anthropologists agree, it depends on what you mean by stratification. I am defining it as institutionalized power. Some mean any kind of better/worse difference at all. Ya, no surprise, some people are better than others. It was only after the concept of property that this mattered in any significant way.
But it began to matter in a very negative way. Along with the "betters" (defined on the existing values and power relations of the society involved) using their abilities to provide abundance, they used it to protect themselves despite the community.
We can do this better. We can give people autonomy and free social relations. Cognitive science agrees that these are the keys to innovation (or at least that control and conditional** reward retard innovation). Why not just do it, as a society?

**Reward for success as opposed to reward for effort, regardless of sucess

Judicator

25th October 2011, 02:43

:lol: Those are both crimes!

And the fact that there's a distinction between them falsifies your claim that "His intentions are irrelevant." The point there was only to prove that intent matters, not to draw any kind of analogy as you seem to have assumed.

So; "no moral wrong, if you dismiss that one moral wrong?"

Who is dismissing it? I'm attributing sole responsibility to the thief. The moral wrong is the theft and that's all.

Im saying its childish, and as a society we need to grow up. We can practice possession, personal autonomy, and industry freely, without the concept of ownership, and arguably much better.

Childish or not, it's defense nonetheless.

On your other point...I don't know how I'm supposed to operate my factory autonomously if any random person can walk in and steal my trade secrets or screw up my operations.

Yep, rights are not absolute. And the right to private property (as opposed to possession) is aggression against persons acting freely, and should not be a protected right.

People aren't free to violate others rights. Rights limit what people are free to do. You aren't free to murder people, nor are you free to trespass.

The absoluteness point is a red herring. Presumably we are comparing situations where the right to property applies to situations where the right to life applies, and seeing who is the first aggressor. You take the narrow view that only physical aggression counts. I am taking the view that any rights violation constitutes aggression

Yep. Tho I agree with the idea, I am not the one that thought it up. Again, in many states knowledge is irrelevant.

You agree with what idea? Who thought it up? Do you think their thinking is justified?

I see no good reason to believe why the shopkeeper has done anything wrong when he A) has no ill intent B) does no additional harm to the theft victim. The shopkeeper has introduced no additional moral injustice to the world, so to speak, so how can he possibly have done anything wrong?

I would say the laws states have are more for procedural convenience than justice, but as always pointing to the law won't answer questions of justice.

Some anthropologists agree, it depends on what you mean by stratification. I am defining it as institutionalized power. Some mean any kind of better/worse difference at all. Ya, no surprise, some people are better than others. It was only after the concept of property that this mattered in any significant way.

I think there are people out there who really would deny that "some people are better than others" (and they aren't just claiming we're moral equals).

But it began to matter in a very negative way. Along with the "betters" (defined on the existing values and power relations of the society involved) using their abilities to provide abundance, they used it to protect themselves despite the community.
We can do this better. We can give people autonomy and free social relations. Cognitive science agrees that these are the keys to innovation (or at least that control and conditional** reward retard innovation). Why not just do it, as a society?

**Reward for success as opposed to reward for effort, regardless of sucess

Yeah I'd agree stratification is going to get more pronounced as the first permanent agricultural settlements appear. However, in most modern societies, people have pretty free social relations - free assembly and free speech etc. Everyone has autonomy in the sense of having free will.

**I thought they did cog-sci experiments and the most addiction-inducing pattern was random rewards at unpredictable intervals (like a slot machine), while the least was fixed rewards at fixed intervals.

Revolution starts with U

25th October 2011, 03:02

And the fact that there's a distinction between them falsifies your claim that "His intentions are irrelevant." The point there was only to prove that intent matters, not to draw any kind of analogy as you seem to have assumed.

Well you were orignally claiming he committed no crime because he didn't intend to commit a crime. Now you are saying he did commit a crime, but it's less than if he had intended to.
So which is it; is recieving stolen property a crime, or just less of a crime than it would be if you willingly recieved property you knew were stolen? (Note that I have been on the side of the latter this whole time)

Who is dismissing it? I'm attributing sole responsibility to the thief. The moral wrong is the theft and that's all.

But in your last comment (see above, it's not that far away) you admitted that the business owner did in fact commit a crime.

Childish or not, it's defense nonetheless.

Ya, sort-of like how a murderer defends himself from the furious blows of his victim :rolleyes:

On your other point...I don't know how I'm supposed to operate my factory autonomously if any random person can walk in and steal my trade secrets or screw up my operations.

http://phillips.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/923strawman.jpg

People aren't free to violate others rights. Rights limit what people are free to do. You aren't free to murder people, nor are you free to trespass.

The absoluteness point is a red herring. Presumably we are comparing situations where the right to property applies to situations where the right to life applies, and seeing who is the first aggressor. You take the narrow view that only physical aggression counts. I am taking the view that any rights violation constitutes aggression

Who is violating who's rights in this scenario:
Johnny is playing his guitar near a tranquil pond and enjoying the wildlife. Jerry runs up with a gun screaming "mine, gtfo!" Johnny says "hey calm down man, Im just enjoying the pond." Jerry shoots Johnny and calls the police.

You have to make some pretty big jumps to call Johnny the aggressor in that scenario.

You agree with what idea? Who thought it up? Do you think their thinking is justified?

You know what idea I am talking about. I don't know who thought it up and am not about to study the case history of "recieving stolen property." Yes I think their thinking is justified, or I wouldn't have said "Tho I agree with that idea."

I see no good reason to believe why the shopkeeper has done anything wrong when he A) has no ill intent B) does no additional harm to the theft victim. The shopkeeper has introduced no additional moral injustice to the world, so to speak, so how can he possibly have done anything wrong?

He recieved stolen property.

I think there are people out there who really would deny that "some people are better than others" (and they aren't just claiming we're moral equals).

Perhaps. I have never seen it said that I can remember. I have seen people argue that better is subjective like; ya you can do complex algebra, but can you chase a herd of bison for 30 miles?

Yeah I'd agree stratification is going to get more pronounced as the first permanent agricultural settlements appear. However, in most modern societies, people have pretty free social relations - free assembly and free speech etc. Everyone has autonomy in the sense of having free will.

Have you ever seen the dirty looks people give gay people, and how they talk about them when they are not around? That's not free social relations.
Have you ever had a shaggy beard and tried to have an intelligent conversation with mainstream people? They don't listen to a word you say. That's not free social relations.
Getting fired for trying to start a union is not free association.
Have you ever tried to tell your boss off and NOT lose your job? Where is the free speech?

**I thought they did cog-sci experiments and the most addiction-inducing pattern was random rewards at unpredictable intervals (like a slot machine), while the least was fixed rewards at fixed intervals.

Im not following what this has to do with our discussion? :blushing:

Judicator

1st November 2011, 10:57

Well you were orignally claiming he committed no crime because he didn't intend to commit a crime. Now you are saying he did commit a crime, but it's less than if he had intended to.
So which is it; is recieving stolen property a crime, or just less of a crime than it would be if you willingly recieved property you knew were stolen? (Note that I have been on the side of the latter this whole time)

He committed no crime because he didn't intend to do harm AND he caused no harm.

But in your last comment (see above, it's not that far away) you admitted that the business owner did in fact commit a crime.

CTRL+F "crime" & didn't see that.

Ya, sort-of like how a murderer defends himself from the furious blows of his victim

You seem to be willfully ignorant of the idea of rights and rights violation.

Claiming "I don't know how I'm supposed to operate my factory autonomously if any random person can walk in and steal my trade secrets or screw up my operations." is a strawman

If we lack the concept of ownership, how are we supposed to prevent things like this from happening?

Who is violating who's rights in this scenario:
Johnny is playing his guitar near a tranquil pond and enjoying the wildlife. Jerry runs up with a gun screaming "mine, gtfo!" Johnny says "hey calm down man, Im just enjoying the pond." Jerry shoots Johnny and calls the police.

You have to make some pretty big jumps to call Johnny the aggressor in that scenario.

Tresspass is rights violation by definition, so I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you wondering about what level of violence is justified in defending property?

This isn't a "big jump" since rights violation is aggression, at least in the case of negative rights...I don't know about positive rights.

He recieved stolen property.

And what's unjust about that?

Have you ever seen the dirty looks people give gay people, and how they talk about them when they are not around? That's not free social relations.
Have you ever had a shaggy beard and tried to have an intelligent conversation with mainstream people? They don't listen to a word you say. That's not free social relations.
Getting fired for trying to start a union is not free association.

Free social relations means that, for better or worse, you can do what you want when it comes to social interactions with other people. You can choose to associate with and praise people you like, and to dissociate with and shun people you don't.

Have you ever tried to tell your boss off and NOT lose your job? Where is the free speech?

Free speech is a prohibition on what governments can do, not individuals. If I run a newspaper and refuse to publish your ideas, I'm not infringing on your free speech...you can go publish them somewhere else.

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 16:32

He committed no crime because he didn't intend to do harm AND he caused no harm.

CTRL+F "crime" & didn't see that.

These are some very wishy-washy stances.

The fact of the matter is, in most places, he committed a crime. Period.

You seem to be willfully ignorant of the idea of rights and rights violation.

No Im just not willing to beg the question on property's validity. You are.

If we lack the concept of ownership, how are we supposed to prevent things like this from happening?

If we lack magical powers, how are we ever supposed to make heavier than air flight?!

Tresspass is rights violation by definition, so I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you wondering about what level of violence is justified in defending property?

Only if you beg the question on property's validity. I am wondering why you are so willing to do that?

This isn't a "big jump" since rights violation is aggression, at least in the case of negative rights...I don't know about positive rights.

... begging the question, blah blah....

And what's unjust about that?

Nothing if you are a capitalist... I guess :thumbup1:

I mean, you're getting so beat up in this thread Jud, that I thought that three day wait was you finally giving up :lol:

Ocean Seal

1st November 2011, 16:45

At least good ole Ron Paul didn't respond the same way they did...what a sick bunch of people..
An interesting thing about that. Mitt Romney had a sick grin on his face when Ron Paul started saying that our churches would take care of us. Almost as if he was smiling that everyone was buying his shit.

kid communist

1st November 2011, 19:21

See it for yourself here:

skip to 23:50

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?"

And so the audience cheered "yeah!", laughed, and cheered.

Thanks for the post;next time I see a Tea Party fascist,I'm gonna pimp slap that worthless fuck in the face!

Judicator

2nd November 2011, 02:40

These are some very wishy-washy stances.

No intent to harm + no harm = no crime, basically. I invite you to generate counterexamples.

No Im just not willing to beg the question on property's validity. You are.

We aren't debating the validity of property, we are debating the sense in which defense against trespass is analogous to defense against murder. I've said this several times and here you find another way to ignore our basic disagreement.

If we lack magical powers, how are we ever supposed to make heavier than air flight?!

How are we supposed to make "heaver than air" flight? Maybe if that sentence was comprehensible, I'd know.

Only if you beg the question on property's validity. I am wondering why you are so willing to do that?

You're cornered and now you try to claim I'm "begging the question." You didn't know the meaning of defense, evidently you don't know the meaning of trespass. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trespass

an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another; especially : a wrongful entry on real property

I mean, you're getting so beat up in this thread Jud, that I thought that three day wait was you finally giving up

Nope, Halloween weekend! Anyway, keep telling yourself that :laugh:

You fail to make any salient points about justice in the thief debate, instead backing into laws as if all laws are just, ignoring the point that the shopkeeper causes no harm and telling me that you "agree with an argument someone made somewhere that you can't look up now."

You fail to recognize that the concept of trespass presumes property in the same way that the concept of unjust killing presumes right to life.

Not exactly premium rhetoric.

Revolution starts with U

2nd November 2011, 05:44

No intent to harm + no harm = no crime, basically. I invite you to generate counterexamples.

I have. In most states it is a crime, as it is in Ohio for instance. I've said this, and linked it many times.

We aren't debating the validity of property, we are debating the sense in which defense against trespass is analogous to defense against murder. I've said this several times and here you find another way to ignore our basic disagreement.

It came up because I was talking about how private property is not a valid ethics. Our basic disagreement was me saying "I just showed up on a pond, and you ran at me with a gun because it was 'your' pond." Remember? And you called it self-defense. So I asked you why you indentified your things with yourself. We even discussed wether anything I've ever touched was mine.
I mean, I get it. A chord was struck, and it was disharmonious with your basic outlook. So you're in denial, the brain has gone into defense. I know the feeling. It happened to me when I learned taxes are stealing.
I have faith you will "get it" someday :thumbup1:

How are we supposed to make "heaver than air" flight? Maybe if that sentence was comprehensible, I'd know.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=14189
Heavier than air flight is the term used for vehicles which are heavier than air, yet can obtain flight; like an airplane, as opposed to a balloon (the means of flight are heavier than air).

I'm sorry. I thought that was a common knowledge term. I apologize for any inconvenience :cool:
"If we don't have magical powers, how can we ever make heavier than air flight." In response to, "if we don't have private property, how can we ever figure out disputes."
My point was that because you don't know a way it can be done, does not mean there is not a way. That's like Logic 101 :lol:

You're cornered and now you try to claim I'm "begging the question." You didn't know the meaning of defense, evidently you don't know the meaning of trespass. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trespass

:laugh: Wut? I'm cornered? You're too funny.

Nope, Halloween weekend! Anyway, keep telling yourself that :laugh:

:thumbup1: Happy Halloween

You fail to make any salient points about justice in the thief debate, instead backing into laws as if all laws are just, ignoring the point that the shopkeeper causes no harm and telling me that you "agree with an argument someone made somewhere that you can't look up now."

No. Literally none of that happened :thumbup1:
I made a salient point the entire time; ignorance of the law is no excuse. Go ask any cop anywhere if he agrees with that statement. You may not.. and you can do whatever you want. The ethical ramblings of one insignificant man are irrelevant in the long run.

You fail to recognize that the concept of trespass presumes property in the same way that the concept of unjust killing presumes right to life.

No, it doesn't. And I showed you why. I defend my right to life. I agress my right to property, and the state (or whatever quasi statist institutions an-caps want to foist on the world; mercanary warlords) allows you to call it defense.

Anyway, I don't want to steal your Cheeto's, so don't worry about it.
Much love :wub:

Judicator

2nd November 2011, 07:55

I have. In most states it is a crime, as it is in Ohio for instance. I've said this, and linked it many times.

Misspoke...No intent to harm + no harm = no injustice. Evidently you think the law (to the extent you've represented it accurately) here is just. Clearly we disagree, and quoting more laws won't resolve this ;)

It came up because I was talking about how private property is not a valid ethics. Our basic disagreement was me saying "I just showed up on a pond, and you ran at me with a gun because it was 'your' pond." Remember? And you called it self-defense. So I asked you why you indentified your things with yourself. We even discussed wether anything I've ever touched was mine.

No, the claim is that if its your pond, then you're justified in defending it. Obviously if it isn't your pond then you can't defend it. But in all of the examples we've been discussing it is your pond.

On the self-defense point I pointed out already "self-defense" including property is a pretty standard usage. Then we got to a point where you say protecting your property with force is an absurd use of the term "defense."

And then here:

Ya, [property defense is defense] sort-of like how a murderer defends himself from the furious blows of his victim
again you assume that the person using force is the rights violator. Whoever has the rights is the defender, whoever is violating them is the aggressor. It's really simple, but not for you, because you persistently conflate initiation of force with rights violation.

Don't think there was very much discussion on what you touched being yours, but okay.

"If we don't have magical powers, how can we ever make heavier than air flight." In response to, "if we don't have private property, how can we ever figure out disputes."
My point was that because you don't know a way it can be done, does not mean there is not a way. That's like Logic 101

I think a better way to characterize the question would be "if we don't have property rights, how can we ever justly resolve property disputes?"

The "Logic 101" approach depends completely on where the burden of proof lies.

Wut? I'm cornered? You're too funny.

:laugh: Conveniently ignoring the definition of trespass...

No. Literally none of that happened

On the stolen property/justice example your recent statement was:

"You know what idea I am talking about. I don't know who thought it up and am not about to study the case history of "recieving stolen property." Yes I think their thinking is justified, or I wouldn't have said "Tho I agree with that idea." "

Even here, you try to make it a legal question rather than a justice question.

I made a salient point the entire time; ignorance of the law is no excuse.

You try to make a debate about justice into a debate about laws. They aren't the same, as I've pointed out time and again. Illegal doesn't imply unjust.

Anyway, I don't want to steal your Cheeto's, so don't worry about it.

Haven't heard the expression, but you're giving up?

Revolution starts with U

2nd November 2011, 13:04

Misspoke...No intent to harm + no harm = no injustice. Evidently you think the law (to the extent you've represented it accurately) here is just. Clearly we disagree, and quoting more laws won't resolve this ;)

I love how you doubt my claims, yet refuse to verify the data I've linked to you... and expect people to take you seriously :lol:

Ignorance is no excuse. You obviously think things are just becuase you think they are just. Just one more example of the circular reasoning you're subject to. The world doesn't work like that, friend.

No, the claim is that if its your pond, then you're justified in defending it. Obviously if it isn't your pond then you can't defend it. But in all of the examples we've been discussing it is your pond.

On the self-defense point I pointed out already "self-defense" including property is a pretty standard usage. Then we got to a point where you say protecting your property with force is an absurd use of the term "defense."

Ya. This is all true if you beg the question on the topic of property rights. Otherwise, it's not.

And then here:

again you assume that the person using force is the rights violator. Whoever has the rights is the defender, whoever is violating them is the aggressor. It's really simple, but not for you, because you persistently conflate initiation of force with rights violation.

Only if you beg the question on the validity of property rights.

:laugh: Conveniently ignoring the definition of trespass...

No. "Question" the definition of tresspass, and the validity of the concept in itself. I have accurately portrayed the definition of tresspass this whole time. Nice try tho. Those defense mechanisms are in full force :thumbup:

On the stolen property/justice example your recent statement was:

"You know what idea I am talking about. I don't know who thought it up and am not about to study the case history of "recieving stolen property." Yes I think their thinking is justified, or I wouldn't have said "Tho I agree with that idea." "

Even here, you try to make it a legal question rather than a justice question.

I'm sorry if I don't find you or I important enough to be more important than actual case history. Our conceptions of justice are just that; ours, and nobody elses. Where justice really matters is when it turns to law, and that is where I am coming from.

Even as a justice issue, ignorance of injustice is no excuse.

You try to make a debate about justice into a debate about laws. They aren't the same, as I've pointed out time and again. Illegal doesn't imply unjust.

I never said it did.

Haven't heard the expression, but you're giving up?
Who gives up when they're clearly, as a wise man once said, WINNING :lol:. I'm over on the turnbuckle screaming "I'm the greatest! I'm pretty!" While you're on your touche in the middle of the ring denying that you've been out cold for the last 5 mins :thumbup1:

Man I should cut out the smug satisfaction. There's really no point to it, and it will only entrench your defenses. I apologize, as it is unbecoming of a refined gentleman such as myself. Just having fun with ya :wub:

Judicator

2nd November 2011, 18:09

I love how you doubt my claims, yet refuse to verify the data I've linked to you... and expect people to take you seriously :lol:

You probably should have verified it yourself first....
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2913.51
http://ohio-supreme-court.vlex.com/vid/state-v-awad-21664232?ix_resultado=46&query%5Bct_resultados%5D=1901&query%5Bfrase%5D=receiving+stolen+property+ohio&query%5Blc_query%5D=texto%3A%28receiving+AND+stole n+AND+property+AND+ohio%29+OR+titulo%3A%28receivin g+AND+stolen+AND+property+AND+ohio%29&query%5Bpais_id%5D=US&sort=score

The first statute says No person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained through commission of a theft offense. Here's the knowledge point I've been making over and over.

The second case says the property not in fact being stolen, when the buyer suspected it was, still leaves him criminally liable.

Ignorance is no excuse. You obviously think things are just becuase you think they are just. Just one more example of the circular reasoning you're subject to. The world doesn't work like that, friend.

The point I've been making about justice is that it's not a function of who initiates force, but a function of who has what rights. If you lack property rights, I can sit on your field or smash your windows and you have no claim against me. The claim that you can occupy property nonviolently has no bearing on whether or not property is a right.

The debate has always been about whether right to life and property rights are both "imposed" on people in the same sense, not about how we get rights in the first place.

Only if you beg the question on the validity of property rights.

"If X, then Y" isn't question begging w/r/t X.

If he has property rights, then it's defense. This is the same logic as "if people have a right to life, then killing them is unjust." To make a comparison with unjust killing, we assume property rights, since unjust killing assumes right to life. This is probably the cause of your confusion about question begging.

If we remain agnostic on the question of rights, in both cases, no rights are being defended.

"Question" the definition of tresspass, and the validity of the concept in itself. I have accurately portrayed the definition of tresspass this whole time.

You present an example of trespass, which has to presume property rights to remain analogous to unjust killing & presumption of right to life. Trespass presumes a right to property in the same sense that unjust killing presumes a right to life. You're trying to say something like "trespassing is just" but of course that's incoherent.

I'm sorry if I don't find you or I important enough to be more important than actual case history. Our conceptions of justice are just that; ours, and nobody elses. Where justice really matters is when it turns to law, and that is where I am coming from.

I'm sorry if you're too lazy to make comparisons relating to justice and instead make a fallacious appeal to authority.

I never said it did.

I say "the shopkeepers actions are unjust." You respond "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Kind of a non sequitur.

Who gives up when they're clearly, as a wise man once said, WINNING :lol:. I'm over on the turnbuckle screaming "I'm the greatest! I'm pretty!" While you're on your touche in the middle of the ring denying that you've been out cold for the last 5 mins

Looks like a series of non sequiturs and ignorance of points you're incapable of responding to now constitutes WINNING.

Revolution starts with U

2nd November 2011, 18:42

You probably should have verified it yourself first....
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2913.51
http://ohio-supreme-court.vlex.com/vid/state-v-awad-21664232?ix_resultado=46&query%5Bct_resultados%5D=1901&query%5Bfrase%5D=receiving+stolen+property+ohio&query%5Blc_query%5D=texto%3A%28receiving+AND+stole n+AND+property+AND+ohio%29+OR+titulo%3A%28receivin g+AND+stolen+AND+property+AND+ohio%29&query%5Bpais_id%5D=US&sort=score

The first statute says No person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained through commission of a theft offense. Here's the knowledge point I've been making over and over.

The second case says the property not in fact being stolen, when the buyer suspected it was, still leaves him criminally liable.

Also, in many states (Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio), for example), the burden to prove criminal intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_intent) is not as stringent or is nonexistent.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#cite_note-ORC-2) This means that one can be charged with the crime - usually a minor degree of felony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony) - even if the person did not know the item in question was stolen.
Gessner v. Greg‘s Pawn Shop, 181 Ohio App. 3d 217, 2009-Ohio-713 (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/5/2009/2009-ohio-713.pdf) – The true owner of stolen property that has been pawned is entitled to its return by the pawn shop without paying any charge. Judgment on the pleadings properly granted

Barnes v. United States (1973), 412 U.S. 837 -- A jury instruction regarding a permissive inference of guilty knowledge from unexplained possession of recently stolen property satisfies due process if it does not serve to excuse the prosecution from its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Also see State v. Arthur (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 67; State v. Giles (August 7, 1980), Franklin Co. App. No. 80AP-297, unreported (1980 Opinions 2296); State v. McAllister (1977), 53 Ohio App. 2d 176.
State v. Snowden (1982), 7 Ohio App. 3d 358 -- Headnote 2: "Mistake of fact can, in an appropriate circumstance, negate either the 'knowingly' or 'purposely' elements of specific intent crimes such as theft.

Man, I really didn't want to go over a case history.

The point I've been making about justice is that it's not a function of who initiates force, but a function of who has what rights. If you lack property rights, I can sit on your field or smash your windows and you have no claim against me. The claim that you can occupy property nonviolently has no bearing on whether or not property is a right.

I never said it did. I said you can only claim the owner to be the "defense" if you assume the right to property; ie, you are begging the question. (Is property a right? Yes, because property is a right.)

"If X, then Y" isn't question begging w/r/t X.

If he has property rights, then it's defense. This is the same logic as "if people have a right to life, then killing them is unjust." To make a comparison with unjust killing, we assume property rights, since unjust killing assumes right to life. This is probably the cause of your confusion about question begging.

Yes, but as I pointed out to you, the defense of those concepts goes in wildly different directions.
To protect the right to life, the murderer must convince everyone else of the legitimacy of his killing.
To protect the right to property the theif must be convinced by everyone else the legitimacy of the owner's property.
One is a "natural" right. The other is a "social" construct (conveniently called a right to protect the interests of those who have it).

You present an example of trespass, which has to presume property rights to remain analogous to unjust killing & presumption of right to life. Trespass presumes a right to property in the same sense that unjust killing presumes a right to life. You're trying to say something like "trespassing is just" but of course that's incoherent.

No, it doesn't. Those 2 concepts assume their rights in very different ways; 1 is defensive, the other is aggressive.
I thought I was learnin ya something... but it seems you're more stubborn than ever now. Probably my mistake for acting so smug and self-congratulatory :lol:

I'm sorry if you're too lazy to make comparisons relating to justice and instead make a fallacious appeal to authority.

So you want to replace my appeal to the authority of established law and case history... and replace it with your appeal to the authority of yourself? Wut :confused:

I say "the shopkeepers actions are unjust." You respond "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Kind of a non sequitur.
Silly straw men... or is that a red herring?... either way, I also said "ignorance of justice is no excuse." (As if this whole law/justice dichotomy you are trying to propagate wasn't just a defensive mechanism in the first place. Justice is just something you feel in your consciousness, and my in mine. It only really derives meaning in interactions between us; ie, real established legal and case history.)

Revolution starts with U

2nd November 2011, 18:46

Looks like a series of non sequiturs and ignorance of points you're incapable of responding to now constitutes WINNING.

Nah bro. None of that happened.

And besides, it's just a joke. Don't take your self so seriously. Political theory is no game to have winners and losers. I'm just pulling your strings, trying to get you to question yourself. It is, how do you say, a little "tough love."

Judicator

2nd November 2011, 23:54

Also, in many states (Ohio, for example), the burden to prove criminal intent is not as stringent or is nonexistent.[3] This means that one can be charged with the crime - usually a minor degree of felony - even if the person did not know the item in question was stolen.

If you follow the link on [3] it makes the point I bolded about requiring reasonable cause to believe it was stolen.

Gessner v. Greg‘s Pawn Shop, 181 Ohio App. 3d 217, 2009-Ohio-713 – The true owner of stolen property that has been pawned is entitled to its return by the pawn shop without paying any charge. Judgment on the pleadings properly granted
Barnes v. United States (1973), 412 U.S. 837 -- A jury instruction regarding a permissive inference of guilty knowledge from unexplained possession of recently stolen property satisfies due process if it does not serve to excuse the prosecution from its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Also see State v. Arthur (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 67; State v. Giles (August 7, 1980), Franklin Co. App. No. 80AP-297, unreported (1980 Opinions 2296); State v. McAllister (1977), 53 Ohio App. 2d 176.
State v. Snowden (1982), 7 Ohio App. 3d 358 -- Headnote 2: "Mistake of fact can, in an appropriate circumstance, negate either the 'knowingly' or 'purposely' elements of specific intent crimes such as theft.

There we go :cool:

I said you can only claim the owner to be the "defense" if you assume the right to property; ie, you are begging the question. (Is property a right? Yes, because property is a right.)

So you agree that "if property is a right, protecting property is defense." This is all that was being established. Don't know why that took so long to establish :confused:

Yes, but as I pointed out to you, the defense of those concepts goes in wildly different directions.
To protect the right to life, the murderer must convince everyone else of the legitimacy of his killing.
To protect the right to property the theif must be convinced by everyone else the legitimacy of the owner's property.
One is a "natural" right. The other is a "social" construct (conveniently called a right to protect the interests of those who have it).

I wonder how the murderer convincing everyone he's correct protects the right to life (emphasis added).

If there are rights of any kind and they apply in particular circumstances, nobody needs to convince anyone for defense of those rights to be just. There's nothing "wildly different" between the two cases - no party involved here has to convince anyone of anything for defense of rights to be just.

No, it doesn't. Those 2 concepts assume their rights in very different ways; 1 is defensive, the other is aggressive.

And here, as you've done before, you're confusing physical initiation of force (i.e. "he started it!") with violation of rights. ANY negative right allows us to justly prevent something from happening - theft or killing. Whether the infringement upon this right was violent or not is irrelevant.

I thought I was learnin ya something... but it seems you're more stubborn than ever now. Probably my mistake for acting so smug and self-congratulatory

It certainly doesn't help anyone interpret your arguments more charitably, but alas smug and wrong is still wrong.

So you want to replace my appeal to the authority of established law and case history... and replace it with your appeal to the authority of yourself? Wut

No, I want you to stop responding with non sequiturs, like when I say "X is just because of Y and Z" and you say "~X, because ~X is legal in Ohio."

I also said "ignorance of justice is no excuse." (As if this whole law/justice dichotomy you are trying to propagate wasn't just a defensive mechanism in the first place. Justice is just something you feel in your consciousness, and my in mine. It only really derives meaning in interactions between us; ie, real established legal and case history.

You did, and provided no further evidence why it was just. "X is legal" isn't evidence that it's just (otherwise you'd have my view on property :laugh:).

What you "feel in your consciousness" are moral intuitions, not justice. Putting these ideas in a book and calling it law makes them no more just than they were to begin with.

Justice is just something you feel in your consciousness, and my in mine.

Here I'll let you argue with yourself:
"You obviously think things are just becuase you think they are just. The world doesn't work like that, friend."

Your wacky moral relativism is true or it isn't, can't have it both ways :D.

Nah bro. None of that happened.

And besides, it's just a joke. Don't take your self so seriously. Political theory is no game to have winners and losers. I'm just pulling your strings, trying to get you to question yourself. It is, how do you say, a little "tough love."

Cool story bro. "None of that happened because I say it didn't"

Revolution starts with U

3rd November 2011, 03:36

If you follow the link on [3] it makes the point I bolded about requiring reasonable cause to believe it was stolen.

There we go :cool:

Except that, if you read anything I posted, it shows that "reasonable cause" is very loose. Basically you have to be absolutely certain it was not stolen.

So you agree that "if property is a right, protecting property is defense." This is all that was being established. Don't know why that took so long to establish :confused:

I did establish that, long ago. I said roughly "property is defense if property is a right. But property is only a right if you beg the question on property's validity as a right, because rights require defense, property requires aggression."

I wonder how the murderer convincing everyone he's correct protects the right to life (emphasis added).

I would say I mispoke, and apologize for that. "To protect his stance on the right to life.... To protect his stance on the right to property..." would have been a better phrasing.

If there are rights of any kind and they apply in particular circumstances, nobody needs to convince anyone for defense of those rights to be just.
Wut :confused:

And here, as you've done before, you're confusing physical initiation of force (i.e. "he started it!") with violation of rights. ANY negative right allows us to justly prevent something from happening - theft or killing. Whether the infringement upon this right was violent or not is irrelevant.

I must defend myself from a killer. I must be aggressed upon by a property holder. I'm not even talking about rights here. I'm only speaking on the specific actions that have to be taken in certain circumstances. Whether or not life or property is a right (an arbitrary and meaningless concept to begin with, really); I must defend myself from a killer, and must be aggressed upon by a property holder.
You can agree or disagree whether the property holder is justified in his aggression, but it is aggression.

No, I want you to stop responding with non sequiturs, like when I say "X is just because of Y and Z" and you say "~X, because ~X is legal in Ohio."

So you want me to stop saying "X is unjust because of Y and Z (Legal and Ohio)" so that you can say "X is just because of Y and Z (I and Say So)?

You did, and provided no further evidence why it was just. "X is legal" isn't evidence that it's just (otherwise you'd have my view on property :laugh:).

There's no evidence for anything being just, other than "because I say it is so." So I don't know where you're coming from to begin with. And I'm not the one saying it is just. I am saying it is unjust because "ignorance is no excuse."

What you "feel in your consciousness" are moral intuitions, not justice. Putting these ideas in a book and calling it law makes them no more just than they were to begin with.

Justice is a moral intution. Do you really think the NAZI's (the rank and file, not neccessarily the power brokers) thought themselves unjust?

Here I'll let you argue with yourself:
"You obviously think things are just becuase you think they are just. The world doesn't work like that, friend."

Your wacky moral relativism is true or it isn't, can't have it both ways :D.

Ya, my stance on it is as valid as yours, prior to it being played out intersubjectively in the larger society. I'm pretty sure that's been my point about justice this whole time.

Cool story bro. "None of that happened because I say it didn't"
None of it happened, because none of it happened.

At this point we're just saying the same things over and over. We're engaging in a long, tiring, war of attrition. I mean, I'll keep responding. But saying the same thing over and over is really just pointless. One day you will admit to yourself that I am right (at least in this circumstance), or you won't. Either way, I love ya brother :tt1:

Judicator

3rd November 2011, 04:46

"To protect his stance on the right to life.... To protect his stance on the right to property..." would have been a better phrasing.

We aren't talking about protecting stances, we're talking about protecting rights. Rights exist independent of what any particular individual's stance is.

Wut

What about rights don't you understand? Do you think rights are whatever you convince people you have?

I must defend myself from a killer. I must be aggressed upon by a property holder. I'm not even talking about rights here. I'm only speaking on the specific actions that have to be taken in certain circumstances. Whether or not life or property is a right (an arbitrary and meaningless concept to begin with, really); I must defend myself from a killer, and must be aggressed upon by a property holder.
You can agree or disagree whether the property holder is justified in his aggression, but it is aggression.

You should clarify what you mean by "must," because you needn't defend yourself from a killer. You can just let him kill you. The trespasser can just leave when the property holder asks him.

Not to mention the theft/property occupation is generally disruptive rather than benign as in your pond example.

The encroachment on property is the aggression. Whether the response counts as aggression depends on the nature of the response and what you consider to be aggression.

Justice is a moral intution. Do you really think the NAZI's (the rank and file, not neccessarily the power brokers) thought themselves unjust?

Isn't there some rule that once any internet argument goes on long enough, someone brings up Hitler or Nazis? Looks like we're there...

Making errors in ethical reasoning, which is probably what the NAZI's did, does not make their actions just.

Moral intuitions are just general feelings about what's right, and can easily be internally inconsistent. A theory of justice is an internally consistent ethical view.

Ya, my stance on it is as valid as yours, prior to it being played out intersubjectively in the larger society. I'm pretty sure that's been my point about justice this whole time.

Pretty sure you didn't say that anywhere. Nothing about our respective positions on property being equally valid, nor about moral relativism being true.

There's no evidence for anything being just, other than "because I say it is so." So I don't know where you're coming from to begin with. And I'm not the one saying it is just. I am saying it is unjust because "ignorance is no excuse."

Moral principles are evidence for things being just or not. If you think the only thing underlying moral principles is "because I say so," then say so! Either way, you've provided no competing moral principle to no harm/no intent to harm.

It is unjust because unknowingly accepting stolen property is wrong? What's the moral principle that underlies this view?

So you want me to stop saying "X is unjust because of Y and Z (Legal and Ohio)" so that you can say "X is just because of Y and Z (I and Say So)

Again, I'll let you argue with yourself...
I say: "Illegal doesn't imply unjust." You say: "I never said it did."
Are things unjust because they're illegal or aren't they?

In any case, the shopkeepers action's are just because he intended no harm and because he did no harm. You've provided no reason to think otherwise.

None of it happened, because none of it happened.

Because circular logic...

Revolution starts with U

3rd November 2011, 05:00

We aren't talking about protecting stances, we're talking about protecting rights. Rights exist independent of what any particular individual's stance is.

Rights are just a stance.

What about rights don't you understand? Do you think rights are whatever you convince people you have?

Ya, what else could they be?

You should clarify what you mean by "must," because you needn't defend yourself from a killer. You can just let him kill you. The trespasser can just leave when the property holder asks him.

Do you seriously think that's a good argument? :rolleyes:

Not to mention the theft/property occupation is generally disruptive rather than benign as in your pond example.

That's beside the point.

The encroachment on property is the aggression. Whether the response counts as aggression depends on the nature of the response and what you consider to be aggression.

... "only aggression if you beg the question on the validity of property rights." If you don't assume the validity of property rights, it is absolutely impossible to define the tresspasser as the aggressor.

Isn't there some rule that once any internet argument goes on long enough, someone brings up Hitler or Nazis? Looks like we're there...

Shut up NAZI :drool:

Making errors in ethical reasoning, which is probably what the NAZI's did, does not make their actions just.

Nothing does, because justice is an arbitrary and meaningless concept, only deriving meaning in the interplay of society at large.

Moral intuitions are just general feelings about what's right, and can easily be internally inconsistent. A theory of justice is an internally consistent ethical view.

A "theory" of justice can be internally inconsistent as well. Also, saying a "theory" of justice, is like saying there's a "theory" of clarity.

Pretty sure you didn't say that anywhere. Nothing about our respective positions on property being equally valid, nor about moral relativism being true.

I think I have made it quite clear in this thread, and every other one I have posted in, that I don't find ethics and morals to be absolute in any way, shape, or form. Ethics and morals are a product of what I like to call "intersubjective objectivity." Whatever ethical stance the individual takes is equally as valid as any other individual's stance; it only really derives any meaning in its interplay in society at large.

Moral principles are evidence for things being just or not. If you think the only thing underlying moral principles is "because I say so," then say so! Either way, you've provided no competing moral principle to no harm/no intent to harm.

Yes, I did; ignorance is no excuse.

It is unjust because unknowingly accepting stolen property is wrong? What's the moral principle that underlies this view?

The property was not the theifs with which to make the trade, and ignorance on the part of the business owner is no excuse; he shouldn't (in my opinion, and many others) be allowed to keep the fruits of any deal made with the theif and his stolen property.

Again, I'll let you argue with yourself...
I say: "Illegal doesn't imply unjust." You say: "I never said it did."
Are things unjust because they're illegal or aren't they?

It depends on who is asking the questions. Seriously... war of attrition here. We're just re-hashing the same arguments over and over.

In any case, the shopkeepers action's are just because he intended no harm and because he did no harm. You've provided no reason to think otherwise.

1) Not his stuff
2) Ignorance is no excuse

I have said this numerous times. It seems you've just conveniently ignored it?

Because circular logic...

Ya, you should try to practice it less :D

Judicator

3rd November 2011, 05:17

Rights are just a stance.

Nope, that's why they're rights not opinions.

Ya, what else could they be?

A list of things humans are entitled to by virtue of the fact that they're human beings.

Do you seriously think that's a good argument?

Just clarify what you mean by must, otherwise yes.

That's beside the point.

No, it's not. Disruption is aggressive.

... "only aggression if you beg the question on the validity of property rights." If you don't assume the validity of property rights, it is absolutely impossible to define the tresspasser as the aggressor.

If you don't assume the validity of property rights, there is no "trespasser." There's also no unjust killer if you don't assume the validity of right to life.

Nothing does, because justice is an arbitrary and meaningless concept, only deriving meaning in the interplay of society at large.

Here again you can argue with yourself. "Nothing does" and "the interplay of society does." You can't claim there's no basis for rights and then claim that there is.

Also you realize you're saying what the Nazis did was okay because the Nazi society agreed it was?

A "theory" of justice can be internally inconsistent as well. Also, saying a "theory" of justice, is like saying there's a "theory" of clarity.

Good theories usually aren't.

Theory of clarity?

I think I have made it quite clear in this thread, and every other one I have posted in, that I don't find ethics and morals to be absolute in any way, shape, or form. Ethics and morals are a product of what I like to call "intersubjective objectivity." Whatever ethical stance the individual takes is equally as valid as any other individual's stance; it only really derives any meaning in its interplay in society at large.

Yeah I don't read everything you post in your revleft restricted section philosophy threads, so please don't assume I do.

If all ethical stances are valid, then ethical stance P is valid, and ethical stance ~P is valid, so "P and ~P is valid." And you can (validly) derive anything from a contradiction.

1) Not his stuff
2) Ignorance is no excuse

I have said this numerous times. It seems you've just conveniently ignored it?

Probably. non-compelling arguments usually aren't memorable.

Ya, you should try to practice it less

You too buddy "None of it happened, because none of it happened."

Revolution starts with U

3rd November 2011, 05:35

Nope, that's why they're rights not opinions.

Rights are just opinions.

A list of things humans are entitled to by virtue of the fact that they're human beings.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/rasetsu/Yeah-well-you-know-thats-just-like-your-opinion-man.jpg

No, it's not. Disruption is aggressive.

Yes. Is all tresspassing disruptive now?

If you don't assume the validity of property rights, there is no "trespasser." There's also no unjust killer if you don't assume the validity of right to life.

Sure. They're still two wildly different "rights."

Here again you can argue with yourself. "Nothing does" and "the interplay of society does." You can't claim there's no basis for rights and then claim that there is.

Nice straw man. Nothing makes it absolute, and it only derives meaning in society, and even that meaning is arbitrary and subject to change.

Also you realize you're saying what the Nazis did was okay because the Nazi society agreed it was?

Yup. It was "okay" from their point of view. It most certainly wasn't from mine, and all the people that opposed them.

Good theories usually aren't.

Arbitrary caveats, will only weaken your original argument, not strengthen it.

Theory of clarity?

Theory of justice?

Yeah I don't read everything you post in your revleft restricted section philosophy threads, so please don't assume I do.

I think something like 90% of my posts are in OI.

If all ethical stances are valid, then ethical stance P is valid, and ethical stance ~P is valid, so "P and ~P is valid." And you can (validly) derive anything from a contradiction.

Word. Ethics suck, eh?

You too buddy "None of it happened, because none of it happened."
That's a statement of fact, not circular reasoning. :thumbup:

Revolution starts with U

3rd November 2011, 05:38

Probably. non-compelling arguments usually aren't memorable.

+

You've provided no reason to think otherwise.

=

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LhXZrBWEujE/S2HPLWY9ELI/AAAAAAAABic/Aq8zTWI65Kw/s400/sophistry.jpg

Judicator

4th November 2011, 01:11

Rights are just opinions.

Rights have normative force. Opinions don't.

Yes. Is all tresspassing disruptive now?

Some is.

Sure. They're still two wildly different "rights."

You're saying that they're different in the sense that the trespasser sometimes doesn't initiate violence, while the murderer (by definition) does. This is the difference between any violent injustice and any nonviolent injustice, and it is not a "wild" difference. We simply disagree on what differences are relevant to the question of how rights are "imposed" on others.

The commonality is that rights (to life or property) are being defended with force against someone who is violating them. This is the manner in which all rights are ultimately enforced - with force. Force is used in both cases by the rights defender, and it (and only it) is what "imposes" the right upon the rights violator.

Nice straw man. Nothing makes it absolute, and it only derives meaning in society, and even that meaning is arbitrary and subject to change.

Your words, so unless you were building your own straw man...

You're saying "nothing makes what the Nazis did wrong" and "some kind of morality derived from interplay in society makes what the Nazis did wrong." Presumably you intended to say "nothing makes what the Nazis did categorically wrong."

If you're the one saying morality comes from our intuitions, this is an awfully large bullet to bite.

Arbitrary caveats, will only weaken your original argument, not strengthen it.

Internal consistency isn't an arbitrary caveat. Bad things happen when you accept contradictions.

Theory of justice?

A set of coherent moral principles able to address most questions of justice.

I think something like 90% of my posts are in OI.

Point stands for your older posts on OI as well.

Word. Ethics suck, eh?

Lol yup. The point was this gives you good reasons to avoid metaethical positions that allow mutually contradictory stances to be simultaneously valid.

That's a statement of fact, not circular reasoning.

"X because X" is circular reasoning, regardless of the truth-value of X.

stuff + "You've provided no reason to think otherwise." = sophistry

Nothing particularly deceptive about it...you provided a reason (not a good one) but a reason nonetheless.

Revolution starts with U

4th November 2011, 01:44

Rights have normative force. Opinions don't.

So, rights are just socially constructed? You know what that means?

http://www.firetown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/1075479-well_that_s_just_like_your_opinion_man_super.jpg

Some is.

Yup, and some isn't.

You're saying that they're different in the sense that the trespasser sometimes doesn't initiate violence, while the murderer (by definition) does. This is the difference between any violent injustice and any nonviolent injustice, and it is not a "wild" difference. We simply disagree on what differences are relevant to the question of how rights are "imposed" on others.

The commonality is that rights (to life or property) are being defended with force against someone who is violating them. This is the manner in which all rights are ultimately enforced - with force. Force is used in both cases by the rights defender, and it (and only it) is what "imposes" the right upon the rights violator.

Yup. And property is only a right if you assume it to be. You have to assume a right to have property to desire property. You need not assume a right to life to not want killed; you could just be afraid of knives or something.

Your words, so unless you were building your own straw man...

You're saying "nothing makes what the Nazis did wrong" and "some kind of morality derived from interplay in society makes what the Nazis did wrong." Presumably you intended to say "nothing makes what the Nazis did categorically wrong."

There's a difference between my words and your portrayal of my words.
Yes, nothing makes the actions of the NAZI's categorically wrong; as right and wrong is subjective. But through the intersubjective interplay of society, it was deemed wrong through actions and laws made against it.
Morality/ethics/rights only derive any meaning intersubjectively; and that meaning is only tentative.... it's just, like, your opinion, man.

If you're the one saying morality comes from our intuitions, this is an awfully large bullet to bite.

http://thehopefulromantic.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/bite_the_bullet.jpg?w=300

A set of coherent moral principles able to address most questions of justice.

"A set of coherent statements able to be understood by other parties:"

Lol yup. The point was this gives you good reasons to avoid metaethical positions that allow mutually contradictory stances to be simultaneously valid.

What, like "matter is both, at the same time, a particle and wave?" Contradiction like that?

"X because X" is circular reasoning, regardless of the truth-value of X.

It's not, because you offered no evidence of your position. Is it circular reasoning to say "I have no reason to believe in God because I have no reason to believe in God?" No, it's just a statement. What would be circular reasoning would be "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist." This is a proposition, rather than just a statement.
Perhaps I am wrong, and it was circular reasoning. If so I will retract that statement. Still, none of that, unless you can show evidence otherwise, happened.

Judicator

4th November 2011, 02:21

So, rights are just socially constructed? You know what that means?

Oh you anthropology people :lol: . I bet you believe medicine men are equally effective at curing ailments as modern medicine, because truth is "socially constructed."

Anyway, no, do you just mean, as a matter of fact, that when people form their beliefs they do it in a society? This says nothing of whether these beliefs are true.

Yup. And property is only a right if you assume it to be. You have to assume a right to have property to desire property. You need not assume a right to life to not want killed; you could just be afraid of knives or something.

Christ that look a long time.... (emphasis added)

What does fear/desire have to do with anything?

There's a difference between my words and your portrayal of my words.
Yes, nothing makes the actions of the NAZI's categorically wrong; as right and wrong is subjective. But through the intersubjective interplay of society, it was deemed wrong through actions and laws made against it.
Morality/ethics/rights only derive any meaning intersubjectively; and that meaning is only tentative.... it's just, like, your opinion, man.

That's why I quoted you! :D

Why should society deeming something wrong have any moral import at all? I mean, as a matter of fact, this is how moral conventions are developed (along with evolutionary tendencies), but justice is not simply a form of manners/etiquette.

*bites bullet*

Lol I hope your Jewish friends don't know about this...

Another bullet to bite...if you're a hardcore moral relativist...presumably your metaethical position is also itself relative (others accept moral objectivism or other metaethical stances and are justified in doing so).

A set of coherent statements able to be understood by other parties

Cool.

What, like "matter is both, at the same time, a particle and wave?" Contradiction like that?

Nope, try again. You need something of the form P and ~P.

It's not, because you offered no evidence of your position. Is it circular reasoning to say "I have no reason to believe in God because I have no reason to believe in God?" No, it's just a statement.
What would be circular reasoning would be "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist." This is a proposition, rather than just a statement.

Yes, actually it is. You're saying:
X
If X then X
Therefore X

If you just say X, that's a statement.

Still, none of that, unless you can show evidence otherwise, happened.

Among other things....You tried to counter points about justice with points about law. Particular laws don't imply much of anything just/unjust.

Revolution starts with U

4th November 2011, 03:02

Oh you anthropology people :lol: . I bet you believe medicine men are equally effective at curing ailments as modern medicine, because truth is "socially constructed."

That would be absurd :lol: Medical effectiveness is, and I'm sure you would admit this, vastly different than social norms.

Anyway, no, do you just mean, as a matter of fact, that when people form their beliefs they do it in a society? This says nothing of whether these beliefs are true.

NOthing objective says whether or not beliefs in ethics/morals are true. Ethics/morals cannot be true, in the scientific sense of the word.

Christ that look a long time.... (emphasis added)

What does fear/desire have to do with anything?

I don't have to assume a right to life to not want to be murdered; I could just fear knives or something. I must make the assumption that I have a right to property to desire property.

That's why I quoted you! :D

Why should society deeming something wrong have any moral import at all? I mean, as a matter of fact, this is how moral conventions are developed (along with evolutionary tendencies), but justice is not simply a form of manners/etiquette.

Ya. It is :thumbup1:
There's no objective basis for justice. Or do you disagree with that stance?

Lol I hope your Jewish friends don't know about this...

The existence of YWHW has no bearing on the foundation of moral/ethical action. It's still a choice I must make.

Another bullet to bite...if you're a hardcore moral relativist...presumably your metaethical position is also itself relative (others accept moral objectivism or other metaethical stances and are justified in doing so).

Ya; if you want to believe G-D is the foundation of morals, you're free to do so. It's not, but whatever. It's true to you.

Cool.

:thumbup1:

Nope, try again. You need something of the form P and ~P.

Schrodinger's cat is both dead and not dead.

Yes, actually it is. You're saying:
X
If X then X
Therefore X

If you just say X, that's a statement.

I did say "just x." And you countered "no, x because of y." And I said "no. Y didn't happen. X because of X." I will retract it; it was circular reasoning. Sure. The larger point still stands. You've offered no (good) evidence that your charges against me are valid.

Among other things....You tried to counter points about justice with points about law. Particular laws don't imply much of anything just/unjust.
Nothing implies much of anything about justice. It's just, like, your opinion, man.

Judicator

4th November 2011, 05:32

That would be absurd Medical effectiveness is, and I'm sure you would admit this, vastly different than social norms.

Just making sure you weren't totally off the deep end :lol:

My concern is that standards of justification and what counts as evidence vary across cultures. That is, there are social norms relating to justification of anything, including justification of medical effectiveness.

NOthing objective says whether or not beliefs in ethics/morals are true. Ethics/morals cannot be true, in the scientific sense of the word.

If by "the scientific sense" you mean empirically verifiable...then I don't think so. However this is not the only way in which things are true (you don't verify 2+2=4 by counting objects).

For someone like Kant and maybe Rawls, morality is pretty absolute and independent of individual points of view. They offer plausible arguments why their views should be so.

I don't have to assume a right to life to not want to be murdered; I could just fear knives or something. I must make the assumption that I have a right to property to desire property.

:confused: How do the wants of the would-be theft/murder victim impact the sense in which rights are "imposed" upon the would-be thief/murderer?

Nothing implies much of anything about justice. It's just, like, your opinion, man.

Principles of justice imply what's just.

There's no objective basis for justice. Or do you disagree with that stance?

I wonder how, if there's no objective basis for justice, there can be any justice at all. This seems like a really undesirable feature of relativist metaethics, so unless it solves some philosophical problems really nicely, it seems we're better off going with Kant or Rawls or whatever.

The existence of YWHW has no bearing on the foundation of moral/ethical action. It's still a choice I must make.

Since God is omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent by assumption, wouldn't everything he does be good...and objectively so since he knows everything.

Ya; if you want to believe G-D is the foundation of morals, you're free to do so. It's not [true to me], but whatever. It's true to you.

You agree with this clarification?

Schrodinger's cat is both dead and not dead.

So in the cat example, we know in one case when the poison is released, the cat is dead. When the poison isn't, the cat is alive. Presumably under the interpretation of QM where the cat paradox is okay (so the cat is both alive and dead), we can try to argue as follows:

1- The cat is alive (premise)
2- The cat is dead (premise)
3- Therefore the cat is not dead (by 1)
4 -Therefore the cat is dead and not dead (by 2 and 3)

But, based on your example, we can't say (3). Being alive doesn't imply not being dead.

Also, I think this paradox was brought up as an objection to interpretations of quantum mechanics that allow it (so like a reducio ad absurdum).

You've offered no (good) evidence that your charges against me are valid.

The other thing that comes to mind (in addition to whats below) is your faulty charge of question begging when we're debating an example involving the manner in which property rights are forced upon people, given that they obtain in the situation, and the manner in which rights to life are forced upon people, given that they obtain in the situation.

Nothing implies much of anything about justice. It's just, like, your opinion, man.

This would support my view that you can't attack claims about justice with legal precedent.

Revolution starts with U

4th November 2011, 08:50

Just making sure you weren't totally off the deep end :lol:

Oh no... I am ;)

My concern is that standards of justification and what counts as evidence vary across cultures. That is, there are social norms relating to justification of anything, including justification of medical effectiveness.

Word. And in the realm of social sciences, all of those norms are valid and just. I personally may not view them as just, but they do... some of them.

If by "the scientific sense" you mean empirically verifiable...then I don't think so. However this is not the only way in which things are true (you don't verify 2+2=4 by counting objects).

For someone like Kant and maybe Rawls, morality is pretty absolute and independent of individual points of view. They offer plausible arguments why their views should be so.

Ya, G-D did it :lol:

The wants/beliefs illustrate the different methods of justification used for the different actions taken.

Principles of justice imply what's just.

Principles of clarity imply what's clear.

I wonder how, if there's no objective basis for justice, there can be any justice at all. This seems like a really undesirable feature of relativist metaethics, so unless it solves some philosophical problems really nicely, it seems we're better off going with Kant or Rawls or whatever.

Ya, instead of saying "we don't know" let's just rely upon shaky unproved assumptions :lol:
The objective basis for justice gets played out inter-subjectively. Trying for anything more is wishful thinking at best, and turns to outright oppression at worst (think Church rule in the middle ages).

Since God is omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent by assumption, wouldn't everything he does be good...and objectively so since he knows everything.

It's impossible to have those 3 characteristics in a world with evil. You have a very poor description of YWHW. As Maimonedes said; G-D can only be described in the negative; in what G-D is not.

Even were G-D the basis for ethics; I would still have to choose it. It's still subjective.

You agree with this clarification?

I think it's wrong. But I don't have a definitive answer.

So in the cat example, we know in one case when the poison is released, the cat is dead. When the poison isn't, the cat is alive. Presumably under the interpretation of QM where the cat paradox is okay (so the cat is both alive and dead), we can try to argue as follows:

1- The cat is alive (premise)
2- The cat is dead (premise)
3- Therefore the cat is not dead (by 1)
4 -Therefore the cat is dead and not dead (by 2 and 3)

But, based on your example, we can't say (3). Being alive doesn't imply not being dead.

Also, I think this paradox was brought up as an objection to interpretations of quantum mechanics that allow it (so like a reducio ad absurdum).

Ya, except nobody could disprove it. It's largely believed to be true by the physics community.

How does being alive not imply not being dead? :confused::lol:

This would support my view that you can't attack claims about justice with legal precedent.

You can attack claims about justice with anything as it is "just... like... your opinion, man." :lol:

Judicator

5th November 2011, 00:10

Word. And in the realm of social sciences, all of those norms are valid and just. I personally may not view them as just, but they do... some of them.

Social sciences are descriptive rather than normative. It's completely fine for a moral objectivist (or truth objectivist) that people happen to have differing beliefs about morality. This alone is insufficient to conclude that metaethical moral relativism is true.

Ya, G-D did it

The wants/beliefs illustrate the different methods of justification used for the different actions taken.

Hmm? God did what?

On the wants beliefs point, did you mean to quote me there on the thief/murderer victim? I'm assuming you did.

It's likely that there are be multiple causal reasons for doing something (fear of knives, whatever). However, under a rights-based moral theory (the basis of the comparison), the only *morally relevant* reason to do things would be in defense of rights.

Principles of clarity imply what's clear.

Yup.

Ya, instead of saying "we don't know" let's just rely upon shaky unproved assumptions
The objective basis for justice gets played out inter-subjectively. Trying for anything more is wishful thinking at best, and turns to outright oppression at worst (think Church rule in the middle ages).

By shaky unproven assumptions, you're referring to what - Kant and Rawls?

Presumably the Church in the middle ages went through the same intersubjective processes and decided they were right in oppressing those they were trying to convert. From my position today, I want to say "that was wrong," but really all you think I can say is "that was wrong for me." The Church said it was right for them, so in that sense there's no disagreement at all.

It seems kind of silly that our beliefs appear to conflict very strongly, but don't.

I think it's wrong. But I don't have a definitive answer.

The clarification I made, or God being the foundation of morals?

It's impossible to have those 3 characteristics in a world with evil. You have a very poor description of YWHW. As Maimonedes said; G-D can only be described in the negative; in what G-D is not.

Even were G-D the basis for ethics; I would still have to choose it. It's still subjective.

Right so the "easy" way out is to say the world lacks evil. The other way would be to attack the assumption that "perfectly good" means they'd want to smite out all evils, or that they'd want to create the best possible world.

If God were the basis of ethics and you could prove God's existence based on logic, it wouldn't matter what you thought, he would exist and the morality.

Practically speaking, it's "subjective" in the sense that you can do whatever the hell you want, but this has no bearing on whether the truth of the matter (morality) is subjective.

Ya, except nobody could disprove it. It's largely believed to be true by the physics community.

How does being alive not imply not being dead?

That's cool. It seems unusual that you could empirically "prove" or "disprove" logical principles...as if counting objects would allow you to falsify some mathematical idea.

In this case, evidently, you know its possible to simultaneously be alive and dead. And we know that

(P and Q) is equivalent to ~(P then ~Q)....write out the truth table I'm pretty sure it works out. (P and Q) is our first two premises, and (P then ~Q) is our third premise. But our third premise is equivalent to the first two...so we're simply assuming a contradiction.

Anyway, apparently some logicians avoid this whole mess by just defining TRUE as (P or ~P) and FALSE as ~(P or ~P). This seems pretty elegant.

You can attack claims about justice with anything as it is "just... like... your opinion, man."

The "just your opinion" view prevents you from attacking any claim about justice with any evidence.

So we're clear, an "attack" on P is some reason given to believe ~P. But since, under your view, no piece of evidence can justify any moral position....then no piece of evidence can give anyone a reason to believe ~P. Consequently there can't be attacks of any kind on positions about justice.

Revolution starts with U

5th November 2011, 01:01

Social sciences are descriptive rather than normative. It's completely fine for a moral objectivist (or truth objectivist) that people happen to have differing beliefs about morality. This alone is insufficient to conclude that metaethical moral relativism is true.

Moral relatism cannot be "true." It is the negation of "truth" to be found within the realm of ethics and morals.
MR says there are no morals or ethics that are, or can be, true. It is the MO that posits there are, and the burden of proof lies with them.

Hmm? God did what?

Isn't that basically how Kant settled the whole issue (with himself), by saying essentially "God did it."

It's likely that there are be multiple causal reasons for doing something (fear of knives, whatever). However, under a rights-based moral theory (the basis of the comparison), the only *morally relevant* reason to do things would be in defense of rights.

So what you are saying is it's okay to dismiss what actually happened in order to get situations to better fit into our "theories"... ?
Or am I just misunderstanding you?

By shaky unproven assumptions, you're referring to what - Kant and Rawls?

God, rights, or any other meaningless term one attempts to inject into the debate.

Presumably the Church in the middle ages went through the same intersubjective processes and decided they were right in oppressing those they were trying to convert. From my position today, I want to say "that was wrong," but really all you think I can say is "that was wrong for me." The Church said it was right for them, so in that sense there's no disagreement at all.

Essentially yes. You got it. It's just... like.. your opinion, man" :cool:

It seems kind of silly that our beliefs appear to conflict very strongly, but don't.

Ya, well, it seems kinda silly that light can be both a particle and a wave at the same time, and that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. It is unfortunate that reality doesn't fit our preconceived desires; but that's just the way it is.

The clarification I made, or God being the foundation of morals?

G-D being the foundation of morals.

Right so the "easy" way out is to say the world lacks evil.
Which is the "true" way out :lol:

The other way would be to attack the assumption that "perfectly good" means they'd want to smite out all evils, or that they'd want to create the best possible world.

Are you familiar with Epicurus' "problem of evil?"

If God were the basis of ethics and you could prove God's existence based on logic, it wouldn't matter what you thought, he would exist and the morality.

I would still have to choose to do "good."

Practically speaking, it's "subjective" in the sense that you can do whatever the hell you want, but this has no bearing on whether the truth of the matter (morality) is subjective.

And what does?

That's cool. It seems unusual that you could empirically "prove" or "disprove" logical principles...as if counting objects would allow you to falsify some mathematical idea.

That's the point. Mathematical/logical prinicples only exist and have meaning within the confines of their own field. In regular math 2+2 always = 4. In binary there is no 2. But 1+1 can equal either 0 or 1.
Logic/math without evidence is worthless. Evidence without logic is still what actually happened.

(P and Q) is equivalent to ~(P then ~Q)....write out the truth table I'm pretty sure it works out. (P and Q) is our first two premises, and (P then ~Q) is our third premise. But our third premise is equivalent to the first two...so we're simply assuming a contradiction.
How is our 3rd premise equivalent to the first two?

The "just your opinion" view prevents you from attacking any claim about justice with any evidence.

No, I can attack claims about justice, ethics, morals but only from my own perspective. Where meaning is derived is when you and I act upon our ethics, within the confines of a larger society. It is true in Saudi Arabia that being a woman who was raped is wrong. That's true, for them. For us, it is not.
Subjective thought > Intersubjective Objectivity > Subjective effect

So we're clear, an "attack" on P is some reason given to believe ~P. But since, under your view, no piece of evidence can justify any moral position....then no piece of evidence can give anyone a reason to believe ~P. Consequently there can't be attacks of any kind on positions about justice.

There can be no absolute attacks. But you and I are free to define ethics how best we see fit. We will define it, then act upon it within society, and they will judge us and act upon that, creating new definitions to be acted upon, judged, and re-acted upon.

Judicator

5th November 2011, 01:34

Moral relatism cannot be "true." It is the negation of "truth" to be found within the realm of ethics and morals.
MR says there are no morals or ethics that are, or can be, true. It is the MO that posits there are, and the burden of proof lies with them.

Moral relativism could be true or false depending on your views about how METAethical positions are justified. Moral relativism isn't a position about what's right or wrong in any given situation, or what moral principles are the right one...but about how we can go about justifying our moral principles and so on.

MR says that we can't rationally resolve moral disagreements, MO says we can. Why is either of these the "default" position?

Isn't that basically how Kant settled the whole issue (with himself), by saying essentially "God did it."

Well you've still got Rawls then.

I haven't read enough Kant to know...I'm pretty sure he was a theist. IMO these videos were really accessible in terms of explaining Kant's view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rv-4aUbZxQ (look at #7 as well).

So what you are saying is it's okay to dismiss what actually happened in order to get situations to better fit into our "theories"... ?
Or am I just misunderstanding you?

I think we agree on what actually happened: the murderer was killed and the trespasser was evicted.

God, rights, or any other meaningless term one attempts to inject into the debate.

I think Kant and Rawls are plausible examples of rights not being "injected" but rather derived from meaningful principles.

But yes I agree one can't just say "God exists!" and leave it at that.

Essentially yes. You got it. It's just... like.. your opinion, man

Yeah I don't think this view captures any of what's usually meant by morality. It doesn't show why "you're hurting him" a better reason not to do something than "the sky is blue." So again...unless you have some theoretically really great reason to believe that it is indeed "just your opinion" I don't see how moral relativism is justified.

Which is the "true" way out

Strictly speaking, that solution works. I think its more of a "bite the bullet" than anything else.

Are you familiar with Epicurus' "problem of evil?"

Yup, one of my favorites :) .

I would still have to choose to do "good."

Sure, but the difference would be that, unlike under MR, if you chose to do something else, you'd be objectively wrong. Whereas when MR (your conception of it, at least), it seems anything goes.

And what does?

Well, in our example, if God existed...then God's morality.

Mathematical/logical prinicples only exist and have meaning within the confines of their own field. In regular math 2+2 always = 4. In binary there is no 2. But 1+1 can equal either 0 or 1.
Logic/math without evidence is worthless. Evidence without logic is still what actually happened.

In binary there's 2 its just written as 10. With logic/math...you have something better than evidence, you have proof!

Evidence is...complicated. It's the relevant things we pick out and use to try to justify our assertions...not exactly "what actually happened."

How is our 3rd premise equivalent to the first two?

Our 3rd premise is the NEGATION of the first two:

(P and Q) is equivalent to ~(P then ~Q)

P is "The cat is alive" (our first premise)
Q is "The cat is dead" (our second premise)
(P then ~Q) is equivalent to "If the cat is alive then the cat is not dead" (our third premise)

No, I can attack claims about justice, ethics, morals but only from my own perspective. Where meaning is derived is when you and I act upon our ethics, within the confines of a larger society. It is true in Saudi Arabia that being a woman who was raped is wrong. That's true, for them. For us, it is not.

I should clarify....it prevents you from attacking anyone who doesn't happen to share your beliefs. That is...the attacks carry no weight. You can go through all of the arguments in the world and none of them will constitute reason to believe ~P...

There can be no absolute attacks. But you and I are free to define ethics how best we see fit. We will define it, then act upon it within society, and they will judge us and act upon that, creating new definitions to be acted upon, judged, and re-acted upon.

I'm not seeing the normative force here...how does the process of picking ethical positions out of a hat, so to speak, give them moral force?

Revolution starts with U

5th November 2011, 06:17

Moral relativism could be true or false depending on your views about how METAethical positions are justified. Moral relativism isn't a position about what's right or wrong in any given situation, or what moral principles are the right one...but about how we can go about justifying our moral principles and so on.

MR says that we can't rationally resolve moral disagreements, MO says we can. Why is either of these the "default" position?

Because one is saying "no, that didn't happen." If one is claiming a positive, they have to offer the evidence that the positive even exists. If I told you I farted and lifted off into space, would you just believe me? As such, if you say "there are for sure moral 'laws," I will ask you first to offer evidence of that.
No matter which law you come up with, I can just say "nah, I don't have to live like that."

Well you've still got Rawls then.

Idk Rawls. :blushing:

I haven't read enough Kant to know...I'm pretty sure he was a theist. IMO these videos were really accessible in terms of explaining Kant's view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rv-4aUbZxQ (look at #7 as well).

Will do

I think we agree on what actually happened: the murderer was killed and the trespasser was evicted.

Ok. I was pretty sure I was misunderstanding you. But this position you are taking, that defense of rights is the basis of morals (?), only brings us back to what rights? Whose rights?

I think Kant and Rawls are plausible examples of rights not being "injected" but rather derived from meaningful principles.

But yes I agree one can't just say "God exists!" and leave it at that.

Whose and what meaningful principles?

Yeah I don't think this view captures any of what's usually meant by morality. It doesn't show why "you're hurting him" a better reason not to do something than "the sky is blue." So again...unless you have some theoretically really great reason to believe that it is indeed "just your opinion" I don't see how moral relativism is justified.

The evidence will show why someone was hurting, and that will impact and influence the people who are conscious of it, in various ways. And then they will make decisions, good or bad, that will further impact the rest of society.

Sure, but the difference would be that, unlike under MR, if you chose to do something else, you'd be objectively wrong. Whereas when MR (your conception of it, at least), it seems anything goes.

And what if that doesn't exist?
And that's absurd to think that anything goes. If you make a choice that impacts me negatively, I will responde or retaliate in kind. The real truth is that anything really goes; how many people have been killed, and city's burned down in the choices leading up to this moment?
The only thing that tempers this is community empowerment; democracy, so to say. (People power) How many wars do you think would be started by militaries where the soldiers decide the course of action? (Another question would be how many would they win? lol, but that's another discussion)

Well, in our example, if God existed...then God's morality.

What God? Why should I follow him? Hell? What if I want to go to hell?
That's a big if...

In binary there's 2 its just written as 10. With logic/math...you have something better than evidence, you have proof!

If it turns out there's no causality, or that things can be both themselves and not themselves, how well will your proofs work out? Don't get me wrong, generally the world works well. Our logic only works in the confines of what can be known. As long as what can be known about human interaction is subjective, solid foundations on which to build logic are non-existent.

Evidence is...complicated. It's the relevant things we pick out and use to try to justify our assertions...not exactly "what actually happened."

That's what I'm saying :lol: It's the relevant things "I" pick out and use and try to justify my assertions, and I will act upon it. This will be what happened. Why did I murder someone? Because there have always been people around influincing me and I chose to react a certain way that some people view as negative.
When I ordered all those children whipped in for not working hard enough 100 years ago, I chose to do it. They impacted me negatively and I took out my frustrations. Nobody stopped me. Some joined. They made choices.

Our 3rd premise is the NEGATION of the first two:

(P and Q) is equivalent to ~(P then ~Q)

P is "The cat is alive" (our first premise)
Q is "The cat is dead" (our second premise)
(P then ~Q) is equivalent to "If the cat is alive then the cat is not dead" (our third premise)

Ya. So.. that's what happens. That's the problem. Logic cannot explain quantum phenomenon accurately.
It's not, as you said, an "assumption of a contradiction" because no assumption was made (other than that reality acts as if it exists). The cat is alive and dead. And not dead, nor alive. Anything goes.
(Now, we can move on from this to much more majestic views of the power of "love" and "brotherhood." We can do very great things. But we must always remember that YOU I THEY have to make a choice.)

I should clarify....it prevents you from attacking anyone who doesn't happen to share your beliefs. That is...the attacks carry no weight. You can go through all of the arguments in the world and none of them will constitute reason to believe ~P...

That's what I am saying! :lol: We will agree, and create positive uplifting creationary relationships. Or we will not, and create violence and destruction. It's all relative until it happens; until someone makes a choice.
You influence me, I influence you, things happen. Go with the flow bro :cool:

I'm not seeing the normative force here...how does the process of picking ethical positions out of a hat, so to speak, give them moral force?
You try to rob me, I stop you. I try to use you, your people, and the resources of your land for reasons you find negative and resist against me. People make choices, impact other people, who then make more choices.

Time; it's on my side. Yes it is.

Judicator

5th November 2011, 21:42

Because one is saying "no, that didn't happen." If one is claiming a positive, they have to offer the evidence that the positive even exists. If I told you I farted and lifted off into space, would you just believe me? As such, if you say "there are for sure moral 'laws," I will ask you first to offer evidence of that.
No matter which law you come up with, I can just say "nah, I don't have to live like that."

Metaethics isn't a question of what "happened." It's a questions like "how do we know whats good or bad".... "Moral knowledge is impossible", "Moral knowledge is possible," etc are all positive claims in that they are claims about the nature of our moral knowledge.

Ok. I was pretty sure I was misunderstanding you. But this position you are taking, that defense of rights is the basis of morals (?), only brings us back to what rights? Whose rights?

The position was that in a system where morals come from rights...all rights are ultimately, justly defended with force. Before we even ask what rights/whose rights we'd have to have a common view of metaethics.

Whose and what meaningful principles?

So with Rawls for example...the basic idea is that morality would come from idealized deliberation. If everyone deliberated independent of their contingent needs and interests (things make their society different), behind a "veil of ignorance" not knowing who they actually were in society (so not impacted by egoism), they would consistently agree on certain moral principles.

In this sense you'd be wrong to say "it's just your opinion" and defend an alternative ethical view if your alternative was inconsistent with what would have come out behind a "veil of ignorance."

The evidence will show why someone was hurting, and that will impact and influence the people who are conscious of it, in various ways. And then they will make decisions, good or bad, that will further impact the rest of society.

This is descriptive moral relativism...just saying "shit happens and people do things." We want to know what justice is...how do we (rationally) get from this observation (of facts) to judgments about justice?

And that's absurd to think that anything goes. If you make a choice that impacts me negatively, I will responde or retaliate in kind. The real truth is that anything really goes; how many people have been killed, and city's burned down in the choices leading up to this moment?
The only thing that tempers this is community empowerment; democracy, so to say. (People power) How many wars do you think would be started by militaries where the soldiers decide the course of action? (Another question would be how many would they win? lol, but that's another discussion)

I'm saying "anything goes" morally speaking. Of course, as a matter of fact, people may retaliate in different ways, which will impact my behavior. However, this is not a moral reason to avoid doing something, but a practical one.

I think in ancient Greece it was very popular to be a soldier and fight, and they fought a lot of wars.

What God? Why should I follow him? Hell? What if I want to go to hell?
That's a big if...

The "triple-O" god...omniscient...etc. You should follow him because, by definition, if something is the moral thing to do you should do it.

If it turns out there's no causality, or that things can be both themselves and not themselves, how well will your proofs work out? Don't get me wrong, generally the world works well. Our logic only works in the confines of what can be known. As long as what can be known about human interaction is subjective, solid foundations on which to build logic are non-existent.

We have to distinguish between physical "contradiction" and logical contradiction.

Logic is axiomatic rather than being based on some empirical foundation, i.e. it's true whether or not up is down and down is up. If everything in the universe were indeed as "strange" as you propose it might be, logic would still work. I think people are implicitly accepting many of these axioms based on their everyday use of speech and commonsense notions.

It's the relevant things "I" pick out and use and try to justify my assertions, and I will act upon it. This will be what happened. Why did I murder someone? Because there have always been people around influincing me and I chose to react a certain way that some people view as negative.

What actually happened is whatever obtains independent of you or anyone else. What the evidence shows determines what you think happened.

Ya. So.. that's what happens. That's the problem. Logic cannot explain quantum phenomenon accurately.
It's not, as you said, an "assumption of a contradiction" because no assumption was made (other than that reality acts as if it exists). The cat is alive and dead. And not dead, nor alive. Anything goes.

Logic explains it accurately, the misstep I was pointing out was in your interpretation of physical event (namely that there was a logical contradiction from the beginning). I'm saying that in your attempt to show that these normal physical event led to a contradiction...you had to begin by assuming a contradiction.

Is there a common scientific viewpoint you have in mind that the schrodinger's cat under the common interpretation of QM implies "logic doesn't work."

We will agree, and create positive uplifting creationary relationships. Or we will not, and create violence and destruction. It's all relative until it happens; until someone makes a choice.
You influence me, I influence you, things happen. Go with the flow bro

Again all of these points are descriptive, not prescriptive (except "go with the flow")

You try to rob me, I stop you. I try to use you, your people, and the resources of your land for reasons you find negative and resist against me. People make choices, impact other people, who then make more choices.

All descriptive...no normativity here. We're looking for "what's goodness" not "what people happen to do."

Revolution starts with U

6th November 2011, 01:12

Metaethics isn't a question of what "happened." It's a questions like "how do we know whats good or bad".... "Moral knowledge is impossible", "Moral knowledge is possible," etc are all positive claims in that they are claims about the nature of our moral knowledge.

What I am saying is that if it happened; it's good.. and bad, because nature is indifferent; a passive observer.
Moral knowledge is far from impossible. What's impossible is certain moral knowledge. As of yet, and probably forever, we have no basis on which to stake our claims, other than "because it feels right to me."

The position was that in a system where morals come from rights...all rights are ultimately, justly defended with force. Before we even ask what rights/whose rights we'd have to have a common view of metaethics.

I would agree with that. What I was saying was that the nature of the "right to life" and the "right to property," are vastly different. Before the question of rights, one requires the reaction of violence, the other requires the initiation of it. T'would be my opinion that property should not be regarded as a right, but a privelage; it shouldn't be held by the individual but the community.

So with Rawls for example...the basic idea is that morality would come from idealized deliberation. If everyone deliberated independent of their contingent needs and interests (things make their society different), behind a "veil of ignorance" not knowing who they actually were in society (so not impacted by egoism), they would consistently agree on certain moral principles.

How would that be different from what I am saying? I was watching the video you linked on Kant (very good btw) and I have the same question for it as well. Kant says reason places morals as ends in themselves, and this makes our objective basis; but what morals we choose to be ends are still up to us to decide.
What do these explain that differs from what I am saying? Mine only goes a step further, and places individual action (subjectivity) as the objective basis for it.

In this sense you'd be wrong to say "it's just your opinion" and defend an alternative ethical view if your alternative was inconsistent with what would have come out behind a "veil of ignorance."

If...

This is descriptive moral relativism...just saying "shit happens and people do things." We want to know what justice is...how do we (rationally) get from this observation (of facts) to judgments about justice?

You make your own judgements. Some will agree with you, others will not. Actions will be taken, laws will be made, norms will develop. I don't see why we need add any more assumptions onto this... It could slip into ghastly ethical orders? Well the history of human society shows that any system can do that, based on anything. "The Devil can quote scripture for his purposes" so to say. What does have strong evidence is that "democracy" (in the sense of people power, polyopoly as opposed to monopoly) tends to be far more stable and humane; for obvious reasons of peer pressure and natural altruistic drives (I am not of the camp that humans are altruistic or greedy; they are both, depending on who they are, and what circumstance they find themselves in at that particular moment. We have both natural altruistic and self-interested drives.)

I'm saying "anything goes" morally speaking. Of course, as a matter of fact, people may retaliate in different ways, which will impact my behavior. However, this is not a moral reason to avoid doing something, but a practical one.

Morals are practical. Why do you think people are so willing to go against there own stated morals?

I think in ancient Greece it was very popular to be a soldier and fight, and they fought a lot of wars.

Yup. But were the armies democratic? Did common soldiers have choice/representation in the directive decisions of the army? No.

The "triple-O" god...omniscient...etc. You should follow him because, by definition, if something is the moral thing to do you should do it.

Triple O god cannot exist in a world with free will. You have to drop that omnibenevolent, at the very least. If not, any action is a good action. That I would agree with but it both makes G-D again irrelevant and moral choice a subjective choice.

We have to distinguish between physical "contradiction" and logical contradiction.

Logic is axiomatic rather than being based on some empirical foundation, i.e. it's true whether or not up is down and down is up. If everything in the universe were indeed as "strange" as you propose it might be, logic would still work. I think people are implicitly accepting many of these axioms based on their everyday use of speech and commonsense notions.

Logic would still work, but only within the confines of rationally explainable phenomenon. It would work in our mundane experiences; but it would not necessarily be applicable in all circumstance.

What actually happened is whatever obtains independent of you or anyone else. What the evidence shows determines what you think happened.

Could you elaborate?

Logic explains it accurately, the misstep I was pointing out was in your interpretation of physical event (namely that there was a logical contradiction from the beginning). I'm saying that in your attempt to show that these normal physical event led to a contradiction...you had to begin by assuming a contradiction.

But the contradiction is what happned. It by definition is not an assumption. If the evidence doesn't fit the logic, it is the logic that has the problem, not the evidence.

Is there a common scientific viewpoint you have in mind that the schrodinger's cat under the common interpretation of QM implies "logic doesn't work."

Ya, everything I've ever read about physics :lol: (And I've read a lot).
But:

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue), who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. ~Einstein

One need only learn of the problem. How can the cat be both alive and dead? One must reason either that we are interpreting the data incorrectly (and all results say we are not) or that reality is fundamentally illogical, in the sense of classical logic. It (the Cat Paradox) was intended to be a refutation; yet no consistent reason has been given to refute it.

Again all of these points are descriptive, not prescriptive (except "go with the flow")

I can give you proscriptive ethics; but it's just what I believe. I cannot offer you the truth, other than that you must realize it yourself.

All descriptive...no normativity here. We're looking for "what's goodness" not "what people happen to do."
What people happen to do will be decided as good or bad when others observe it. I'm sorry that's all I have to offer you; but I have no reason to believe it's not the truth.

But don't dispair! It's a beautiful hypothesis. It places all the power of the universe square into your hands. The great observer is just itching to see what you can do with it :thumbup:

I am all that there is
It's just a choice
And I am ever so grateful you could join us
(that's the hook to a new song I just wrote a few weeks ago)

Judicator

7th November 2011, 00:16

What I am saying is that if it happened; it's good.. and bad, because nature is indifferent; a passive observer.
Moral knowledge is far from impossible. What's impossible is certain moral knowledge. As of yet, and probably forever, we have no basis on which to stake our claims, other than "because it feels right to me."

Simply to say that moral knowledge we need an account of what moral propositions are and how we come to know about them. "Just your opinion, man" is not such an account, since it doesn't give moral claims any normative force, and doesn't really tell us how talking to others is sufficient to assign truth-values to moral claims. If you're a moral nihilist, just say so!

I would agree with that. What I was saying was that the nature of the "right to life" and the "right to property," are vastly different. Before the question of rights, one requires the reaction of violence, the other requires the initiation of it. T'would be my opinion that property should not be regarded as a right, but a privelage; it shouldn't be held by the individual but the community.

See? We didn't disagree so much in the first place :cool:.

If you're going to defend some community-based system of ethics, though, shouldn't everything be based on the community (i.e. also right to life).

How would that be different from what I am saying? I was watching the video you linked on Kant (very good btw) and I have the same question for it as well. Kant says reason places morals as ends in themselves, and this makes our objective basis; but what morals we choose to be ends are still up to us to decide.
What do these explain that differs from what I am saying? Mine only goes a step further, and places individual action (subjectivity) as the objective basis for it.

I think perhaps to call Kant and Rawls "objective" isn't quite right for the reasons you laid out. I would call them "universal" though, since for Kant (and I think Rawls too) the commonality we all have as human beings is that we have reason. Since this reason we share is common to us, when we derive the moral law from our reason, we will all come to the same moral law. So I think it's objective in a sense (universal) and subjective in another (we impose it upon ourselves).

If...

Right so we'd just need to think about what the veil of ignorance thought experiment would generate and we have our answer!

What does have strong evidence is that "democracy" (in the sense of people power, polyopoly as opposed to monopoly) tends to be far more stable and humane; for obvious reasons of peer pressure and natural altruistic drives (I am not of the camp that humans are altruistic or greedy; they are both, depending on who they are, and what circumstance they find themselves in at that particular moment. We have both natural altruistic and self-interested drives.)

I agree we have plenty of built-in moral assumptions and tendencies. However, for us to robustly say that being humane is good, etc, I think we need a metaethical system we can defend.

Morals are practical. Why do you think people are so willing to go against there own stated morals?

This is a good question. I think one argument would be that they don't really believe their stated morals. Another option would be to say that knowing what's morally right is different from doing it, and knowledge alone is insufficient.

Yup. But were the armies democratic? Did common soldiers have choice/representation in the directive decisions of the army? No.

I thought Greece was a democracy...so the soldiers would be the ones voting to go to war in the first place. I don't think that every command decision, like what hill to put fortifications on, was democratic...is this what you mean by "democratic army?"

Triple O god cannot exist in a world with free will. You have to drop that omnibenevolent, at the very least. If not, any action is a good action. That I would agree with but it both makes G-D again irrelevant and moral choice a subjective choice.

It could exist with compatibilist free will. Even without free will, though, there's still a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do.

Logic would still work, but only within the confines of rationally explainable phenomenon. It would work in our mundane experiences; but it would not necessarily be applicable in all circumstance.

QM isn't rationally explainable? IMO this would be news to the scientific community.

[What actually happened is whatever obtains independent of you or anyone else. What the evidence shows determines what you think happened.]

Could you elaborate?

Trees still fall in the forest even if nobody hears them.

But the contradiction is what happned. It by definition is not an assumption. If the evidence doesn't fit the logic, it is the logic that has the problem, not the evidence.

The assumption is alive implies not dead. In the QM example, this plainly isn't the case. I was merely pointing out that in the derivation of the apparently logical contradiction you assumed a contradiction in the first place.

Paradoxes usually aren't really paradoxes...they're just counter-intuitive situations we think defy logic, but really it's just a misunderstanding of the problem (consider Zeno's arrow).

Ya, everything I've ever read about physics (And I've read a lot).

Do you have a particular position paper or something you read and liked, that talks about with QM its implications for classical logic?

How can the cat be both alive and dead? One must reason either that we are interpreting the data incorrectly (and all results say we are not) or that reality is fundamentally illogical, in the sense of classical logic. It (the Cat Paradox) was intended to be a refutation; yet no consistent reason has been given to refute it.

So when I say "interpreting the data incorrectly" I don't think the QM scientists have instrumental error or made a miscalculation. QM, as far as I know, is true. What I am saying is that the translation into classical logical language is flawed, for the reasons I've laid out already.

I can give you proscriptive ethics; but it's just what I believe. I cannot offer you the truth, other than that you must realize it yourself.

Simply providing a report of your ethical beliefs offers an extremely weak justification of any ethical system.

What people happen to do will be decided as good or bad when others observe it. I'm sorry that's all I have to offer you; but I have no reason to believe it's not the truth.

But don't dispair! It's a beautiful hypothesis. It places all the power of the universe square into your hands. The great observer is just itching to see what you can do with it

I am more interested in the reasons why they decide what is just, rather than the fact that they will decide something and call it good.

I am all that there is
It's just a choice
And I am ever so grateful you could join us
(that's the hook to a new song I just wrote a few weeks ago)

:cool:

Revolution starts with U

7th November 2011, 02:06

Simply to say that moral knowledge we need an account of what moral propositions are and how we come to know about them. "Just your opinion, man" is not such an account, since it doesn't give moral claims any normative force, and doesn't really tell us how talking to others is sufficient to assign truth-values to moral claims. If you're a moral nihilist, just say so!

I would think nihilism would entail that we cannot know. I am not saying that. I am saying we can know. But ultimately, only as individuals, who can come together, delibarate, and make tentative ethical "truths" as laws and/or norms. I am saying for me and you to have the same set system of standards, one of us had to impose it upon the other.

See? We didn't disagree so much in the first place :cool:.

:lol:

If you're going to defend some community-based system of ethics, though, shouldn't everything be based on the community (i.e. also right to life).

Maybe. Maybe not. I know that what you are proposing is a fallacy; that because of x always x.
For me... I think the community should have a limited ability to take a life if they must. I don't support the death penalty, but I'm not too upset about Hussein getting hanged... I am, but not as much as say Sacco and Vendzetti ;)

I think perhaps to call Kant and Rawls "objective" isn't quite right for the reasons you laid out. I would call them "universal" though, since for Kant (and I think Rawls too) the commonality we all have as human beings is that we have reason. Since this reason we share is common to us, when we derive the moral law from our reason, we will all come to the same moral law. So I think it's objective in a sense (universal) and subjective in another (we impose it upon ourselves).

Well I'm not a "humanist" in the sense that I think humans are anything different than animals. We just have an evolutonary niche; we have complex intelligence and walk upright with opposable thumbs. I'm not so sure that animals don't have a certain sense of reason, in the common sense of that word, and in the Kantian sense of "ends becoming means in themselves."

Right so we'd just need to think about what the veil of ignorance thought experiment would generate and we have our answer!

That's an ever bigger if! :lol:

We can do thought experiments, but they don't have much value until they're verified by real experiments.

I agree we have plenty of built-in moral assumptions and tendencies. However, for us to robustly say that being humane is good, etc, I think we need a metaethical system we can defend.

I'm not saying humane is good. I'm saying I think humane is good, and many agree with me. The only way I am going to "enforce" that view is to get many more to agree.

Today I resisted the urge to think Nature recognizes the concept of "better than." (That was my fb status today :D)

This is a good question. I think one argument would be that they don't really believe their stated morals. Another option would be to say that knowing what's morally right is different from doing it, and knowledge alone is insufficient.

My explanation would be that they have been just making it up and experimenting the whole time. That they don't know what's right, and unconsciously know that they don't know what's right, so they "say" what's right for brownie points in the community, and "do" what they really wanted. The community is effected by this based on what they "think" is right, and "acts" upon it.
The new generation will then grow up believing these new ethics actually mean something.

I thought Greece was a democracy...so the soldiers would be the ones voting to go to war in the first place. I don't think that every command decision, like what hill to put fortifications on, was democratic...is this what you mean by "democratic army?"

Yes. That is what I meant.
The voting population also only consisted of adult male citizens who had passed military training, and citizenship was inheritable only from both parents (not just one). A democracy w/o universal suffrage isn't very democratic :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

It could exist with compatibilist free will. Even without free will, though, there's still a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do.

How? If I am determined to sin, how could "I" have sinned? (And what kind of jerk would punish me for making me sin :rolleyes:) G-D sinned, not very benevolent of him.

QM isn't rationally explainable? IMO this would be news to the scientific community.

According to classical logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

For starters

Trees still fall in the forest even if nobody hears them.

We assume for the sake of practicality that they do. Nothing says they actually do but our assumptions of present states being created from past activity. Some physicists would suggest that trees fall, don't fall, grow down, don't exist, etc in an infinite multiverse.

Paradoxes usually aren't really paradoxes...they're just counter-intuitive situations we think defy logic, but really it's just a misunderstanding of the problem (consider Zeno's arrow).

If you fell qualified to right the paradox, you're welcome to :thumbup1:

So when I say "interpreting the data incorrectly" I don't think the QM scientists have instrumental error or made a miscalculation. QM, as far as I know, is true. What I am saying is that the translation into classical logical language is flawed, for the reasons I've laid out already.

It would seem to suggest that classical language is flawed, not the translation into it.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/werner_heisenberg.html

"Every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability."
"Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience."

Simply providing a report of your ethical beliefs offers an extremely weak justification of any ethical system.

I'm sorry I have nothing more to offer you, nor you me. If this frightens you, it is, unfortunately, your own insecurity blocking you :crying:
Let go your attachments and realize TRUTH :lol:

I am more interested in the reasons why they decide what is just, rather than the fact that they will decide something and call it good.

Well... that's kind of why they decided it ;)
There are foundations to be made in biological/evolutionary psychology. But, at the present moment, and possibly forever, it remains a problem only you can figure out for yourself.

Judicator

8th November 2011, 01:18

I would think nihilism would entail that we cannot know. I am not saying that. I am saying we can know. But ultimately, only as individuals, who can come together, delibarate, and make tentative ethical "truths" as laws and/or norms. I am saying for me and you to have the same set system of standards, one of us had to impose it upon the other.

I mean if we lower the bar enough for what we call "justification" we can know anything, but this is a dodge. I think much of the philosophy literature gives us good reason to believe that morality is more than simply a subset of etiquette.

Maybe. Maybe not. I know that what you are proposing is a fallacy; that because of x always x.
For me... I think the community should have a limited ability to take a life if they must. I don't support the death penalty, but I'm not too upset about Hussein getting hanged... I am, but not as much as say Sacco and Vendzetti

Oh no I was thinking you were proposing "always x" to begin with...namely that the justification for ethical systems (in your view) rest always and only with the community viewpoint.

Well I'm not a "humanist" in the sense that I think humans are anything different than animals. We just have an evolutonary niche; we have complex intelligence and walk upright with opposable thumbs. I'm not so sure that animals don't have a certain sense of reason, in the common sense of that word, and in the Kantian sense of "ends becoming means in themselves."

Some animals have rudimentary self-awareness (dolphins, some primates), but I doubt this is enough to be considered ethically responsible. Either way, I think Rawls and Kant provide plausible accounts of ethics.

That's an ever bigger if!

We can do thought experiments, but they don't have much value until they're verified by real experiments.

What's the "if?" Thinking about thought experiments is fairly straightforward.

Thought experiments allow us to intuitively test the logical consequences of our positions. Brains-in-vats provide a way to think about skeptical positions about the external world. We don't need to wait until we invent technology to put a brain in a vat and make it work to consider the possibility.

Schrodinger's cat, for example....presumably you think this has validity even though it hasn't been done with a lab rat?

My explanation would be that they have been just making it up and experimenting the whole time. That they don't know what's right, and unconsciously know that they don't know what's right, so they "say" what's right for brownie points in the community, and "do" what they really wanted. The community is effected by this based on what they "think" is right, and "acts" upon it.
The new generation will then grow up believing these new ethics actually mean something.

If this were the case there would be little reason to make a distinction between ethics and etiquette/tradition. I doubt people are completely "making it up" because we probably have a lot of built-in moral tendencies thanks to our evolutionary history.

What do you mean they "unconsciously know they don't know..." People at least strive for conscious knowledge, in the sense that they have moral beliefs and attempt to justify them. Unconsciously, guilt is an indicator of what you "know" in your gut...to the extent that unconscious knowledge is a coherent concept.

Yes. That is what I meant.
The voting population also only consisted of adult male citizens who had passed military training, and citizenship was inheritable only from both parents (not just one). A democracy w/o universal suffrage isn't very democratic

You don't need to have all of the minutae decided collectively to call it a democracy. When each citizen votes yes/no on a particular war, he is voting for the war as a package.

It wasn't a democracy in terms of universal suffrage, but in terms of your original point (what would happen if soldiers voted), I think ancient greece would make a good case that soldier democracy alone isn't sufficient for peace.

How? If I am determined to sin, how could "I" have sinned? (And what kind of jerk would punish me for making me sin ) G-D sinned, not very benevolent of him.

Ask the Calvinists :lol:

If you're determined to sin, it's still wrong to sin. And to the extent punishment is warranted simply because you sinned, you should be punished.

According to classical logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpr...ntum_mechanics

For starters

:cool: I'll have to read up on that.

Although it seems more new-age bullshit (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F ) to claim that quantum logic implies "everyone's right about everything!" or "every community is right in their ethical beliefs"

We assume for the sake of practicality that they do. Nothing says they actually do but our assumptions of present states being created from past activity. Some physicists would suggest that trees fall, don't fall, grow down, don't exist, etc in an infinite multiverse.

I don't know about that....

"This is a hand.
Here is another hand.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore an external world exists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand

If you fell qualified to right the paradox, you're welcome to

Oh you wait :sneaky:

Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience.

I think this is more an attack on common language than classical logic, but I think your links above provide good reason to have quantum logic.

I'm sorry I have nothing more to offer you, nor you me. If this frightens you, it is, unfortunately, your own insecurity blocking you
Let go your attachments and realize TRUTH

I can offer you: http://www.hyoomik.com/ethics/philosophers.html

All you are offering me is a series of observations on human behavior, to which I can simply respond "that's cool, so what?" and you would seem to have no answer (i.e. what moral import to community decrees have?)

Well... that's kind of why they decided it
There are foundations to be made in biological/evolutionary psychology. But, at the present moment, and possibly forever, it remains a problem only you can figure out for yourself.

If you ask communities "why do you think this is good" most of them will not answer "because we said so." They will give you underlying reasons, which probably reflect an amalgam of utilitarianism/deontological ethics/virtue ethics. A community can be wrong in two senses:

1) Its ethical beliefs don't follow from it's ethical principles (for example "human life is the highest good + lets kill everyone").
2) Its ethical beliefs aren't philosophically justified in the first place (they put forth no argument for them or the arguments they do put forth are easily torn apart).

Revolution starts with U

9th November 2011, 17:16

Brother, I was about 20mins into a response and my computer decided it needed to update without asking me, and shut my laptop down. I'll have a response soon :thumbup1:

Judicator

10th November 2011, 00:47

Brother, I was about 20mins into a response and my computer decided it needed to update without asking me, and shut my laptop down. I'll have a response soon :thumbup1:

:cursing: I hate when that happens.

Revolution starts with U

10th November 2011, 03:12

Well... going to have to wait another day for my response. Someone posted on their FB wall a pic of an US Army soldier talking about how OWS'ers are lazy freeloaders. The irony is that he even talked about how he gets generous benefits, a guaranteed job, and a FREE EDUCATION... but then said he doesn't want or get any handouts.

My ego is inflated with rage and fury right now. I accept my response to it as part of my ego, but I am upset that I let myself down. I couldn't accept it with serenity. So... anyway... today is not a conducive day for me to respond, as some of that ego might spill out into this conversation and I say something I will regret.

Much apologies :(

Judicator

10th November 2011, 03:40

Well... going to have to wait another day for my response. Someone posted on their FB wall a pic of an US Army soldier talking about how OWS'ers are lazy freeloaders. The irony is that he even talked about how he gets generous benefits, a guaranteed job, and a FREE EDUCATION... but then said he doesn't want or get any handouts.

Those really are my most favorite fiscal conservatives :lol:

My ego is inflated with rage and fury right now. I accept my response to it as part of my ego, but I am upset that I let myself down. I couldn't accept it with serenity. So... anyway... today is not a conducive day for me to respond, as some of that ego might spill out into this conversation and I say something I will regret.

Much apologies :(

No worries :thumbup1:

I find Seneca on anger is sometimes helpful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ0g7IKWG7E
(If you can get over the cheesy music of the video)

Revolution starts with U

10th November 2011, 03:56

I admit, I handled it far better than I would have 2 months ago :lol:

2 months ago there would have been a lot of cussing, decrying, and seething rage. The only anger-ous phrase I put in this one tho was "his job is to murder brown people." It's just upsetting because nothing had broken my serenity since late last month. But it's a good lesson; mastery (over self) is a journey, not a destination.

Thanks for the link; I'll check it out :thumbup1:

Revolution starts with U

10th November 2011, 17:03

I mean if we lower the bar enough for what we call "justification" we can know anything, but this is a dodge. I think much of the philosophy literature gives us good reason to believe that morality is more than simply a subset of etiquette.

I really don't think they have. You're free to make the case for why x conditions lead to y morality.

My case is that individuals make choices which effect and influence other individuals to make a choice; thereby creating a self-sustaining model of trial and error. It's not scientific, per se. But, I have no reason to think we have anything to base scientific discovery on, at the moment.

Oh no I was thinking you were proposing "always x" to begin with...namely that the justification for ethical systems (in your view) rest always and only with the community viewpoint.

My position is that the individualist/collectivist dilemna is a false dichotomy. That a balance is always found between personal autonomy and community responsiblilty.

What's the "if?" Thinking about thought experiments is fairly straightforward.

"if" your thought experiment has any bearing on reality.

Thought experiments allow us to intuitively test the logical consequences of our positions. Brains-in-vats provide a way to think about skeptical positions about the external world. We don't need to wait until we invent technology to put a brain in a vat and make it work to consider the possibility.

No, we don't. Not to consider it. But to make rules/laws/predictions, etc from it... we probably do.

Schrodinger's cat, for example....presumably you think this has validity even though it hasn't been done with a lab rat?

http://www.physorg.com/news173026471.html
It has been proposed.

Remember that Relativity was just a sideshow for establishment physics, until it was verified with real world evidence.

If this were the case there would be little reason to make a distinction between ethics and etiquette/tradition. I doubt people are completely "making it up" because we probably have a lot of built-in moral tendencies thanks to our evolutionary history.

Ya, nobody is denying that we have built in moral tendency's. And these are probably the only place we can begin to discover the science behind it. But philosophically, all we have to work on is that people make choices and influence other people.

What do you mean they "unconsciously know they don't know..." People at least strive for conscious knowledge, in the sense that they have moral beliefs and attempt to justify them. Unconsciously, guilt is an indicator of what you "know" in your gut...to the extent that unconscious knowledge is a coherent concept.

Actually most of the brains activity happens in the unconscious mind. Before you ever thought it up, your brain did, and a myriad of possiblilties to go along with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind#Unconscious_mind_in_contemporary_ cognitive_psychology
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/health/psychology/31subl.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136495499/incognito-whats-hiding-in-the-unconscious-mind
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/sep/18-your-brain-knows-lot-more-than-you-realize

You don't need to have all of the minutae decided collectively to call it a democracy. When each citizen votes yes/no on a particular war, he is voting for the war as a package.

When I speak of democracy, I speak of it literally; people power. It has more to do with simple voting. A board of directors is no democracy.

It wasn't a democracy in terms of universal suffrage, but in terms of your original point (what would happen if soldiers voted), I think ancient greece would make a good case that soldier democracy alone isn't sufficient for peace.

How could it if they didn't have soldier democracy?

If you're determined to sin, it's still wrong to sin. And to the extent punishment is warranted simply because you sinned, you should be punished.

I meant determined in the sense of being created expressly for the purpose of sinning. In that case, I didn't sin, but the creator did by making me that way.

Although it seems more new-age bullshit (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F ) to claim that quantum logic implies "everyone's right about everything!" or "every community is right in their ethical beliefs"

1) I never said that. I said everyone has their own ethical system, and we will create norms and values throught those actions. I am saying there realy is not such thing as being right or wrong. Nature doesn't recognize it. Why should I?
2) What was so bad about What the Bleep? :lol:

I don't know about that....

"This is a hand.
Here is another hand.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore an external world exists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_a_hand

That's a pretty poor argument seeing as how the hands could just be part of the illusion.

Oh you wait :sneaky:

I will wait in good company; with the likes of Einstein, Hawking, and Greene :cool:

I can offer you: http://www.hyoomik.com/ethics/philosophers.html

All you are offering me is a series of observations on human behavior, to which I can simply respond "that's cool, so what?" and you would seem to have no answer (i.e. what moral import to community decrees have?)

1) I'm sorry that you cannot accept that answer ("That's cool, so what").
2) Communities have moral import through their laws and social norms. It is tentative and arbitrary... but nevertheless, if you steal in Saudi Arabia, you're losing a hand.

If you ask communities "why do you think this is good" most of them will not answer "because we said so." They will give you underlying reasons, which probably reflect an amalgam of utilitarianism/deontological ethics/virtue ethics. A community can be wrong in two senses:

1) Its ethical beliefs don't follow from it's ethical principles (for example "human life is the highest good + lets kill everyone").
2) Its ethical beliefs aren't philosophically justified in the first place (they put forth no argument for them or the arguments they do put forth are easily torn apart).
Why should that make them wrong? It makes them illogical. But it is somewhat illogical of me to take a bullet for someone... is it wrong?

Judicator

11th November 2011, 02:43

I really don't think they have. You're free to make the case for why x conditions lead to y morality.

I am sort of an agnostic when it comes to metaethics, so I don't have any one in particular I wanted to defend. I'll let you know when I find one I like.

My case is that individuals make choices which effect and influence other individuals to make a choice; thereby creating a self-sustaining model of trial and error. It's not scientific, per se. But, I have no reason to think we have anything to base scientific discovery on, at the moment.

Your case doesn't seem to be a moral system at all. Providing descriptions of how humans interact has no moral import. What you're saying above isn't inconsistent with moral objectivity. God's 10 commandments could be completely true for everyone and, as a matter of descriptive fact, people could go on making choices and forming arbitrary moral beliefs.

My position is that the individualist/collectivist dilemna is a false dichotomy. That a balance is always found between personal autonomy and community responsiblilty.

Balance in terms of moral justification? Why should the individual's word count as justification for one moral belief but not another?

"if" your thought experiment has any bearing on reality.

An understanding of how one ought to treat others is a very practical outcome.

I'm not saying humane is good. I'm saying I think humane is good, and many agree with me. The only way I am going to "enforce" that view is to get many more to agree.

If you think humane is good, then you're saying "humane is good." When we say "X is Y" where Y is some adjective, we mean "X has the property of Yness." It sounds a lot, then, like you're really saying humane has the property of goodness.

Today I resisted the urge to think Nature recognizes the concept of "better than." (That was my fb status today )

As in, some zebras are better than others at avoiding lions?

http://www.physorg.com/news173026471.html
It has been proposed.

Remember that Relativity was just a sideshow for establishment physics, until it was verified with real world evidence.

Link isn't working for some reason. I'll try later.

Proposed, but not actually carried out? Are you accepting the cat though experiment without verification?

Ya, nobody is denying that we have built in moral tendency's. And these are probably the only place we can begin to discover the science behind it. But philosophically, all we have to work on is that people make choices and influence other people.

The claim that "people make choices and influence other people" isn't philosophical at all. It's just a claim about empirically what people do.

Actually most of the brains activity happens in the unconscious mind. Before you ever thought it up, your brain did, and a myriad of possiblilties to go along with it.

This doesn't mean "unconscious belief" (and therefore unconscious knowledge) is a coherent concept. We ascribe beliefs to conscious minds, not brains.

I meant determined in the sense of being created expressly for the purpose of sinning. In that case, I didn't sin, but the creator did by making me that way.

Something you happen to do (or will necessarily do) is not the same as your purpose. You're created for whatever purpose God had in mind. Sin would simply be part of the package, so to speak.

1) I never said that. I said everyone has their own ethical system, and we will create norms and values throught those actions. I am saying there realy is not such thing as being right or wrong. Nature doesn't recognize it. Why should I?

People making their own ethical system is completely consistent with objective/universal ethics, in the same way that people making up facts is completely consistent with an objective external world.

2) What was so bad about What the Bleep?

It was a terrible movie and you know it! :D

That's a pretty poor argument seeing as how the hands could just be part of the illusion.

You could also just know that you have hands. The skeptics premise requires appeal to our "philosophical intuitions" while his alternative premise only requires common sense.

I will wait in good company; with the likes of Einstein, Hawking, and Greene

Didn't Einstein say "God doesn't play dice" on exactly this point?

On the cat...
The Copenhagen Interpretation: The wave function reflects our knowledge of the system. The wave function means that, once the cat is observed, there is a 50% chance it will be dead, and 50% chance it will be alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Give the above, it doesn't seem to be much of a paradox at all....the cat being "alive and dead" is just a description of our current state of perception (not having interfered with the particle deciding the cat's fate).

Then again I don't know what difference there is between "the cat is alive and dead" and "the state of the system is a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat." Presumably these aren't the same thing.

1) I'm sorry that you cannot accept that answer ("That's cool, so what").
2) Communities have moral import through their laws and social norms. It is tentative and arbitrary... but nevertheless, if you steal in Saudi Arabia, you're losing a hand.

1) Don't be sorry, come up with a theory that actually makes moral claims (rather than simply a descriptive one). So how do you get from "X is a social norm" to "one ought to follow social norms"?
2) How does the community having a norm mean I ought to follow it?

Why should that make them wrong? It makes them illogical. But it is somewhat illogical of me to take a bullet for someone... is it wrong?

Sorry for the confusion on "wrong." They are wrong in the sense that they are incorrect. They were trying to "figure out morality" in your view, and they fucked up. i.e. they failed to figure out morality. I can, as an external observer, rightly say "your moral code is erroneous."

The point here was that its possible to have erroneous moral beliefs.

Revolution starts with U

11th November 2011, 18:34

I am sort of an agnostic when it comes to metaethics, so I don't have any one in particular I wanted to defend. I'll let you know when I find one I like.

:thumbup1: I see you don't notice the implications of that which I do?

Your case doesn't seem to be a moral system at all. Providing descriptions of how humans interact has no moral import. What you're saying above isn't inconsistent with moral objectivity. God's 10 commandments could be completely true for everyone and, as a matter of descriptive fact, people could go on making choices and forming arbitrary moral beliefs.

Then they're not objective; they're just G-D's opinion. Just because he is the cosmic dictator doesn't give his standards anymore moral import than Kim Jong Il. You will face punishment from both, one is supposedly eternal... in some denominations, not in others, others believe not in any punishment.
^Implications :lol:

Balance in terms of moral justification? Why should the individual's word count as justification for one moral belief but not another?

He doesn't accept it.

An understanding of how one ought to treat others is a very practical outcome.

That's not what I'm saying. Consider Einstein's thought experiments. Valid as tho they were, it wasn't until it was verified in the real world that the physics community started taking it seriuosly.

If you think humane is good, then you're saying "humane is good." When we say "X is Y" where Y is some adjective, we mean "X has the property of Yness." It sounds a lot, then, like you're really saying humane has the property of goodness.

To me. Not to some of the Leninists on here.

The running theme of my view is that YOU have to study the history of actions and ethics, see what people have said, what people have done, what conforms to your senses, and develop a worldview upon that. We will interact and debate and come up with a tentative social norm.

As in, some zebras are better than others at avoiding lions?

Touche :thumbup1:
But still, nature itself doesn't care that the zebra died. "Better than" is something we made up.

Proposed, but not actually carried out? Are you accepting the cat though experiment without verification?

I am accepting that it points out some logical contradictions in the Copenhagen interpretation that has not yet been adequately criticised.

The claim that "people make choices and influence other people" isn't philosophical at all. It's just a claim about empirically what people do.

Empiricism is philosophical, buuuudy :thumbup1:

This doesn't mean "unconscious belief" (and therefore unconscious knowledge) is a coherent concept. We ascribe beliefs to conscious minds, not brains.

Idealists such as yourself do :lol: Noxion would take some issues with you saying that...

Something you happen to do (or will necessarily do) is not the same as your purpose. You're created for whatever purpose God had in mind. Sin would simply be part of the package, so to speak.

Yes, my purpose was to sin; I don't sin, G-D does by creating me. IF I have no say in whether I will sin or not, how could I be sinner? Note I am talking about determinism, not free will.

People making their own ethical system is completely consistent with objective/universal ethics, in the same way that people making up facts is completely consistent with an objective external world.

Meh...

You could also just know that you have hands. The skeptics premise requires appeal to our "philosophical intuitions" while his alternative premise only requires common sense.

I am willing to accept that the physical world acts as if it exists, so we should treat it as such. But it, nevertheless, is an assumption.

Didn't Einstein say "God doesn't play dice" on exactly this point?

Ya, well... Einstein also believed in the cosmological constant to overcome it. We all know how laughable that attempt was :lol:

On the cat...
The Copenhagen Interpretation: The wave function reflects our knowledge of the system. The wave function means that, once the cat is observed, there is a 50% chance it will be dead, and 50% chance it will be alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

And until the act of observtion, the cat is both alive and dead. IS; not could be, but IS.

Then again I don't know what difference there is between "the cat is alive and dead" and "the state of the system is a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat." Presumably these aren't the same thing.

Superposition means two things at once on the same thing. An electron has a superposition of both particle and wave.

1) Don't be sorry, come up with a theory that actually makes moral claims (rather than simply a descriptive one). So how do you get from "X is a social norm" to "one ought to follow social norms"?

Is-ought fallacy

2) How does the community having a norm mean I ought to follow it?

You will be punished if you don't.

Sorry for the confusion on "wrong." They are wrong in the sense that they are incorrect. They were trying to "figure out morality" in your view, and they fucked up. i.e. they failed to figure out morality. I can, as an external observer, rightly say "your moral code is erroneous."

It is my view that they are right, as far as right goes. They just arrived at their conclusion illogicaly. We can discuss it, and come to a more coherent worldview. It will be more coherent, but not anymore right.

Void

11th November 2011, 18:37

You win !

Revolution starts with U

11th November 2011, 20:01

One could only win were there a right/wrong side of the issue to be on. There are no winners and losers in the game of life; we all die in the end :thumbup1:

Void

11th November 2011, 20:10

So if this is the truth why do people argue with each other ? Can't we live in peace brother ?

Revolution starts with U

11th November 2011, 21:38

People argue because they believe their truth is the Truth. We can live in peace if we realize this fallacy... tho there is far more to world peace than just accepting moral relativism.

Judicator

15th November 2011, 01:58

I see you don't notice the implications of that which I do?

You are claiming that me being personally agnostic on metaethics implies that metaethical moral relativism is the correct ethical view? Agnosticism I think would imply that among plausible alternatives I don't see a reason to believe any particular one over the other (including metaethical moral relativism).

Then they're not objective; they're just G-D's opinion. Just because he is the cosmic dictator doesn't give his standards anymore moral import than Kim Jong Il. You will face punishment from both, one is supposedly eternal... in some denominations, not in others, others believe not in any punishment.

I don't know if "God's opinion" is even a coherent phrase, since opinion implies a degree of subjectivity. God omniscience isn't subjective. His standards have moral import because he's omniscient, so his moral knowledge is always absolutely true.

He doesn't accept it.

This isn't a distinction related to justification.

That's not what I'm saying. Consider Einstein's thought experiments. Valid as tho they were, it wasn't until it was verified in the real world that the physics community started taking it seriuosly.

Physics and ethics are obviously quite different.

Not to some of the Leninists on here.

The running theme of my view is that YOU have to study the history of actions and ethics, see what people have said, what people have done, what conforms to your senses, and develop a worldview upon that. We will interact and debate and come up with a tentative social norm.

It either has the property or it doesn't, unless you want to reject moral discourse as incoherent.

But still, nature itself doesn't care that the zebra died. "Better than" is something we made up.

If a zebra is better than other zebras at everything zebras do, we can say it is a better zebra in general. This could be said of anything (people, objects, etc).

["The claim that "people make choices and influence other people" isn't philosophical at all. It's just a claim about empirically what people do."]

Empiricism is philosophical, buuuudy

This is a dodge. You're mixing up descriptive ethics and prescriptive ethics. You can talk about descriptive ethics all day long and get nowhere on prescriptive ethics.

Idealists such as yourself do

I think anybody does. If you're ascribing beliefs to brains, belief doesn't seem like a coherent concept (since nobody is really holding the belief).

Yes, my purpose was to sin; I don't sin, G-D does by creating me. IF I have no say in whether I will sin or not, how could I be sinner? Note I am talking about determinism, not free will.

Your purpose is the reason God created you, which probably isn't "to sin" anymore than it is "to have taken a shit this morning."

Meh...

Oh come on....

I am willing to accept that the physical world acts as if it exists, so we should treat it as such. But it, nevertheless, is an assumption.

If you're a coherentist about knowledge I'm not sure there are any specific assumptions that you pick out from the set of beliefs in the system. In a sense there are no assumptions since each belief gets it's justification from membership in a set of coherent beliefs.

The claim was only that the skeptic presents a crappy argument because he requires you to accept more dubious assumptions than the alternative.

And until the act of observtion, the cat is both alive and dead. IS; not could be, but IS.

Can you clarify what you mean by observation? Some of the wikipedia articles attacked the idea of requiring "observation" by a human observer as incoherent/unscientific...

"The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that the wave function is anything more than a theoretical concept, or is at least non-committal about its being a discrete entity or a discernible component of some discrete entity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Meaning_of_the_wave_func tion

Superposition means two things at once on the same thing. An electron has a superposition of both particle and wave.

Presumably then we'd actually observe two states simultaneously, as opposed to sometimes one sometimes the other? (If it were truly two things "at once")

Is-ought fallacy

You get your morality from the is-ought fallacy, great :thumbup1:

You will be punished if you don't.

So what? For me to have ethical reasons to avoid punishment you've already assumed that egoism is true.

It is my view that they are right, as far as right goes. They just arrived at their conclusion illogicaly. We can discuss it, and come to a more coherent worldview. It will be more coherent, but not anymore right.

They can't be right, since because of their incoherence being right would mean being wrong. There might be some "grains of truth" in their moral system, but that's it.

Revolution starts with U

15th November 2011, 02:20

You are claiming that me being personally agnostic on metaethics implies that metaethical moral relativism is the correct ethical view? Agnosticism I think would imply that among plausible alternatives I don't see a reason to believe any particular one over the other (including metaethical moral relativism).

By not choosing one person's hypothesis on ethics over another, it implicitly means you choose your own. You have de facto chosen moral relativism: revealed preference and all that junk.

I don't know if "God's opinion" is even a coherent phrase, since opinion implies a degree of subjectivity. God omniscience isn't subjective. His standards have moral import because he's omniscient, so his moral knowledge is always absolutely true.

Well, I'm gona have to get started on that stoning unruly children, killing rape victims, and never eating shrimp. I'm also going to have the wipe out every last one of them Canaanites... oh wait, already done :thumbup1:

No, in all seriousness tho... what G-D are we talking about? If it is one who's "knowledge is absolutely true" I'm pretty sure it has been proven that the guy you are proposing's existence is an impossiblity.

This isn't a distinction related to justification.

Well.. then "justification" just like the Ether, doesn't exist.

Physics and ethics are obviously quite different.

Yes. How does this make it plausible for us to just make up thought experiments that don't conform to reality?

It either has the property or it doesn't, unless you want to reject moral discourse as incoherent.

I want to reject moral absolutist discourse as incoherent; much like Divine Absoluteness.

If a zebra is better than other zebras at everything zebras do, we can say it is a better zebra in general. This could be said of anything (people, objects, etc).

If a rock is better than other rocks at everything rocks do, we can say it is a better rock.

Nature could see all the zebras in the world die off, and it would go on as normal. All life can be wiped out of existence. Nature will move on.

This is a dodge. You're mixing up descriptive ethics and prescriptive ethics. You can talk about descriptive ethics all day long and get nowhere on prescriptive ethics.

I know, right?...
Still, empiricism is philosophical.. and far more usefull than any other philosophical method.

I think anybody does. If you're ascribing beliefs to brains, belief doesn't seem like a coherent concept (since nobody is really holding the belief).

No, if you posit mind as something other than brain, you are making an idealist assumption.

Your purpose is the reason God created you, which probably isn't "to sin" anymore than it is "to have taken a shit this morning."

Again, you are forgetting why I brought this up. I was talking about a deterministic universe in which G-D made me for the express purpose of, say, raping someone. I'm not talking about a free will universe where I chose it. Go back, and see that I was talking specifically about a universe in which every single action is predetermined by G-D.
In this case, G-D would be the sinner.

If you're a coherentist about knowledge I'm not sure there are any specific assumptions that you pick out from the set of beliefs in the system. In a sense there are no assumptions since each belief gets it's justification from membership in a set of coherent beliefs.

Wut :confused:

The claim was only that the skeptic presents a crappy argument because he requires you to accept more dubious assumptions than the alternative.

What more dubious assumption? I think the assumption that reality exists is far more dubious than the one that it may not.

Can you clarify what you mean by observation? Some of the wikipedia articles attacked the idea of requiring "observation" by a human observer as incoherent/unscientific...

Word; in this sense the electron "observes" the other electron when it smashes into it.

Presumably then we'd actually observe two states simultaneously, as opposed to sometimes one sometimes the other? (If it were truly two things "at once")

The problem is that you "observation" of one phenomenon makes it impossible to "observe" the other, tho the other still is happening.

You get your morality from the is-ought fallacy, great :thumbup1:

:confused: Are you having a bad day or something?
I get my morality from studious personal choice.
I'm guessing you didn't understand what I meant when I said that. What I was saying is that you are searching for the fallacy; you want to know how it ought to be. But you should be more accepting of what actually is.

So what? For me to have ethical reasons to avoid punishment you've already assumed that egoism is true.

I never said you have to avoid it because of the punishment. That would contradictory to what I am saying. I am saying that you choose to do whatever you want. If it goes against the established social norms, you will face some kind of real world punishment. What makes this different than a G-D based objective system? "Real world punishment" as opposed to "possible cosmic punishment (that some guy made up 2k years ago)."

They can't be right, since because of their incoherence being right would mean being wrong. There might be some "grains of truth" in their moral system, but that's it.
"Grains of truth" is the best we can ever hope to find (at least at the moment, and most likely forever).

Let me ask you this: Why don't you propose an objective basis?

Judicator

15th November 2011, 02:59

By not choosing one person's hypothesis on ethics over another, it implicitly means you choose your own. You have de facto chosen moral relativism: revealed preference and all that junk.

"I believe X is good" isn't equivalent to moral relativism...it's consistent with ANY metaethics. Morality could be objective or not. This does not mean it's necessarily not objective, or that it isn't objective by revealed preference...I'm not selecting a metaethics when I list my beliefs.

No, in all seriousness tho... what G-D are we talking about? If it is one who's "knowledge is absolutely true" I'm pretty sure it has been proven that the guy you are proposing's existence is an impossiblity.

Like I said before, the "triple-O" god. For the sake of argument, we don't even need to assume he's all powerful or (maybe not) all good, just all knowing.

Well.. then "justification" just like the Ether, doesn't exist.

You believe justification should be a physical substance :laugh:

How does this make it plausible for us to just make up thought experiments that don't conform to reality?

You're assuming theres an "ethical reality" to conform to? Sounds kind of objective to me....

I want to reject moral absolutist discourse as incoherent; much like Divine Absoluteness.

Common moral discourse seems absolutist, so then you do want to reject common moral discourse.

If a rock is better than other rocks at everything rocks do, we can say it is a better rock.

Nature could see all the zebras in the world die off, and it would go on as normal. All life can be wiped out of existence. Nature will move on.

So then it is a better rock. If you "can say its better" how is that different from saying "its better." Who cares about what nature does?

I know, right?...

Yeah...so unless you can make the link you can't claim to know the nature of prescriptive moral propositions (i.e. whether or not they are, in fact, relative).

Still, empiricism is philosophical.. and far more usefull than any other philosophical method.

Fallacies are useful... doesn't make them true. Empiricism is good for some things like science....not so much ethics, or any a priori reasoning.

No, if you posit mind as something other than brain, you are making an idealist assumption.

You agree though belief isn't a coherent concept without duality?

I was talking about a deterministic universe in which G-D made me for the express purpose of, say, raping someone. I'm not talking about a free will universe where I chose it. Go back, and see that I was talking specifically about a universe in which every single action is predetermined by G-D.
In this case, G-D would be the sinner.

Oh...so your criticism rests on the claim that God would make someone for that express purpose (of raping someone)...okay....don't see how this is a problem.

Wut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism

What more dubious assumption? I think the assumption that reality exists is far more dubious than the one that it may not.

That's not the assumption. The assumption Moore attacks is that our "philosophical intuitions" are more reliable than commonsense knowledge of our two hands.

Word; in this sense the electron "observes" the other electron when it smashes into it.

Right so it seems hard to translate this into a macro state (with a cat).

The problem is that you "observation" of one phenomenon makes it impossible to "observe" the other, tho the other still is happening.

So then presumably the cat would face the same problem (it would be impossible for a cat to observe it being alive and dead)...so what's the paradox?

Are you having a bad day or something?
I get my morality from studious personal choice.
I'm guessing you didn't understand what I meant when I said that. What I was saying is that you are searching for the fallacy; you want to know how it ought to be. But you should be more accepting of what actually is.

No, it just seemed like a short and rather unusual response. I asked how do you get from "X is a social norm" to "one ought to follow social norms"? And the response was "is-ought" fallacy, which is exactly what you seem to be doing in trying to get moral "oughts" from descriptive "is." One obvious answer to this challenge would be to find a self-evident "ought" or an "ought" derived from some other source.

If you think moral claims are just a statement about what is, then I think we disagree on what a moral claim is.

I am saying that you choose to do whatever you want. If it goes against the established social norms, you will face some kind of real world punishment. What makes this different than a G-D based objective system? "Real world punishment" as opposed to "possible cosmic punishment (that some guy made up 2k years ago).

This says nothing on whether or not "whatever you want" is the right thing to do.

Let me ask you this: Why don't you propose an objective basis?

I said earlier I'm an agnostic because there seem to be a large number of universalist or objective systems of metaethics which seem plausible (Kant, Rawls, newer versions of utilitarianism) and because I haven't seen a decisive argument for metaethical moral relativism. All you have been providing are claims of descriptive moral relativism.

There are also other (non objective) options: any variety of non-cognitivism. For example perhaps your moral beliefs aren't propositions at all...but rather just expressions of how you feel. "I think killing is wrong" really means "boo killing!" NOT "I think killing is wrong, according to me."

Error theory: all moral beliefs are wrong...and on and on.

Revolution starts with U

15th November 2011, 03:48

"I believe X is good" isn't equivalent to moral relativism...it's consistent with ANY metaethics. Morality could be objective or not. This does not mean it's necessarily not objective, or that it isn't objective by revealed preference...I'm not selecting a metaethics when I list my beliefs.

I never said it was. I said "you remaining agnostic about meta-ethics means you have revealed your preference; ethics are up to yourself to decide."

Like I said before, the "triple-O" god. For the sake of argument, we don't even need to assume he's all powerful or (maybe not) all good, just all knowing.

If S/HE is merely all knowing, G-D resides in the same place as you or I; good remains good because it is good, rather than being good because G-D deemed it so. Only an all powerful G-D could provide a basis for ethical behavior.

You believe justification should be a physical substance :laugh:

No.

There are certain things we can posit that are useless to posit; that's what I said.

You're assuming theres an "ethical reality" to conform to? Sounds kind of objective to me....

No, I'm saying there is the appearance of a physical reality to conform to. If things happen in the universe, they happen in the universe. Everything must conform to physical reality (or at least we must make that assumption to have any hope at knowledge).

Common moral discourse seems absolutist, so then you do want to reject common moral discourse.

Eh? :confused:

So then it is a better rock. If you "can say its better" how is that different from saying "its better." Who cares about what nature does?

If you choose to accept "better than" as anything more than a learning tool we made up, that's your choice. I don't. I strive to do as well as I can, at all moment, regardless of the postions, opinions, or actions of others. I have no need for the concept of "better than."

Yeah...so unless you can make the link you can't claim to know the nature of prescriptive moral propositions (i.e. whether or not they are, in fact, relative).

I am willing to accept that I can make no prescriptive moral suggestions that are objectively true. I can still make proscriptions.

Fallacies are useful... doesn't make them true. Empiricism is good for some things like science....not so much ethics, or any a priori reasoning.

If it came out that in fact 2+2=5 (it can't, but for the sake of argument) would you continue using an outdated and flawed method of reasoning?

You agree though belief isn't a coherent concept without duality?

Wut? :confused:

Oh...so your criticism rests on the claim that God would make someone for that express purpose (of raping someone)...okay....don't see how this is a problem.

I am saying in this case G-D is the sinner, not the raper.

That's not the assumption. The assumption Moore attacks is that our "philosophical intuitions" are more reliable than commonsense knowledge of our two hands.

Okay. That doesn't make you having hands any less of an assumption.

Right so it seems hard to translate this into a macro state (with a cat).

Again, it has been proposed.

So then presumably the cat would face the same problem (it would be impossible for a cat to observe it being alive and dead)...so what's the paradox?

That the cat physically remains both alive and dead to anyone but the cat.

No, it just seemed like a short and rather unusual response. I asked how do you get from "X is a social norm" to "one ought to follow social norms"? And the response was "is-ought" fallacy, which is exactly what you seem to be doing in trying to get moral "oughts" from descriptive "is." One obvious answer to this challenge would be to find a self-evident "ought" or an "ought" derived from some other source.

No. My position is that "ought" in the sense of having an objective basis, is a chimera.

If you think moral claims are just a statement about what is, then I think we disagree on what a moral claim is.

I never said that.

This says nothing on whether or not "whatever you want" is the right thing to do.

Only you, in my opinion, can decide what is the "right thing to do." Any position outside of this one, in my opinion, at the current moment, is, again, a chimera.

I said earlier I'm an agnostic because there seem to be a large number of universalist or objective systems of metaethics which seem plausible (Kant, Rawls, newer versions of utilitarianism) and because I haven't seen a decisive argument for metaethical moral relativism. All you have been providing are claims of descriptive moral relativism.

If you like those methods, you will choose to follow them. If I don't, I won't. You want me to tell you what to do? I can't, nor won't. I also feel this attitude is the fundamental creator of class domination; the lack of self-confidence. You know who you want to be, and the ethics you want to follow. Why rely upon others to verify it?

Judicator

15th November 2011, 09:50

I never said it was. I said "you remaining agnostic about meta-ethics means you have revealed your preference; ethics are up to yourself to decide."

"up to you" is metaethical moral relativism. This would be endorsing a metaethical position, which I don't.

If S/HE is merely all knowing, G-D resides in the same place as you or I; good remains good because it is good, rather than being good because G-D deemed it so. Only an all powerful G-D could provide a basis for ethical behavior.

[emphasis added] this would be a mind independent good. God, having perfect knowledge of this, would have access unlike you or I.

There are certain things we can posit that are useless to posit; that's what I said.

Justification is very useful, it helps us understand why our beliefs might or might not be true. Is there a specific "useless posit" you're thinking of here?

[Common moral discourse seems absolutist, so then you do want to reject common moral discourse.]
Eh?

When you give an ethical reason for your actions, presumably anyone in your situation would be able to give the same ethical reason for the same behavior. This is the sense in which common speech makes ethics universal. When someone says something is wrong, and if you were to ask him "was it wrong 100 years ago," he'd probably say yes...indicating that morality persists over time. I'm just making a point about how we use moral language.

If you choose to accept "better than" as anything more than a learning tool we made up, that's your choice. I don't. I strive to do as well as I can, at all moment, regardless of the postions, opinions, or actions of others. I have no need for the concept of "better than."

"Blue" is a word we made up, this doesn't mean the thing to which it refers is made up. Why would this be any different for "better than?"

I am willing to accept that I can make no prescriptive moral suggestions that are objectively true. I can still make proscriptions.

I don't know if you've even shown you can make prescriptive moral suggestions that are subjectively true.

If it came out that in fact 2+2=5 (it can't, but for the sake of argument) would you continue using an outdated and flawed method of reasoning?

If it came out that something that can't be true was true....I don't know what I'd do.

"You agree though belief isn't a coherent concept without duality?"
Wut?

How do you think about beliefs without a believer?

I am saying in this case G-D is the sinner, not the raper.

Right this seems an unlikely candidate for God's intent in creating humans.

Okay. That doesn't make you having hands any less of an assumption.

Less than what? Clearly it's less of an assumption than philosophical handwaving, that's the point of the argument.

That the cat physically remains both alive and dead to anyone but the cat.

Yeah again I don't see the difference between this and saying 50% alive/50% dead or something like that. But I have to read more QM.

No. My position is that "ought" in the sense of having an objective basis, is a chimera.

The is-ought problem attacks any moral system that's based on a list of things about "what is"...like yours.

Me: "If you think moral claims are just a statement about what is, then I think we disagree on what a moral claim is."

I never said that.

You keep pointing out "look look societies do this and that to generate a moral code" as if that settles questions of morality...when these are just statements about "what is."

Only you, in my opinion, can decide what is the "right thing to do." Any position outside of this one, in my opinion, at the current moment, is, again, a chimera.

Only you can decide what is "the pragmatic thing to do" or what is "the prudent thing to do"...but the fact that you do it doesn't make it pragmatic or prudent at all. The same is the case for ethics. The prudence or ethics of an action are about the nature of the action, not about what happens to be going on in your head at the time.

If you like those methods, you will choose to follow them. If I don't, I won't. You want me to tell you what to do? I can't, nor won't. I also feel this attitude is the fundamental creator of class domination; the lack of self-confidence. You know who you want to be, and the ethics you want to follow. Why rely upon others to verify it?

Yes and we can't both be right. I don't know the ethics I want to follow precisely because of the large number of plausible, mutually exclusive alternatives. I am remaining agnostic precisely because I haven't verified it myself...so to speak. If I was relying on someone else to verify it, I'd say something like "this descriptive moral relativism stuff I heard about in anthro class sounds pretty good, I'm going to find a way to ground my ethics in it."

Revolution starts with U

15th November 2011, 11:00

Judicator

16th November 2011, 05:17

Well, far too often I have to retwist my position back into what it is, clear up what seems to be deliberate misrepresentations, and wade through passive aggressive attacks on my character. This isn't so much of a discussion as you trying to win a game I'm not even playing.

I will respond, lest I be accused of "running away." But it very well might be my last response, fair warning. I will respond tonight after my day is done. Good day sir.

I can try to be more charitable in interpreting your arguments but quid pro quo.

Also, I don't know how much of a "discussion" is even possible in a giant quotefest where replies are 3-4 sentences max.

Revolution starts with U

16th November 2011, 11:17

Apologies brother... I don't think I wanted to be awake at that time :laugh:

Internet debates lol

Revolution starts with U

16th November 2011, 11:39

up to you" is metaethical moral relativism. This would be endorsing a metaethical position, which I don't.

So if you don't ascribe to no metaethical position, but yet don't believe it's just "up to me..." Are you a "moral tyrant?" :lol: How are we to come to terms?

[emphasis added] this would be a mind independent good. God, having perfect knowledge of this, would have access unlike you or I.

If G-D lacks all-power, what would be the point of a punishment system. G-D would just be a passive observer.

Justification is very useful, it helps us understand why our beliefs might or might not be true. Is there a specific "useless posit" you're thinking of here?

Objective Justification

When you give an ethical reason for your actions, presumably anyone in your situation would be able to give the same ethical reason for the same behavior. This is the sense in which common speech makes ethics universal. When someone says something is wrong, and if you were to ask him "was it wrong 100 years ago," he'd probably say yes...indicating that morality persists over time. I'm just making a point about how we use moral language.

It was wrong to HIM 100 years ago. I'm sure the slave driver wasn't sitting around going "ya, I'm an evil guy. It's fun."

"Blue" is a word we made up, this doesn't mean the thing to which it refers is made up. Why would this be any different for "better than?"

Blue is an actual chemical property? Better than is something minds make up to rank things.

I don't know if you've even shown you can make prescriptive moral suggestions that are subjectively true.

I'm sorry for you that you had to go there :rolleyes:

I send out my Love, and hope that maybe it can calm your raging soul.

If it came out that something that can't be true was true....I don't know what I'd do.

Well... seeing as how in Binary 1+1=10/1/0 .... you better start figuring it out.

How do you think about beliefs without a believer?

Why do you seperate the believer from the body in which it resides?

Right this seems an unlikely candidate for God's intent in creating humans.

Wasn't the point.

Less than what? Clearly it's less of an assumption than philosophical handwaving, that's the point of the argument.

:laugh: Why don't you go ahead and proof that the world is not just an illusion. Again, it acts that way and we are better served treating it as such. But if you think Descartes did anything to answer the question of the skeptic, rather than just further illucidating the problem... idk what to say.

Yeah again I don't see the difference between this and saying 50% alive/50% dead or something like that. But I have to read more QM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The is-ought problem attacks any moral system that's based on a list of things about "what is"...like yours.

No. The is-ought problem attacks the assertion that things are as they ought to be. That's not what I said. I just said "things are. You have to decide how they ought to be."

You keep pointing out "look look societies do this and that to generate a moral code" as if that settles questions of morality...when these are just statements about "what is."

The question is non-sense.

Only you can decide what is "the pragmatic thing to do" or what is "the prudent thing to do"...but the fact that you do it doesn't make it pragmatic or prudent at all. The same is the case for ethics. The prudence or ethics of an action are about the nature of the action, not about what happens to be going on in your head at the time.

Nonsense.

Yes and we can't both be right.
Why? What steps will you take to force my conversion to your belief?

I don't know the ethics I want to follow precisely because of the large number of plausible, mutually exclusive alternatives. I am remaining agnostic precisely because I haven't verified it myself...so to speak. If I was relying on someone else to verify it, I'd say something like "this descriptive moral relativism stuff I heard about in anthro class sounds pretty good, I'm going to find a way to ground my ethics in it."
Where did you get the idea that moral relativism is a popular position in anthropology? Is the fact that some Anthropologists are MR'ists the only attack on my position you have?
"I remain agnostic because I haven't verified it myself..." Ya, that's the point. YOU have to verify it yourself, because there is no objective basis for it.

I'd also like to let you know that I was not a moral relativist until recently, long after I left class and started studying other things like philosophy, law, etc.

But ya.. I like how you have nothing on which to intelligently refute my position so you have to revert to the adhom/appeal to authority that I'm not thinking for myself... especially considering that is the FOUNDATION of my ehtics, is thinking for yourself.

Does that make you sleep better at night? Do you feel like you've won? I'm happy to oblige brother. If you need to think that about me to be happy, do so. I have to warn you that such dismissals are illogical and harmful in the end, it will make you no happier, and only make me lose respect for you. But whatever; I can't stop you. I can only love and set a good example, and hope you follow.

Revolution starts with U

16th November 2011, 11:55

And please realize that I am not saying you ought to tolerate the beliefs of others. I am saying you ought to realize that their beliefs are just as justified as yours. If you want to end their belief, you have to get people to agree with yours.

... I mean, I get it now. I called your self-confidence into question and it pissed you off. ... I was wondering where all the hostility came from. My apoogies brother. I will not retract the statement; moral universalism is a weak position for those afraid to think for themselves. What I am sorry about is that you took offense to it.

Judicator

17th November 2011, 01:27

I'm happy to continue the conversation....but it's up to you.

So if you don't ascribe to no metaethical position, but yet don't believe it's just "up to me..." Are you a "moral tyrant?" How are we to come to terms?

Not subscribing to a metaethical position means I wouldn't agree with the moral assertion that morality is "up to you."

If G-D lacks all-power, what would be the point of a punishment system. G-D would just be a passive observer.

Sure, and his moral knowledge would be completely accurate, so any honest answer god gave about a moral question would be a moral fact.

Objective Justification

This isn't the posit though...the posit in the example is that God exists. God's moral knowledge, by definition, is objective. Objective morality follows from this.

It was wrong to HIM 100 years ago. I'm sure the slave driver wasn't sitting around going "ya, I'm an evil guy. It's fun."

He is saying "it's wrong, period." I'm only making the point about common speech...when you make sincere claims, usually you believe they are true. The belief is specific to you, but this does not mean you think that "it's true, but only to you"...you think "it's true, period."

Blue is an actual chemical property? Better than is something minds make up to rank things.

Blue is something minds make up to differentiate things. We classify certain things with certain properties as "blue"...and we classify certain things with certain properties as "better than."

I'm sorry for you that you had to go there

Go there? I don't think what I said was offensive or anything.

Well... seeing as how in Binary 1+1=10/1/0 .... you better start figuring it out.

Changing bases is impossible?

Why do you seperate the believer from the body in which it resides?

Believers are agents, bodies aren't.

Why don't you go ahead and proof that the world is not just an illusion. Again, it acts that way and we are better served treating it as such. But if you think Descartes did anything to answer the question of the skeptic, rather than just further illucidating the problem... idk what to say.

You're missing the point of the argument. Read again.

The is-ought problem attacks the assertion that things are as they ought to be. That's not what I said. I just said "things are. You have to decide how they ought to be."

No, it's not in any way a defense of the status quo. It attacks the justification process by which one gets from statements of "what is" to statements about "what ought to be." This is problematic objectively or subjectively. "I should do X because I say so" suffers the same problem in that "X is moral" is an "ought" and "I say so" is an "is."

The question is non-sense.

Questions of morality are nonsense? This hardly makes it possible to come up with even subjective morality...

Nonsense.

Facts.

Why? What steps will you take to force my conversion to your belief?

I need not force any conversion, someone would just be wrong, period.

Nonsense.

Facts.

Where did you get the idea that moral relativism is a popular position in anthropology? Is the fact that some Anthropologists are MR'ists the only attack on my position you have?
"I remain agnostic because I haven't verified it myself..." Ya, that's the point. YOU have to verify it yourself, because there is no objective basis for it.

Who said it was a popular position? Who said this constituted an attack on the truth of the position? My main "attack" on your position is just that you haven't provided any evidence that metaethical moral relativism is true...only claims about descriptive moral relativism, and you' haven't shown any necessary linkage (e.g. a proof that one implies the other).

Scientists verify scientific claims, but these aren't relative simply because being able to replicate results is essential.

especially considering that is the FOUNDATION of my ehtics, is thinking for yourself.

Being "open minded" and saying "anything goes" is not the same as thinking for yourself.

Does that make you sleep better at night? Do you feel like you've won? I'm happy to oblige brother. If you need to think that about me to be happy, do so. I have to warn you that such dismissals are illogical and harmful in the end, it will make you no happier, and only make me lose respect for you. But whatever; I can't stop you. I can only love and set a good example, and hope you follow.

There's really no need to lash out like that. I'm just waiting for good evidence in favor of metaethical moral relativism. All you've provided are descriptions of what people tend to do (invent moral codes)...and somehow gotten yourself convinced that this gives them any moral force. You having proven little of anything doesn't make me "win" since the agnostic really doesn't have much to prove.

If you were an objective moralist I'd ask similar questions.

I'd also like to let you know that I was not a moral relativist until recently, long after I left class and started studying other things like philosophy, law, etc.

:cool: They say you can change your beliefs with reasonable success until you're 30.

And please realize that I am not saying you ought to tolerate the beliefs of others. I am saying you ought to realize that their beliefs are just as justified as yours. If you want to end their belief, you have to get people to agree with yours.

Beliefs in faeries aren't as justified as beliefs in evolution (presumably you agree here). Why should beliefs in crappy, ad hoc moral codes be as justified as beliefs in well constructed moral codes?

I was wondering where all the hostility came from. My apoogies brother. I will not retract the statement; moral universalism is a weak position for those afraid to think for themselves. What I am sorry about is that you took offense to it.

I don't know where you get the idea that universalism implies unwillingness to think (perhaps from talking to theists?). If anything it requires that you think more since you have to be right. If all moralities are equally justified that the one that's made up on a whim is just as valid as the one where someone has spent years developing...this hardly encourages thinking.

Revolution starts with U

17th November 2011, 03:31

Not subscribing to a metaethical position means I wouldn't agree with the moral assertion that morality is "up to you."

The question was; how are you going to come to terms with me in a moral disagreement without resorting to "I believe" or "Locke says, and I believe him.." if you don't subscribe to any specifica metaethical position.

Sure, and his moral knowledge would be completely accurate, so any honest answer god gave about a moral question would be a moral fact.

Sure. It would be.. "if." When you find G-D, you let me know what he had to say about it :lol:

This isn't the posit though...the posit in the example is that God exists. God's moral knowledge, by definition, is objective. Objective morality follows from this.

If... I'll switch my position when that objective basis is found.

He is saying "it's wrong, period." I'm only making the point about common speech...when you make sincere claims, usually you believe they are true. The belief is specific to you, but this does not mean you think that "it's true, but only to you"...you think "it's true, period."

Beliefs and facts are vastly different things.

Blue is something minds make up to differentiate things. We classify certain things with certain properties as "blue"...and we classify certain things with certain properties as "better than."

No. Blue is a chemical property of an object... well it's how light reflects based on the chemical properties of the object. "Better than" is just a tool we made up to rank things.

Go there? I don't think what I said was offensive or anything.

You don't think saying I have no idea what I'm talking about, even to myself, is offensive? I would think most people would find that condescending and offensive. My ego did; but I realize that your judgements say far more about you than they do me.

Believers are agents, bodies aren't.

Believers cannot be seperated from the bodies they reside in (if we make the one fundamental assumption that reality exists)... not yet anyway.

You're missing the point of the argument. Read again.

I'm not. I understand that the assumption of reality's existence is far more useful than not. But it's still just an assumption.

No, it's not in any way a defense of the status quo. It attacks the justification process by which one gets from statements of "what is" to statements about "what ought to be." This is problematic objectively or subjectively. "I should do X because I say so" suffers the same problem in that "X is moral" is an "ought" and "I say so" is an "is."

... only if you assume there is an objective morality to begin with; that there is an "ought to be." I am holding the position that "ought to be" in the debate on ethics is a chimera; only you can decide for yourself what ought to be. And then you will create what is.

Questions of morality are nonsense? This hardly makes it possible to come up with even subjective morality...

Objective/universal morality. At the present moment, they are impossible outside of the intersubjective debate called society.

Facts.

Proof it.

I need not force any conversion, someone would just be wrong, period.

To you! They very well may not to me. If they are just wrong, period... how will you get them to realize they are just wrong, period?

Who said it was a popular position? Who said this constituted an attack on the truth of the position? My main "attack" on your position is just that you haven't provided any evidence that metaethical moral relativism is true...only claims about descriptive moral relativism, and you' haven't shown any necessary linkage (e.g. a proof that one implies the other).

I thought I made it clear that metethical universals are a chimera. No, scratch that... I didn't think I did; I made it absolutely clear that I think metaethical universals are a chimera.

Scientists verify scientific claims, but these aren't relative simply because being able to replicate results is essential.

Scientific facts are grounded in reality. Moral fact are, in my view, grounded in subjectivism... for now. There may be some developments soon coming out of cognitive neuroscience. Until those basis-es are established, the best we have to go on is "because I believe it to be true."

Being "open minded" and saying "anything goes" is not the same as thinking for yourself.

I never said it was. But studying a lot, taking personal inventories of one's position, admitting faults, and correcting them... is.

There's really no need to lash out like that. I'm just waiting for good evidence in favor of metaethical moral relativism. All you've provided are descriptions of what people tend to do (invent moral codes)...and somehow gotten yourself convinced that this gives them any moral force. You having proven little of anything doesn't make me "win" since the agnostic really doesn't have much to prove.

The moral force, and once again I have made this absolutely clear this whole time (I'm sorry you choose not to see that), does not come from them "just believing it." The moral force of their position comes from the % of the population that agrees with them and establishes at as a norm or law.

"Lash out" :laugh: I would hardly consider that lashing out. But you basically said I'm a mindless robot, regurgatating what my professors said... when you don't know who my professors were, nor what they beleive.

If you were an objective moralist I'd ask similar questions.
You would call me a brainless automaton because I disagree with your weak position?

Beliefs in faeries aren't as justified as beliefs in evolution (presumably you agree here). Why should beliefs in crappy, ad hoc moral codes be as justified as beliefs in well constructed moral codes?

Because there is not, as of yet, any objective basis to assert or dismiss any position on ethics. I've made this clear the entire time. You can have the most well constructed logical anything and if it is not grounded in reality, it is about as usefull as a pencil with no lead.

I don't know where you get the idea that universalism implies unwillingness to think (perhaps from talking to theists?). If anything it requires that you think more since you have to be right. If all moralities are equally justified that the one that's made up on a whim is just as valid as the one where someone has spent years developing...this hardly encourages thinking.
No. I never said it didn't require thought. I said it requires a lack of confidence that you are smart enough to be right; the confidence to really think for yourself. Again, if there comes an established objective basis for ethics, I will switch my position. Until that time, I am confident that I can make moral decisions without the direction of others.

I feel a little bit like a hypocrite tho. Often we don't realize we are being unethical. I basically rebuked you for calling me an automaton... but then I called you one. That was wrong of me. I'm sure you have thought for yourself about this issue. But I still think it correct that if one takes an Ethical Universalist positon in this age of unfounded basis for ethics, you lack confidence in your ability to make the right decisions.

Judicator

17th November 2011, 07:12

The question was; how are you going to come to terms with me in a moral disagreement without resorting to "I believe" or "Locke says, and I believe him.." if you don't subscribe to any specifica metaethical position.

"Locke says, and we have no good reason not to believe him" might help. When you say "come to terms" you mean as a matter of living in a society together, or actual agreement?

Sure. It would be.. "if." When you find G-D, you let me know what he had to say about it

Just read the Bible! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

If... I'll switch my position when that objective basis is found.

I'm sure you'll find God one day.

No. Blue is a chemical property of an object... well it's how light reflects based on the chemical properties of the object. "Better than" is just a tool we made up to rank things.

A better telescope is better because of physical properties that it has that are different from worse telescopes. Blue things are blue because of physical properties they have that are different from non-blue things.

You don't think saying I have no idea what I'm talking about, even to myself, is offensive? I would think most people would find that condescending and offensive. My ego did; but I realize that your judgements say far more about you than they do me.

It's unfortunate you took it that way. Presumably you're talking about your beliefs, so most people know what those are. I was only wondering about where the moral justification comes from...and the answer was pretty much "well, someone else believes it too!"

Believers cannot be seperated from the bodies they reside in (if we make the one fundamental assumption that reality exists)... not yet anyway.

No, if we make the assumption that materialism is true. Presumably supernatural things like souls would be part of reality, so assuming reality exists isn't enough. In fact, reality exists is kind of a truism.

I'm not. I understand that the assumption of reality's existence is far more useful than not. But it's still just an assumption.

And evolution is just a theory...

... only if you assume there is an objective morality to begin with; that there is an "ought to be." I am holding the position that "ought to be" in the debate on ethics is a chimera; only you can decide for yourself what ought to be. And then you will create what is.

No, even an "ought to be (for me)" is problematic. You can decide a lot of things, this doesn't make them justified.

Objective/universal morality. At the present moment, they are impossible outside of the intersubjective debate called society.

Prove it's impossible.

Proof it.

You want me to prove that saying something is prudent doesn't make it prudent?

To you! They very well may not to me. If they are just wrong, period... how will you get them to realize they are just wrong, period?

Presumably with evidence. Or perhaps they never will.

I thought I made it clear that metethical universals are a chimera. No, scratch that... I didn't think I did; I made it absolutely clear that I think metaethical universals are a chimera.

It's quite clear that you think that, what's not clear is why "descriptive moral relativism is true" is a reason for that.

Scientific facts are grounded in reality. Moral fact are, in my view, grounded in subjectivism... for now. There may be some developments soon coming out of cognitive neuroscience. Until those basis-es are established, the best we have to go on is "because I believe it to be true."

You seem to think we can (theoretically) get moral judgments by looking at the brain, when really we can only get facts about the brain. This is the is-ought problem.

I never said it was. But studying a lot, taking personal inventories of one's position, admitting faults, and correcting them... is.

What's to correct when everyone's belief is equally valid? How is a "fault" even a coherent concept? The whole concept of moral progress is completely incoherent (a bullet which I'm sure you'll happily bite), but this would also extend to personal progress and development.

You would call me a brainless automaton because I disagree with your weak position?

This is your terminology, where did I call you that?

Because there is not, as of yet, any objective basis to assert or dismiss any position on ethics. I've made this clear the entire time. You can have the most well constructed logical anything and if it is not grounded in reality, it is about as usefull as a pencil with no lead.

One objective basis to dismiss a theory would be self-contradiction. You seem to have suggested another (objective basis to dismiss a theory), that it's "not grounded in reality."

Utilitarianism and egoism are both grounded in reality, but "I'm going to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and that's the end of it" is far less justified than "I'm a utilitarian, and here's why [insert doctoral thesis]."

No. I never said it didn't require thought. I said it requires a lack of confidence that you are smart enough to be right; the confidence to really think for yourself. Again, if there comes an established objective basis for ethics, I will switch my position. Until that time, I am confident that I can make moral decisions without the direction of others.

It requires the most extreme form of confidence, since it requires that you be right for yourself at the time, and that you be right for everyone else. Relativism only requires the former. The stronger claim is the one that requires more confidence to make.

I feel a little bit like a hypocrite tho. Often we don't realize we are being unethical. I basically rebuked you for calling me an automaton... but then I called you one. That was wrong of me. I'm sure you have thought for yourself about this issue.

Just edit your moral code so hypocrisy is okay!

Revolution starts with U

17th November 2011, 11:00

Just edit your moral code so hypocrisy is okay!

If I was going to do that, I would do it anyway.
Regardlss of my moral code, if I wanted to do that I would it anyway.
If I wanted to do that I would do it anyway.

You getting it yet?

Revolution starts with U

17th November 2011, 11:17

]"Locke says, and we have no good reason not to believe him" might help. When you say "come to terms" you mean as a matter of living in a society together, or actual agreement?

Both/either. You're a Lockeian, I'm an Epicurean... how to come to terms?

Just read the Bible! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Done that

I'm sure you'll find God one day.

As far as that nonsense word is understood; I have.

A better telescope is better because of physical properties that it has that are different from worse telescopes. Blue things are blue because of physical properties they have that are different from non-blue things.

I'm not going to debate this further. I'll just concede your position for the sake of argument and say it is a distinction I have made a choice not to recognize.

It's unfortunate you took it that way. Presumably you're talking about your beliefs, so most people know what those are. I was only wondering about where the moral justification comes from...and the answer was pretty much "well, someone else believes it too!"

The moral force comes from that. The justification comes from personal self-study.

No, if we make the assumption that materialism is true. Presumably supernatural things like souls would be part of reality, so assuming reality exists isn't enough. In fact, reality exists is kind of a truism.

Reality is materialism.

And evolution is just a theory...

You're not very good at this, eh?

No, even an "ought to be (for me)" is problematic. You can decide a lot of things, this doesn't make them justified.

Nothing makes them justified: save the widespread agreement of people with you that your position is the correct one.

Prove it's impossible.

It hasn't happened. Remember I said "at the present moment it is impossible."

You want me to prove that saying something is prudent doesn't make it prudent?

I want you to prove that "because I said so" is not every bit as valid as 'because Lock did some logic games."

Presumably with evidence. Or perhaps they never will.

mmhmm... :sleep:

It's quite clear that you think that, what's not clear is why "descriptive moral relativism is true" is a reason for that.

I'm not sure I am saying it's true as much as it's the best we have to go with at the present moment... sort-of like your hands analogy.

You seem to think we can (theoretically) get moral judgments by looking at the brain, when really we can only get facts about the brain. This is the is-ought problem.

Except:
1) This was not the original place of discussion by you for the is-ought problem. I would call it "shifting the goal posts" but that's not accurate. It's more like "going to a different stadium and shifting their goal posts."
2) I said it's possible that we may glean some insights into the problem from it; not that we (theoretically) can.

What's to correct when everyone's belief is equally valid? How is a "fault" even a coherent concept? The whole concept of moral progress is completely incoherent (a bullet which I'm sure you'll happily bite), but this would also extend to personal progress and development.

Word.
In logic 101 we learn that things can be logically valid and factually incorrect.
Once again, the best we have to go on is that the individual will decide for himself (regardless of what facts their may or may not be on the topic of metaethics) and through an intersubjective play, society will develop norms and laws, and concurrent punishment.

One objective basis to dismiss a theory would be self-contradiction. You seem to have suggested another (objective basis to dismiss a theory), that it's "not grounded in reality."

Ya. It's not a "theory" in the scientific sense if it doesn't reflect reality.

Utilitarianism and egoism are both grounded in reality, but "I'm going to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and that's the end of it" is far less justified than "I'm a utilitarian, and here's why [insert doctoral thesis]."

Same thing, less words.

It requires the most extreme form of confidence, since it requires that you be right for yourself at the time, and that you be right for everyone else. Relativism only requires the former. The stronger claim is the one that requires more confidence to make.

You trying to be right for everyone else, in my book, is a "bad" ethical decision. I don't need your help, tyvm.

Just edit your moral code so hypocrisy is okay!

If that's what I wanted to do, I would do it anyway. Regardless of how many hand-waving books, and academic nonsense you try to shove down my throat; if I wanted to do that, I would do it anyway.

Judicator

18th November 2011, 03:17

Both/either. You're a Lockeian, I'm an Epicurean... how to come to terms?

So in the case of getting along in society, we can probably agree to disagree. To actually agree, the arguments for Locke, on balance, would have to be better or worse than the arguments for Epicurean.

Done that

How'd it go?

I'm not going to debate this further. I'll just concede your position for the sake of argument and say it is a distinction I have made a choice not to recognize.

So then substitute "person" for telescope...and you have what starts to look like a universal moral code.

The moral force comes from that. The justification comes from personal self-study.

To clarify, "moral force" is normative force, not the fact that society will shun you if you reject its morality. The moral force (in the former sense of normative force) coming from facts about society's beliefs seems like yet another example of the is-ought problem.

You're saying through personal self-study you justify the social moral code, after the fact?

Reality is materialism.

Not necessarily.

You're not very good at this, eh?

You're making the same misleading use of the word theory.

It hasn't happened. Remember I said "at the present moment it is impossible."

You have a wacky conception of what's impossible. I haven't gone to sleep yet, but presumably it's possible.

I want you to prove that "because I said so" is not every bit as valid as 'because Lock did some logic games."

Locke made some logical arguments. Validity, by definition, is a property of logical arguments...so at the very least only a logical argument can be valid. "Because I said so" isn't a logical argument.

I'm not sure I am saying it's true as much as it's the best we have to go with at the present moment... sort-of like your hands analogy.

Descriptive moral relativism is likely true, sure. I'm wondering why that says anything about the likelihood of metaethical moral relativism being true (or the best alternative or whatever).

Except:
1) This was not the original place of discussion by you for the is-ought problem. I would call it "shifting the goal posts" but that's not accurate. It's more like "going to a different stadium and shifting their goal posts."
2) I said it's possible that we may glean some insights into the problem from it; not that we (theoretically) can.

You think the is-ought problem isn't problematic for our ability to draw moral conclusions from material facts? Shifting the goalpoasts? Is overcoming the is-ought problem now too much to ask?

You said that moral subjectivism is the best we have "for now"...bringing up the example of the brain with the implication that they would provide an alternative to the subjective view (this sounds like more than "gleaning insights").

Nothing makes them justified

Fixed.

Word.
In logic 101 we learn that things can be logically valid and factually incorrect.
Once again, the best we have to go on is that the individual will decide for himself (regardless of what facts their may or may not be on the topic of metaethics) and through an intersubjective play, society will develop norms and laws, and concurrent punishment.

The point was that in your subjective view there's no reason to believe that social norms are better than anything else.

Ya. It's not a "theory" in the scientific sense if it doesn't reflect reality.

So we could objectively dismiss self-contradictory moral codes.

Same thing, less [justification].

Fixed. In this case the words are arguments and evidence, i.e. justification.

You trying to be right for everyone else, in my book, is a "bad" ethical decision. I don't need your help, tyvm.

I'm not forcing them to do anything...just trying to figure out what's true.

If that's what I wanted to do, I would do it anyway.

But under a subjective moral code, you can do it AND be right to do so (to you).

Regardless of how many hand-waving books, and academic nonsense you try to shove down my throat; if I wanted to do that, I would do it anyway.

That's unfortunate that you aren't convinced by logic, and would do something in spite of an arbitrarily high number of good arguments against it.

Revolution starts with U

18th November 2011, 08:47

So in the case of getting along in society, we can probably agree to disagree. To actually agree, the arguments for Locke, on balance, would have to be better or worse than the arguments for Epicurean.

How do we decide what's better, and who decides that? Why should logical validity alone decide it? It's logical for me to steal from others if I know I can get away with it; I would never do that. I'm not saying having a logically valid argument is bad... it's good. But it doesn't really say much on its own; it is a how of saying it.

How'd it go?

Parts of it are good. Parts of it are horribly horribly bad. Most of it is pretty boring geneaologies. Other parts are kind of contradictory.

So then substitute "person" for telescope...and you have what starts to look like a universal moral code.

:confused: are we talking about an abstract telescope or...

To clarify, "moral force" is normative force, not the fact that society will shun you if you reject its morality. The moral force (in the former sense of normative force) coming from facts about society's beliefs seems like yet another example of the is-ought problem.

No, there is no "ought" in the universal sense you're looking for. It seems to me you're just begging the question; that there must be an objective moral code.

You're saying through personal self-study you justify the social moral code, after the fact?

You're doing it at all times; the only time that ever existed is now. From the moment you are born you are learning what society thinks is right, and what it thinks is wrong. You are born with certain predetermined behaviors, yet your experience is fundamentally unique to all other experiencers. At all times you are learning, studying, and reacting; then learning, studying, and reacting.

Not necessarily.

If it happens, it happens.

You're making the same misleading use of the word theory.

I actually think I expressly called it a hypothesis. But as far as that goes, what I attempt to do is explain how it works; not how it is supposed to work.

You have a wacky conception of what's impossible. I haven't gone to sleep yet, but presumably it's possible.

Semantics; I will retract the word impossible. It just hasn't happened yet; as far as either of us know.

Locke made some logical arguments. Validity, by definition, is a property of logical arguments...so at the very least only a logical argument can be valid. "Because I said so" isn't a logical argument.

That's true; validity is a property of logic. But again, why does logical validity neccessitate good ethics?

Descriptive moral relativism is likely true, sure. I'm wondering why that says anything about the likelihood of metaethical moral relativism being true (or the best alternative or whatever).

It doesn't. But until we have an objective footing to stand on, it remains our best way of seeing it.

You think the is-ought problem isn't problematic for our ability to draw moral conclusions from material facts? Shifting the goalpoasts? Is overcoming the is-ought problem now too much to ask?

Why must there be a universal ought?

You said that moral subjectivism is the best we have "for now"...bringing up the example of the brain with the implication that they would provide an alternative to the subjective view (this sounds like more than "gleaning insights").

I maintain that it is possible cognitive neuroscience will provide us with an objective footing to stand on. That could go from insights, to a full-fledged theory.

Fixed.

I do not disagree. "Justification" in the universal sense is a chimera.

The point was that in your subjective view there's no reason to believe that social norms are better than anything else.

Right

So we could objectively dismiss self-contradictory moral codes.

Sure

Fixed. In this case the words are arguments and evidence, i.e. justification.

Doesn't change a thing. How logical do you think NAZI Germany was?

I'm not forcing them to do anything...just trying to figure out what's true.

What's true is that I will decide for myself, based off predetermined behavioral tendencies and social and environmental influence. The two extremes you can take (or anywhere in between) is to let me be, or force me to your position. My hypothesis attempts to show that fostering this duality (individualism/collectivism), as opposed to treating them as enemies, will prove the most efficient. The one who's personal goal is betterment of society will create large advances for it. Think Edison, Einstein, Newton, or Dr Salk, Ghandi.

But under a subjective moral code, you can do it AND be right to do so (to you).

Yep. But more importantly, in the real world I CAN do it, will do it, and justify myself into being right in doing it, to me... but I will know I am lying, and then I will beat myself up about it. Next time a situation comes up, these past experiences will influence my decision.

That's unfortunate that you aren't convinced by logic, and would do something in spite of an arbitrarily high number of good arguments against it.
If someone laid out a logically valid way of rightly owning slaves, I would dismiss it. I will do what proves best to me. For me personally, the experience known as Adam, I make that what is most conducive to positive social relations.

Judicator

20th November 2011, 20:45

How do we decide what's better, and who decides that? Why should logical validity alone decide it? It's logical for me to steal from others if I know I can get away with it; I would never do that. I'm not saying having a logically valid argument is bad... it's good. But it doesn't really say much on its own; it is a how of saying it.

We decide what's better based on the quality of arguments given for the respective metaethical views.

I don't know that it's logical for you to steal from others, even if you can get away with it, if one of your goals is not to harm others.

Doesn't say much on it's own? Presumably these arguments are about the big moral questions, so they say a whole lot about what should be done and more generally how we should think about moral language in the first place.

are we talking about an abstract telescope or...

So what makes a better person versus a worse person...it would be something like who is better at doing the things that make people people.

No, there is no "ought" in the universal sense you're looking for. It seems to me you're just begging the question; that there must be an objective moral code.

The "ought" in the is-ought problem applies to subjective "oughts"...that was the point. Where do you see question begging?

That's true; validity is a property of logic. But again, why does logical validity neccessitate good ethics?

So you agree that Locke's position is more valid than the "because I said so" view, but now say that a valid ethical position isn't good ethics? Logical validity (and true premises!) necessitates good metaethics, since like on any issue, good positions are well-supported by reasons.

With ethics it's not so clear, since its conceivable that someone who does the right thing for the wrong reasons is still acting good.

Why must there be a universal ought?

Why does the is-ought problem only apply to universals?

[a preponderance of arguments and evidence] Doesn't change a thing

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh:

What's true is that I will decide for myself, based off predetermined behavioral tendencies and social and environmental influence. The two extremes you can take (or anywhere in between) is to let me be, or force me to your position. My hypothesis attempts to show that fostering this duality (individualism/collectivism), as opposed to treating them as enemies, will prove the most efficient. The one who's personal goal is betterment of society will create large advances for it. Think Edison, Einstein, Newton, or Dr Salk, Ghandi.

The mistake you keep making is to assume that because it's true THAT you'll decide for yourself (and that decision is endorsed by society or whatever), the content of what you decide is also true (even just for you).

Providing arguments is not forcing, nor is it letting you be.

But more importantly, in the real world I CAN do it, will do it, and justify myself into being right in doing it, to me... but I will know I am lying, and then I will beat myself up about it. Next time a situation comes up, these past experiences will influence my decision.

This kind of intuition would be (another example) of a basis for an objective moral code. If you've truly justified yourself into doing something...you can't really be lying, if your moral code is whatever you say it is.

If someone laid out a logically valid way of rightly owning slaves, I would dismiss it. I will do what proves best to me. For me personally, the experience known as Adam, I make that what is most conducive to positive social relations.

Again you're kind of just describing your own expected behavior. This is separate from the claim that this the justified response, or the best response. Even "positive social relations" has some ethical baggage (ex. what does it mean to help other people?), so if it turns out that there are good arguments that what you think is social good is in fact very harmful, then what you decided for yourself would be completely wrong. For that reason I think you cannot dismiss argument simply because you find conclusions unpleasant...you have to find good reasons to reject them.

Judicator

3rd December 2011, 07:33

Sweet I won LOL.

Revolution starts with U

3rd December 2011, 14:26

lol I didnt know we were competing. But no. I'm just kinda takin a break from posting, in general. If you've not noticed, in the past week or two I've made like 2 posts; neither longer than a line or two. :lol:

Revolution starts with U

3rd December 2011, 14:42

But since you asked for it....

We decide what's better based on the quality of arguments given for the respective metaethical views.

Maybe you do. Some decide what's better based on how it benefits them personally, regardless.

I don't know that it's logical for you to steal from others, even if you can get away with it, if one of your goals is not to harm others.

Ya, you're right... IF that is one of my goals. If, if, if....

Doesn't say much on it's own? Presumably these arguments are about the big moral questions, so they say a whole lot about what should be done and more generally how we should think about moral language in the first place.

Logic is a how, not a what.

So what makes a better person versus a worse person...it would be something like who is better at doing the things that make people people.

Ya, except its usually the person with the shinier toys that is the better person. Or are you saying there are no well respected degenerate assholes in society?

The "ought" in the is-ought problem applies to subjective "oughts"...that was the point. Where do you see question begging?

That you think there should be an objective "ought" to begin with. There isn't. Sorry to break it to you....

So you agree that Locke's position is more valid than the "because I said so" view, but now say that a valid ethical position isn't good ethics?
I'm saying that it doesn't matter how valid your system is. That in no way means anyone else will agree and choose to follow it.

Logical validity (and true premises!) necessitates good metaethics, since like on any issue, good positions are well-supported by reasons.

Society and history would disagree with you.
You tell me how it is not irrational to take a bullet for a complete stranger... or better yet for a stranger's dog.

With ethics it's not so clear, since its conceivable that someone who does the right thing for the wrong reasons is still acting good.

Right....
You know... I remember why I took a break from posting. This tired discussion is just going in circles. I'm sorry friend, but I don't see us coming to terms any time soon. You cannot accept the truth standing right in front of your face, and are desperately searching around in the dark.

Why does the is-ought problem only apply to universals?

Because only then would there really be an "ought to." Mine isn't is-ought. It's is-going to.

:laugh:
I stand by it. You can make your system as logical as you want. That in no way means it is better, truer, or going to be followed by anyone. Ptolemaic astronomy has a proponderance of arguments and evidence and it is utter bunk. Quality > quantity...

The mistake you keep making is to assume that because it's true THAT you'll decide for yourself (and that decision is endorsed by society or whatever), the content of what you decide is also true (even just for you).

Truth in ethics is an illusion. It's a mirage. IF you keep pursuing it, all you will find is a mouthful of sand.

Providing arguments is not forcing, nor is it letting you be.

And if I say "nice arguments, now piss off." What next?

This kind of intuition would be (another example) of a basis for an objective moral code. If you've truly justified yourself into doing something...you can't really be lying, if your moral code is whatever you say it is.

People lie to themselves all the time. Did you know that 90% of your thoughts happen subconsciously? That's where the lying happens.

Again you're kind of just describing your own expected behavior. This is separate from the claim that this the justified response, or the best response. Even "positive social relations" has some ethical baggage (ex. what does it mean to help other people?), so if it turns out that there are good arguments that what you think is social good is in fact very harmful, then what you decided for yourself would be completely wrong. For that reason I think you cannot dismiss argument simply because you find conclusions unpleasant...you have to find good reasons to reject them
No.. .I don't. Sorry.

/yawn This is why I don't watch NASCAR. People going around in circles is... just... blah