For whinging ultra capitalists

[Demogorgon]

First of all, this obviously isn't aimed at all capitalists. Capitalists come in many varieties, and while all are wrong, not all are insane, however for obvious reasons, moderates aren't really attracted to Commie boards, so a lot of our resident restricted members are indeed ultra capitalists. So without further ado:

The nuts amongst us will complain fairly regularly about the concept of "positive rights". "Why should we have to pay for you?!" They cry whenever the concept of such outrageous things as educating children is brought up, "A right is only something nobody else has to pay for" they bzzarely claim. On this basis they claim only negative rights, in particular property rights are true rights.

Well using cappie logic, I ask you: why should I have to pay for your negative rights?

Protecting property is an expensive prospect. We need a police force, a curt system, a prison system etc. They same goes for protecting other negative rights. And who is paying for it? Well I am. Much of my taxes are paying for the protection of your property rights.

Given you claim that nobody should have to pay for anyone elses rights. Why should I have to pay for the protection of your property rights? And to stop you wiggling out of this, if I shouldn't, how should they be paid for?

[colonelguppy]

i'm in favor of people paying for things which are for the general benefit for everyone, in if not in the short term the long term. no one could ever suceed in trying to run a government off trying to please everyones conception of rights.

these can be either negative rights or posetive rights, i support both having a police force to keep law and order as well as subsidized education.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:55 pm
Given you claim that nobody should have to pay for anyone elses rights. Why should I have to pay for the protection of your property rights? And to stop you wiggling out of this, if I shouldn't, how should they be paid for?
Since police and fire protection are paid for by local property taxes, it is in fact already the case that if you don't want to own property, or don't want to live in a locality with enforcement of those laws, then you don't have to pay. Isn't that neat?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 07, 2007 07:45 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 07, 2007 07:45 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 04:55 pm
Given you claim that nobody should have to pay for anyone elses rights. Why should I have to pay for the protection of your property rights? And to stop you wiggling out of this, if I shouldn't, how should they be paid for?
Since police and fire protection are paid for by local property taxes, it is in fact already the case that if you don't want to own property, or don't want to live in a locality with enforcement of those laws, then you don't have to pay. Isn't that neat? [/b]
Nice try, but no. In this country, police and courts and prisons are all funded centrally through general taxation.

And in America of course the courts and prisons are as well. As are police to an extent.

Not to mention are you saying that people should have to pay taxes to the government in order to have property rights? Surely that goes against your views?

[colonelguppy]

if there is no enforcement mechanism then the rights no longer exist in any sense that matters, so yes you should have to pay taxes to secure your own rights.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:14 pm
if there is no enforcement mechanism then the rights no longer exist in any sense that matters, so yes you should have to pay taxes to secure your own rights.
The point is, if you concede that, then you have no basis for saying you shouldn't pay taxes for positive rights

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+May 07, 2007 09:29 pm--> (Demogorgon @ May 07, 2007 09:29 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 09:14 pm
if there is no enforcement mechanism then the rights no longer exist in any sense that matters, so yes you should have to pay taxes to secure your own rights.
The point is, if you concede that, then you have no basis for saying you shouldn't pay taxes for positive rights [/b]
Nonsense.

Negative rights are "negative" because all they demand of other people is that they refrain from using force against us. Property rights are negative because all that my property right asks of you is that you not use force to take my property.

Publicly financed law enforcement is really just a red herring. There's nothing inherent about negative rights that necessarily requires a police force; indeed if everybody respected everybody else's negative rights, no such force would be required and nobody would have force used against them at all. Indeed, there is NO negative right to have the police do anything at all for anybody personally; they provide only a service to the community, which might include protecting people and might not. In reality, police do extraordinarily little to protect property - that's what security guards are for. Police are only really charged with apprehending lawbreakers, a task orthagonal to the existence of negative rights. Nonetheless, that is itself a useful enough activity that even most libertarians don't object to what are essentially mandatory user fees (in the U.S., most local civil services are paid for by local property taxes).

It is not the rights themselves that are costing you money; it's the apprehension, trial, and punishment of lawbreakers, something inherent not to capitalism but to any society of laws.

On the other hand, positive rights will ALWAYS place some burden on individuals to actually spend effort on something of no benefit to themselves, and, if they are enforced, NECESSARILY entail using force against people.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 07, 2007 09:58 pm
Nonsense.

Negative rights are "negative" because all they demand of other people is that they refrain from using force against us. Property rights are negative because all that my property right asks of you is that you not use force to take my property.

Publicly financed law enforcement is really just a red herring. There's nothing inherent about negative rights that necessarily requires a police force; indeed if everybody respected everybody else's negative rights, no such force would be required and nobody would have force used against them at all. Indeed, there is NO negative right to have the police do anything at all for anybody personally; they provide only a service to the community, which might include protecting people and might not. In reality, police do extraordinarily little to protect property - that's what security guards are for. Police are only really charged with apprehending lawbreakers, a task orthagonal to the existence of negative rights. Nonetheless, that is itself a useful enough activity that even most libertarians don't object to what are essentially mandatory user fees (in the U.S., most local civil services are paid for by local property taxes).

It is not the rights themselves that are costing you money; it's the apprehension, trial, and punishment of lawbreakers, something inherent not to capitalism but to any society of laws.

On the other hand, positive rights will ALWAYS place some burden on individuals to actually spend effort on something of no benefit to themselves, and, if they are enforced, NECESSARILY entail using force against people.
Perhaps then we should abolish our police force and courts so that I am not required to do anything for the protection of your rights? If police and courts are not a negative right why don't we oppose them?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+May 07, 2007 04:29 pm--> (Demogorgon @ May 07, 2007 04:29 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 09:14 pm
if there is no enforcement mechanism then the rights no longer exist in any sense that matters, so yes you should have to pay taxes to secure your own rights.
The point is, if you concede that, then you have no basis for saying you shouldn't pay taxes for positive rights [/b]
except for that such "rights" are often harmful to society, and it's more benefitial to let people just keep their money.

[Red Tung]

except for that such "rights" are often harmful to society, and it's more benefitial to let people just keep their money.

Not, necessarily. A functional society is only possible if there are "guaranteed" assumptions for the efficacy and safety of your so-called "positive rights". Simply look around at everything in your society as you assume as being safe and effective.

And what does it mean to be "effective"? Against what universal or society-wide standard is effective or safe measured against? Do you doubt the effectiveness of placebos for instance? I can sell sugar capsules as an "effective" measure against any number of deadly diseases and still make a profit off of it "justifiably" by pointing out the fact that placebos are more effective than simply letting a person do without medication.

Or I can say that I run a fire fighthing service and show up with a bucket of water when your house catches fire. All that's needed is to print a few glossy ads stating that I have a "wonderful fire retarding substance guaranteed to put out fires". A bucket of water is certainly guaranteed to put out fires isn't it? And water is certainly a wonderful fire retarding substance isn't it? Since the interpretation of the contract is itself subjective and ambiguous, I could defend the failure of saving your house by saying that you didn't pay enough for the "wonderful fire retarding substance" that I have available in bucketfulls! :lol:

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:11 pm
Perhaps then we should abolish our police force and courts so that I am not required to do anything for the protection of your rights? If police and courts are not a negative right why don't we oppose them?
Radical libertarians, typically anarcho-capitalists, have proposed such, wherein people would not be protected unless they paid the private security agency and fire agency. However, there is clearly a free-rider issue involved - if all your neigbors pay and you don't, you still receive a lot of benefit. But if nobody pays, then everybody loses. Fire protection goes the other way - one person's choosing not to be protected will often directly harm those that would. National defense is another such nonexcludable good; it's almost impossible to prevent one person from benefitting from money spent by others on national defense. This is a classic market failure situation.

Capitalists do not deny the existence of market failures (as understood in the technical sense), and most are relatively okay with governmental regulation to correct for these situations. In this case, we correct for it by selecting the most economically efficient outcome (everyone contributes in proportion, everyone benefits) because there is no other way to achieve the most economically efficient option.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 08, 2007 02:55 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 08, 2007 02:55 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 10:11 pm
Perhaps then we should abolish our police force and courts so that I am not required to do anything for the protection of your rights? If police and courts are not a negative right why don't we oppose them?
Radical libertarians, typically anarcho-capitalists, have proposed such, wherein people would not be protected unless they paid the private security agency and fire agency. However, there is clearly a free-rider issue involved - if all your neigbors pay and you don't, you still receive a lot of benefit. But if nobody pays, then everybody loses. Fire protection goes the other way - one person's choosing not to be protected will often directly harm those that would. National defense is another such nonexcludable good; it's almost impossible to prevent one person from benefitting from money spent by others on national defense. This is a classic market failure situation.

Capitalists do not deny the existence of market failures (as understood in the technical sense), and most are relatively okay with governmental regulation to correct for these situations. In this case, we correct for it by selecting the most economically efficient outcome (everyone contributes in proportion, everyone benefits) because there is no other way to achieve the most economically efficient option. [/b]
I see, so you are willing to coerce people to pay taxes for things that suit you then?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:23 pm
I see, so you are willing to coerce people to pay taxes for things that suit you then?
Not things that benefit me exclusively. For certain things that benefit everybody, then yes - but only when necessary.

But you see the distinction? I am skeptical but okay with requiring people to pay for benefits they receive. I'm not okay with requiring people to pay for benefits that others receive.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 08, 2007 04:39 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 08, 2007 04:39 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 03:23 pm
I see, so you are willing to coerce people to pay taxes for things that suit you then?
Not things that benefit me exclusively. For certain things that benefit everybody, then yes - but only when necessary.

But you see the distinction? I am skeptical but okay with requiring people to pay for benefits they receive. I'm not okay with requiring people to pay for benefits that others receive. [/b]
So you are in fact willing to coerce someone into paying taxes when it suits you. I am glad we finally reached that point, because it kind of does in your standard argument, doesn't it? If we are going to have people pay taxes for a police force, we can certainly have them pay taxes for universal education because that benefits everyone as well.

[pusher robot]

So you are in fact willing to coerce someone into paying taxes when it suits you.

No. What "suits" me is not relevant.


I am glad we finally reached that point, because it kind of does in your standard argument, doesn't it?
I don't think so.

f we are going to have people pay taxes for a police force, we can certainly have them pay taxes for universal education because that benefits everyone as well.
Nonsequitur. You have to make the argument that someone directly benefits from someone else going to school, and also that there is a market failure for schooling.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:55 pm
Well using cappie logic, I ask you: why should I have to pay for your negative rights?

Protecting property is an expensive prospect. We need a police force, a curt system, a prison system etc. They same goes for protecting other negative rights. And who is paying for it? Well I am. Much of my taxes are paying for the protection of your property rights.



This is a good point and one that leftists need to understand (most do I think) in their criticisms of capitalism. It's not a point that you'll hear addressed a lot though because capitalists and libertarians love to limit the debate in such a way that their rights become a part of "natural law" or something.

Libertarians [Capitalists]: Anarchists who use the police to keep their slaves in line.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 08, 2007 02:15 am--> (colonelguppy @ May 08, 2007 02:15 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:29 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 09:14 pm
if there is no enforcement mechanism then the rights no longer exist in any sense that matters, so yes you should have to pay taxes to secure your own rights.
The point is, if you concede that, then you have no basis for saying you shouldn't pay taxes for positive rights
except for that such "rights" are often harmful to society, and it's more benefitial to let people just keep their money. [/b]
Sorry, history contradicts your "economic theory" nonsense. We've tried the Laissez-Faire "solution" in the US, and it failed. No need to bring it back.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 08, 2007 06:37 pm

So you are in fact willing to coerce someone into paying taxes when it suits you.

No. What "suits" me is not relevant.


I am glad we finally reached that point, because it kind of does in your standard argument, doesn't it?
I don't think so.

f we are going to have people pay taxes for a police force, we can certainly have them pay taxes for universal education because that benefits everyone as well.
Nonsequitur. You have to make the argument that someone directly benefits from someone else going to school, and also that there is a market failure for schooling.
I am surprised to here that what suits you does not matter, because so far that is all you have been operating on. If it is okay for me to be made to pay taxes to pay for the protection of other people's property, something which I do not benefit from. It is certainly okay for me to pay taxes to pay for educaion, something I have benefitted from and continue to benefit from owing to the fact that a well educated population is good for everyone. Market failure in the field of education is very easy to demonstrate. Simply look at what happened before universal education was implemented. Incidentally I am surprised you admit the existence of market failure. Your position normally requires that we pretend it does not exist.

[pusher robot]

If it is okay for me to be made to pay taxes to pay for the protection of other people's property, something which I do not benefit from.

You benefit because you property is ALSO protected. A market failure occurs because it is very difficult to protect some people's property without protecting other people's property as well.


I have benefitted from and continue to benefit from owing to the fact that a well educated population is good for everyone.

This is certainly a legitimate argument in favor of publicly financed education.


Market failure in the field of education is very easy to demonstrate. Simply look at what happened before universal education was implemented.

What? Some people were educated and some were not? This is not a market failure.


Incidentally I am surprised you admit the existence of market failure. Your position normally requires that we pretend it does not exist.

I sincerely doubt that. Market failures are an Economics 101 subject. More likely, I don't think you actually understand what I am talking about when I use the term "market failure." It does NOT mean "failure to provide for everybody."

[Publius]

Nonsense.

Negative rights are "negative" because all they demand of other people is that they refrain from using force against us. Property rights are negative because all that my property right asks of you is that you not use force to take my property.

Why is it 'your' property?

Why is anyone's property theirs?



Publicly financed law enforcement is really just a red herring. There's nothing inherent about negative rights that necessarily requires a police force; indeed if everybody respected everybody else's negative rights, no such force would be required and nobody would have force used against them at all.

Yes, and if everyone just acknowledged that 'private property' was an illegitimate concept and that communistic sharing was the best means of running the economy, none would ever have any problems with anything.

But that doesn't prove anything, now does it?



Indeed, there is NO negative right to have the police do anything at all for anybody personally; they provide only a service to the community, which might include protecting people and might not. In reality, police do extraordinarily little to protect property - that's what security guards are for. Police are only really charged with apprehending lawbreakers, a task orthagonal to the existence of negative rights. Nonetheless, that is itself a useful enough activity that even most libertarians don't object to what are essentially mandatory user fees (in the U.S., most local civil services are paid for by local property taxes).

Property 'rights' are useless without a system of law which police enforce.



It is not the rights themselves that are costing you money; it's the apprehension, trial, and punishment of lawbreakers, something inherent not to capitalism but to any society of laws.

Your right to own property does not cost me anything? Doesn't it necessarily cost me whatever you own and refuse to give me?



On the other hand, positive rights will ALWAYS place some burden on individuals to actually spend effort on something of no benefit to themselves, and, if they are enforced, NECESSARILY entail using force against people.

Just like the enforcement of property rights at all NECESSARILY forces me to acknowledge them, even though I think them illegitimate?

[Publius]

Not things that benefit me exclusively. For certain things that benefit everybody, then yes - but only when necessary.

Health care benefits everyone -- everyone gets sick at some point. Welfare helps everyone -- income inequality increases crime, which can affect anyone. Public roads help everyone -- you need them to purchase goods.



But you see the distinction?

No, because there is none other than the one you've invented.



I am skeptical but okay with requiring people to pay for benefits they receive. I'm not okay with requiring people to pay for benefits that others receive.

So everyone doesn't receive the benefits of retirement insurance, of national health care, of welfare programs?

What if you need to retire, or you get sick, or you lose your job? This are not exclusive programs.

In the case of, say, pollution laws, everyone gains just as much as with military protection.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 08, 2007 10:15 pm
You benefit because you property is ALSO protected. A market failure occurs because it is very difficult to protect some people's property without protecting other people's property as well.


What roperty is protected? I am not a property owner. Granted I have possessions that are protected, but why shouldn't I be able to opt out of paying for other people's property to be protected and simply protect my own possessions? I'm a big guy after all, I bet I could do it, and I don't trust the police enough to go to them if I am robbed anyway.
What? Some people were educated and some were not? This is not a market failure.That would be a matter of opinion. At any rate the external benefits of education were not covered before universal education and so be definition it was market failure.
I sincerely doubt that. Market failures are an Economics 101 subject. More likely, I don't think you actually understand what I am talking about when I use the term "market failure." It does NOT mean "failure to provide for everybody."I studied economics for six years. I know perfectly well what market failure means. And if you knew half as much about it as you seem to think you do, you would know that right wing groups such as the Austrian school deny the existence of it.

[Demogorgon]

I have been ignored so far, but I have another comment for Pusher Robot. There seem to be two types of Libertarians, those who justify it on consequential grounds and those who have silly ideas of rights. So far you have been very much a member of the latter, but under pressure you have shifted to the former. Pretty inconsistent, eh?

[colonelguppy]

hell i used to be the latter, but i've switched. don't chastize him for making the jump.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 07:25 am
hell i used to be the latter, but i've switched. don't chastize him for making the jump.
I very much doubt he has made the jump (and jumping to a still wrong position wouldn't be ideal but I digress), I think he has just been chased into using a new position when the holes in his old one appeared. He will be back to talking about rights as soon as the "initiation of force" slogan can be safely thrown about again.

[colonelguppy]

hey, communists do it all the time as well. be careful.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:55 am
hey, communists do it all the time as well. be careful.
Yeah sure. But it's your job to call them on it. I'll stick to tripping up the capitalists, eh?

Really though, I have simply gotten very tired of a lot of these silly statements about rights. YOu can only read ridulous sophistry so many times before the only thing you can bring yourself to do is to mock it.

I don't mind debating with people who have a slightly more real world rational for supporting capitalism, but I am just sick and tired of seeing these silly people populating every forum I like to visit.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:59 am
I have been ignored so far, but I have another comment for Pusher Robot. There seem to be two types of Libertarians, those who justify it on consequential grounds and those who have silly ideas of rights. So far you have been very much a member of the latter, but under pressure you have shifted to the former. Pretty inconsistent, eh?
It only seems so because you simply ignore my arguments, except to deny that "market failure" has any objective meaning and that you benefit from living in a policed community.

If you recall, my position is that tax spending on public goods was only appropriate when:
1. A free-rider market failure exists.
2. A majority prefer to correct the failure.

You've tried to make this into me supporting far more than I do, without bothering to explain how other scenarios fit the criteria. Since you made no effort to respond to my arguments, I declined to respond to yours.

My taking this position is not inconsistent with a "rights-oriented" view of capitalism any moreso than being in favor of laws against shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater are inconsistent with free speech rights. Any right, at it's extremes, becomes absurd. This observation - that the best way to preserve certain rights has been to give up their extreme applications - goes all the way back to Thomas Hobbes. My allowance for rectifying suboptimal results on the margins does NOT require me to allow for your proposals of wholesale elimination of free enterprise.

Anyways, at least I'm here, trying to lay out my principles in particulars and explain them in objective terms. My opponents almost never do the same, being unable to answer even the simplest questions about their ideal society without contradicting themselves or resorting to vague platitudes. For example, positive rights will inevitably conflict with each other. How are these conflicts resolved? I've never received a clear answer, and I highly doubt any will be forthcoming.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 10, 2007 02:25 pm

It only seems so because you simply ignore my arguments, except to deny that "market failure" has any objective meaning and that you benefit from living in a policed community.

If you recall, my position is that tax spending on public goods was only appropriate when:
1. A free-rider market failure exists.
2. A majority prefer to correct the failure.

You've tried to make this into me supporting far more than I do, without bothering to explain how other scenarios fit the criteria. Since you made no effort to respond to my arguments, I declined to respond to yours.

My taking this position is not inconsistent with a "rights-oriented" view of capitalism any moreso than being in favor of laws against shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater are inconsistent with free speech rights. Any right, at it's extremes, becomes absurd. This observation - that the best way to preserve certain rights has been to give up their extreme applications - goes all the way back to Thomas Hobbes. My allowance for rectifying suboptimal results on the margins does NOT require me to allow for your proposals of wholesale elimination of free enterprise.

Anyways, at least I'm here, trying to lay out my principles in particulars and explain them in objective terms. My opponents almost never do the same, being unable to answer even the simplest questions about their ideal society without contradicting themselves or resorting to vague platitudes. For example, positive rights will inevitably conflict with each other. How are these conflicts resolved? I've never received a clear answer, and I highly doubt any will be forthcoming.
I have denied that market failure has objective meaning? I certainly have not. But I don't think you really know what it means and understand the debate over it. You simply through the phrase out there, banking on me not knowing economics. Hard luck there.

I responded to all of your points as far as there is anything to respond to. But because your arguments tend to rely on sophistry more than logic it is sometimes difficult to find something to reply to.

The real reason you didn't respond to me at first of course was that you didn't want to acknowledge you had read Publius's posts, wasn't it? He kind of hit you in a vulnerable spot and as a restricted meber you can hardly brush him off as a silly commie.

[pusher robot]

I have denied that market failure has objective meaning? I certainly have not.



What? Some people were educated and some were not? This is not a market failure.
That would be a matter of opinion.

If what is and is not a market failure is a matter of opinion, then it is by definition NOT OBJECTIVE.



The real reason you didn't respond to me at first of course was that you didn't want to acknowledge you had read Publius's posts, wasn't it? He kind of hit you in a vulnerable spot and as a restricted meber you can hardly brush him off as a silly commie.

No, it's because he is simply repeating dogma without engaging my points. For example, he responds that ny posession of something costs him by his not being able to posess it. Non-responsive. I understand perfectly that he thinks so, and that he therefore disagrees with my characterization of rights. Fine, but that's not the topic we're talking about. That does nothing whatsoever to prove my position is internally inconsistent, since obviously I reject that premise.

I accept as a given that my conception of rights is inconsistent with marxist ideology. Pointing that out does not forward this area of discussion.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 10, 2007 04:00 pm
If what is and is not a market failure is a matter of opinion, then it is by definition NOT OBJECTIVE.



Like I say, I don't think you really understand what market failure means. It is a hotly debated subject. I suppose by objective definition you mea externalities, which are probably quite objective economic fact (and cast iron proof that unregulated markets don't work as you would have us believe), but there are many other things that are considered to be market failure. Any result of a market other than what is considered socially optimum is sometimes considered market failure after all, and on the other hand you have the likes of the Austrians denying it exists at all. So please refrain from being clever with me. I can be just as clever back if I want to be.
No, it's because he is simply repeating dogma without engaging my points. For example, he responds that ny posession of something costs him by his not being able to posess it. Non-responsive. I understand perfectly that he thinks so, and that he therefore disagrees with my characterization of rights. Fine, but that's not the topic we're talking about. That does nothing whatsoever to prove my position is internally inconsistent, since obviously I reject that premise.

I accept as a given that my conception of rights is inconsistent with marxist ideology. Pointing that out does not forward this area of discussion.But he is not a Marxist, he is one of you lot (and if I remember correctly actually was a Libertarian like you at one point) so you can't simply brush off his claims as Marxist dogma.

At any rate though, you have demonstrated another problem in your posts. And that is you talk constantly about rights without ever telling us what they are or where they come from. All you (and by that I mean you plural, you and your cohorts) ever do is engage in metaphysical vagaries when it comes to rights, and as well as being pretentious and silly is also invalid, "sophistry and illusion" as Hume put it.

[Publius]

No, it's because he is simply repeating dogma without engaging my points.

And what dogma is that? What am I?


For example, he responds that ny posession of something costs him by his not being able to posess it. Non-responsive.

No, it's a true statement. It's a tautology, but it's absolutely true: what is ownership other than a prohibition?

Property rights only make sense as a limit on other rights (you wouldn't consider them rights, but there you have it.) My point, which engaged your point fully, was that your system of 'rights' was without justification. It might be internally consistent (though I somewhat doubt it), but that's not quite good enough. Solipsism is internally consistent and yet it fails as a practical philosophy because, consequentially, it is worthless. Taken to the logical extreme, libertarian rights encounter this same set of problem; yes, they are internally consistent, but they produce abhorrent effects, so it doesn't matter.

Demogorgon just made this point: what ARE rights? From where do they come? God? I doubt it. Are they innate? I can't imagine how the right to own property is innate in human beings. Are they socially constructed? I think so. And so, if rights are socially constructed, couldn't they be reconstructed in a more beneficial manner? Why stay beholden to one system of rights? Is it absolute?



I understand perfectly that he thinks so, and that he therefore disagrees with my characterization of rights. Fine, but that's not the topic we're talking about. That does nothing whatsoever to prove my position is internally inconsistent, since obviously I reject that premise.

I accept as a given that my conception of rights is inconsistent with marxist ideology. Pointing that out does not forward this area of discussion.

I'm not a Marxist.

Although I wouldn't honestly call myself a capitalist anymore either -- I don't really have any set ideology, just a set of (broadly leftist) values.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+May 10, 2007 04:04 am--> (Demogorgon @ May 10, 2007 04:04 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 08:55 am
hey, communists do it all the time as well. be careful.
Yeah sure. But it's your job to call them on it. I'll stick to tripping up the capitalists, eh?

Really though, I have simply gotten very tired of a lot of these silly statements about rights. YOu can only read ridulous sophistry so many times before the only thing you can bring yourself to do is to mock it.

I don't mind debating with people who have a slightly more real world rational for supporting capitalism, but I am just sick and tired of seeing these silly people populating every forum I like to visit. [/b]
well it's important to realize that everyone bases their views on some kind of value, no matter how consequentialist it is. it would be impossible to derive a stance on anything if we didn't.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon
Any result of a market other than what is considered socially optimum is sometimes considered market failure after all, and on the other hand you have the likes of the Austrians denying it exists at all. So please refrain from being clever with me. I can be just as clever back if I want to be.

I thought I made it clear that I was talking about a free-rider market failure. This has, I hope you will agree, a fairly objective and well-defined meaning.


At any rate though, you have demonstrated another problem in your posts. And that is you talk constantly about rights without ever telling us what they are or where they come from. All you (and by that I mean you plural, you and your cohorts) ever do is engage in metaphysical vagaries when it comes to rights, and as well as being pretentious and silly is also invalid, "sophistry and illusion" as Hume put it.

Actually you are incorrect, I have discussed this very topic in a previous thread. If you really want to get into a philosphical discussion on the subject, start a new thread and I will repost my comments.


And what dogma is that? What am I?

The dogma is the standard marxist "property=theft" trope. What you are is irrelevant.


No, it's a true statement. It's a tautology, but it's absolutely true: what is ownership other than a prohibition?
Are all prohibitions costs? More importantly, how can you be "cost" something you never possessed in the first place?


Demogorgon just made this point: what ARE rights?Do you mean this in the normative or positive sense?


Are they innate?I would say yes, they are derived from the nature of man.


And so, if rights are socially constructed, couldn't they be reconstructed in a more beneficial manner? This, of course, begs the question of what is "beneficial."


I'm not a Marxist.Good for you!

I don't really have any set ideology, just a set of (broadly leftist) values.Well, nobody's perfect.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:52 pm
well it's important to realize that everyone bases their views on some kind of value, no matter how consequentialist it is. it would be impossible to derive a stance on anything if we didn't.
Naturally. But I am not really sure where that take us. I am not irritated these guys just because they have values, am I?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 10, 2007 10:56 pm
I thought I made it clear that I was talking about a free-rider market failure. This has, I hope you will agree, a fairly objective and well-defined meaning.
Well hang on now. You want to discuss only a small aspect of market failure claiming it is completely objective (it probably is), but ignore other aspects of market failure, some of which are also objective (externalities). I am not sure how that is going to work.
Actually you are incorrect, I have discussed this very topic in a previous thread. If you really want to get into a philosphical discussion on the subject, start a new thread and I will repost my comments.If I am going to make philosophy threads, they can go in the philosophy forum. You aren't allowed there however, so I am sure we can continue that kind of discussion here.
The dogma is the standard marxist "property=theft" trope. What you are is irrelevant.Well Publius can tell us whether or not, that is what he meant, but that isn't actually much of a Marxist position anyway. "Property is theft!" comes from Proudhon and anarchism.

[Publius]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 10, 2007 10:56 pm




The dogma is the standard marxist "property=theft" trope. What you are is irrelevant.

Property, when not managed properly by society, can be a sort of theft. Certainly property that is taken by force is theft, right? Well, then all property in North America that isn't controlled by Native Americans is 'stolen'. When you get down to it, unless you are the direct descendant of a 'rightful' owner (not that I think descendence actually warrants such consideration), the property you are on probably was, in some sense, stolen.

I'm not a Marxist in that I think that some style of 'private property' (perhaps nothing like our current system, perhaps somethign very like it) could work, if it had the necessary democratic oversights. If 'private property' were made to be beneficial to society (as defined by society), then I could support it. But as it stands now, it's pretty clear that 'private property' is authoratarian and exclusive. One could call it theft.



Are all prohibitions costs?

In potential. A prohibition to do something costs me the ability to do that something, so yes, in that manner all prohibitions are costs.

The question is, is the cost of the prohibition greater or lesser than the gain?


More importantly, how can you be "cost" something you never possessed in the first place?

Very easily. To use an example, let's posit that Bush rigged the vote Florida. Now that might have 'cost' Kerry the election. It might not have. Bush might've won Florida anyway, and certainly Kerry never possessed the title 'President'. But it would legitimate to say that the hypothetical vote-rigging cost him the Presidency.



Do you mean this in the normative or positive sense?

I just mean what are rights. What does it mean to have a 'right to property' or a 'right to life'.



I would say yes, they are derived from the nature of man.

So it's human nature to have rights?



This, of course, begs the question of what is "beneficial."

Of course. And there are numerous methods for getting to the heart of that, all of them flawed, but essentially, in a democracy, 'beneficial' is what the people decide it is. This isn't perfect (as anyone who lives in a democracy can attest), but it can't really be argued. Values are created by society, for better or worse.

[pusher robot]

The question is, is the cost of the prohibition greater or lesser than the gain?


That is the question, if one is a utilitarian.

I can see where you are coming from with your definition of "cost," but applying that quickly leads to absurdity. We find, then, that my simply living is costing others the resources I consume to live. So, then, everyone is costing other people things costantly, and you have re-invented original sin.





Do you mean this in the normative or positive sense?

I just mean what are rights. What does it mean to have a 'right to property' or a 'right to life'.


Assuming normative: rights are prerogatives to do in a society a subset of things we can do in nature.


So it's human nature to have rights?
Yes.


Of course. And there are numerous methods for getting to the heart of that, all of them flawed, but essentially, in a democracy, 'beneficial' is what the people decide it is. This isn't perfect (as anyone who lives in a democracy can attest), but it can't really be argued. Values are created by society, for better or worse.

I disagree. Values are created by individuals, the only entities capable of creating them. Democracy is simply a process for measuring their popularity.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 11, 2007 07:30 pm
Assuming normative: rights are prerogatives to do in a society a subset of things we can do in nature.

And what precisely do you mean by this?

[Red Tung]

I can see where you are coming from with your definition of "cost," but applying that quickly leads to absurdity. We find, then, that my simply living is costing others the resources I consume to live. So, then, everyone is costing other people things costantly, and you have re-invented original sin.

Not necessarily. Assuming inputs in labour and resources can be proportionately distributed and also assuming the augmentation of simple human muscles by energy consuming machines to produce far more abundance in outputs than what was put in as inputs then "costing" is really the proportional distribution of what everyone has contributed to the output from their own labour and which now is far more in quantity than is necessary to satisfy everybody's needs (assuming they are actually needs though). The problem is everybody wants to be "special".

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 12, 2007 05:24 pm

I can see where you are coming from with your definition of "cost," but applying that quickly leads to absurdity. We find, then, that my simply living is costing others the resources I consume to live. So, then, everyone is costing other people things costantly, and you have re-invented original sin.

Not necessarily. Assuming inputs in labour and resources can be proportionately distributed and also assuming the augmentation of simple human muscles by energy consuming machines to produce far more abundance in outputs than what was put in as inputs then "costing" is really the proportional distribution of what everyone has contributed to the output from their own labour and which now is far more in quantity than is necessary to satisfy everybody's needs (assuming they are actually needs though). The problem is everybody wants to be "special".
Congratulations. By insisting that in the socialist community the "outputs" be greater than the "inputs," one is insisting that the goal of socialist production has to be to turn a "profit." I will discreetly avoid eye contact with any white flag raised.

As a proud OIer, I have often said that the socialist community will have to produce for profit, else it will not know how to allocate its resources (which includes labor) properly.

However, indeed the problem for the socialist community remains: Many people will think they are "special." What that problem really is, is that the "outputs" will not be arranged in a manner the socialist thinks best for the people. People may wish to drive fancy cars or wear fancy clothes and that is an innapropriate way to direct "outputs." What ths means is that the socialist needs to figure how to direct the "outputs" in a way more pleasing to itself, whle defending and advancing human freedom which is supposedly one of the pillars of socialism. Since it doesn't know how to do this, it substitutes attacks upon people's consumer choices. Knock out the half dozen types of laundry detergent, and the socialist community will function more rationally. But that still will not solve the problem for the socialist community, because the problem isn't that there are a half dozen types of laundry detergent in a capitalist community; the problem is that the people need and want the different types out there, and the socialist community is unable to figure how to allocate the "outputs" in such a way to justify the "inputs" and to deliver those goods to the people mor effectively than capitalism.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:55 pm
First of all, this obviously isn't aimed at all capitalists. Capitalists come in many varieties, and while all are wrong, not all are insane, however for obvious reasons, moderates aren't really attracted to Commie boards, so a lot of our resident restricted members are indeed ultra capitalists. So without further ado:

The nuts amongst us will complain fairly regularly about the concept of "positive rights". "Why should we have to pay for you?!" They cry whenever the concept of such outrageous things as educating children is brought up, "A right is only something nobody else has to pay for" they bzzarely claim. On this basis they claim only negative rights, in particular property rights are true rights.

Well using cappie logic, I ask you: why should I have to pay for your negative rights?

Protecting property is an expensive prospect. We need a police force, a curt system, a prison system etc. They same goes for protecting other negative rights. And who is paying for it? Well I am. Much of my taxes are paying for the protection of your property rights.

Given you claim that nobody should have to pay for anyone elses rights. Why should I have to pay for the protection of your property rights? And to stop you wiggling out of this, if I shouldn't, how should they be paid for?
The need for 'negative' property rights you speak of are as a rule of thumb generated by capitalism anyway. For example, social deprivation promotes criminality, which creates the 'need' for a police force and security measures. In a society with the opposite onus, the opportunities and motivations for crime would not exist.

[Tungsten]

For example, social deprivation promotes criminality,
Which might explain robberies, but nothing else.

In a society with the opposite onus, the opportunities and motivations for crime would not exist.
Assuming social deprivation is the cause of all crime, or even most crime, which it isn't.