3 ms·
With whatever parties happen to be involved. No one knows, because those circumstances don't currently exist anywhere on the planet.
by sukulaku 11y ago
With whatever parties happen to be involved. No one knows, because those circumstances don't currently exist anywhere on the planet.
- aninhumer 11y agoIf you're talking about the environment, then everyone is involved. And we have a name for contractual agreements with everyone in a society. We call them "laws".
- sukulaku 11y ago> And we have a name for contractual agreements with everyone in a society. We call them "laws". Except that no one asked us if we agreed. Without mutual agreement, there is no contract. In reality, laws are commands that we're punished for disobeying. Tell me, what's the practical difference between getting punished for disobeying a King's or Emperor's law, and getting punished for disobeying a law written by politicians or bureaucrats somewhere? Then there's the problem that governments don't actually adhere to their own laws anyway. NSA's surveillance is unconstitutional. That's not a problem for them, but if you disobey laws, you will be punished one way or another. Who do you think you're kidding?
- aninhumer 11y ago>Except that no one asked us if we agreed. And in your world, no one asks if we agree to property rights.
- sukulaku 11y agoI'm sure you can distinguish between contracts and rights, so what exactly are you on about?
- aninhumer 11y agoNo one asks people in your society if they agree to a system of property, you just lock them up if they try to use resources they don't "own". And calling them "rights" instead of "laws" doesn't make following them voluntary.
- sukulaku 11y agoYou know laws are something written by rulers, and you know morals are not. Punishing people for not adhering to a particular law is not necessarily morally legitimate. Smoking weed is a prime example. You know those concepts are different, so you're intentionally conflating things, which means you're a troll/sophist.
- aninhumer 11y agoEconomic systems are not inherently morally good or bad, that depends on their beneficial or harmful outcomes. It may be the case that a system of pure property would lead to the best outcomes, but if so you need to actually argue that. Putting your preferred rules on a pedestal by calling them "rights" and refusing to engage with criticism is not an argument.
- tankenmate 11y agoThe law of Torts...