5 ms·

Define it or call it whatever you want. But when it comes down to it, you are forcing someone to surrender their property under the threat of violent force. Tha

by pitaj 10y ago

Define it or call it whatever you want. But when it comes down to it, you are forcing someone to surrender their property under the threat of violent force. That is never deemed just when it occurs between normal people.

ajkjk 10y ago
Fortunately we're not talking about normal people, and the rules are different. If you keep using your simplistic, incorrect model of theft, you'll keep coming to incorrect conclusions about the world.
- pitaj 10y ago
  So the government is not made of normal people? Is the USA run by lizards or something? Seriously, this is some of the craziest doublethink imaginable. Something is not made just just because the majority say so, or just because the state says so. There are unjust laws.
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    There's a delight in arguing with someone who understands the commonly accepted positions and can speak to the subtleties and errors in them. This is the opposite: you seem utterly incapable of understanding basic, well-known positions, and you imagine I am delusional (lizards? really?) when your comprehension fails you. The state as a concept is not the same as a normal person, obviously. It is subject to different rules. Something is made just because the governing system that the people have agreed to says it is just. That's the theory that our system of government operates under. You don't have to like that, but you're ignorant if you just say it's false without going and doing some learning. I am also wondering if you know what a 'law' is and how it differs from 'the text of the constitution'.
    - aminok 10y ago
      >It is subject to different rules. A person acting under the auspices of a state has no right to violate human rights. A state is merely a human construct. No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights.
      - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
        > No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights Human rights are a human construct. Moreover, they only make sense within the context of social contract which only becomes practical when enforced by a government.
        aminok 10y ago
        They're not a conditional construct. They are by definition universal. When something is a human right, we consider it to be an inalienable right that no party has a right to violate. And 'social contract' is double speak. It's an attempt to misappropriate the concept of a contract to confer moral legitimacy to majority dictates.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Something is made just because the governing system that the people have agreed to says it is just. That's not an accepted definition in most of the world, including the US, which accepts stuff like the UDHR. We in the West consider many States unjust if we consider that they violate human rights, even if their population supports that.
- aminok 10y ago
  The point he's making is that it is immoral for the same reason theft is. Whether it meets the full technical definition of theft is beside the point. Most people view theft as wrong because it takes someone's property from them by force, not because it's illegal.
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    That's fine, but when you get the concepts of 'government' and 'social contract' involved, you have be willing to revise that assessment. You don't get to both 'give away a freedom to the government via the social contract in exchange for protection of your other freedoms' and then also say "hey, it's immoral to not have this freedom; Give it back!". It's one or the other.
    - aminok 10y ago
      A social contract is not a real contract. In fact, it is in some aspects exactly the opposite of a contract. The term is extremely misleading, and basically invented for propaganda purposes. A group of people calling themselves the government and creating ideological constructs like "social contract" are still committing a human rights violation when they throw someone in prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade.
    - dnautics 10y ago
      It's funny how people say that the social contract is the price we pay for an ordered society... But no one says, you know, it's okay to choke an unarmed man to death for selling loose cigarettes because that's part of the social contract and necessary for 'keeping order'.
      - ajkjk 10y ago
        What's your point?
    - icebraining 10y ago
      You don't get to both 'give away a freedom to the government via the social contract in exchange for protection of your other freedoms' and then also say "hey, it's immoral to not have this freedom; Give it back!". It's one or the other. Hum, the whole point of anarchism is that they don't even recognize the first as valid, let alone wanting both.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> That is never deemed just when it occurs between normal people Yes it is. If I lend you $10 and you refuse to pay it back, it is generally deemed "morally okay" for me to be mean about it. Courts, and by extension, police enforcement of court rulings are that principle writ large. The whole concept of ownership is based on social contract. What is "mine" versus "yours" arises from that contract. Theft, because it is rooted in ownership, is thus a relative construct.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  > The whole concept of ownership is based on social contract Except a social contract is not a contract at all. There's no offer, no acceptance, no consideration, no capacity to contract, etc. > Theft, because it is rooted in ownership, is thus a relative construct I don't disagree here. But I'd like to see the social contract be an actual contract that you opt-into. Specifically, one that can be arbitrated on and dissolved upon violating terms of the agreement. Of course there's a million reasons why people would disagree with that statement. Which is fine, but let's not pretend the government and governed have a voluntary relationship established in some sort of contract.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > Except a social contract is not a contract at all Fine, don't call it a social contract. Call it a foo. People, collectively wielding more power than any individual, agreed on a set of rules that make collective life better (in the view of those people). These rules are the foo. If you are in the geography where these people, your fellow citizens, have power then you must follow the foo or face consequences. If you don't like the foo, you can leave. > I'd like to see the social contract be an actual contract that you opt-into How would you propose enforcing laws? The U.S. Constitution and its ensuing legal corpus is the law of the land. If you don't like it, you can "opt out" by leaving.
    - smokeyj 10y ago
      > Fine, don't call it a social contract. Are you saying that because you agree? Because that was the only point I was making.. We can all agree that gangs, mafias and cartels have collective power and use the threat of force to govern territories. The distinction we're making is whether these cartels constitute a "legitimate" government - whatever that means. I think legitimacy should be measured by consent (crazy idea I know), and that not leaving a territory doesn't constitute consent. Mexican families living in cartel-land do not give consent because they're too poor to leave. Because a said cartel provides "protection" from other cartels does not mean a service was provided. I'm just asking people reason about government in principle, rather than in terms of what they think a government should be.

by pitaj 10y ago

ajkjk 10y ago

Fortunately we're not talking about normal people, and the rules are different. If you keep using your simplistic, incorrect model of theft, you'll keep coming to incorrect conclusions about the world.

pitaj 10y ago
So the government is not made of normal people? Is the USA run by lizards or something? Seriously, this is some of the craziest doublethink imaginable. Something is not made just just because the majority say so, or just because the state says so. There are unjust laws.
- ajkjk 10y ago
  There's a delight in arguing with someone who understands the commonly accepted positions and can speak to the subtleties and errors in them. This is the opposite: you seem utterly incapable of understanding basic, well-known positions, and you imagine I am delusional (lizards? really?) when your comprehension fails you. The state as a concept is not the same as a normal person, obviously. It is subject to different rules. Something is made just because the governing system that the people have agreed to says it is just. That's the theory that our system of government operates under. You don't have to like that, but you're ignorant if you just say it's false without going and doing some learning. I am also wondering if you know what a 'law' is and how it differs from 'the text of the constitution'.
  - aminok 10y ago
    >It is subject to different rules. A person acting under the auspices of a state has no right to violate human rights. A state is merely a human construct. No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      > No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights Human rights are a human construct. Moreover, they only make sense within the context of social contract which only becomes practical when enforced by a government.
      - aminok 10y ago
        They're not a conditional construct. They are by definition universal. When something is a human right, we consider it to be an inalienable right that no party has a right to violate. And 'social contract' is double speak. It's an attempt to misappropriate the concept of a contract to confer moral legitimacy to majority dictates.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Something is made just because the governing system that the people have agreed to says it is just. That's not an accepted definition in most of the world, including the US, which accepts stuff like the UDHR. We in the West consider many States unjust if we consider that they violate human rights, even if their population supports that.
aminok 10y ago
The point he's making is that it is immoral for the same reason theft is. Whether it meets the full technical definition of theft is beside the point. Most people view theft as wrong because it takes someone's property from them by force, not because it's illegal.
- ajkjk 10y ago
  That's fine, but when you get the concepts of 'government' and 'social contract' involved, you have be willing to revise that assessment. You don't get to both 'give away a freedom to the government via the social contract in exchange for protection of your other freedoms' and then also say "hey, it's immoral to not have this freedom; Give it back!". It's one or the other.
  - aminok 10y ago
    A social contract is not a real contract. In fact, it is in some aspects exactly the opposite of a contract. The term is extremely misleading, and basically invented for propaganda purposes. A group of people calling themselves the government and creating ideological constructs like "social contract" are still committing a human rights violation when they throw someone in prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade.
  - dnautics 10y ago
    It's funny how people say that the social contract is the price we pay for an ordered society... But no one says, you know, it's okay to choke an unarmed man to death for selling loose cigarettes because that's part of the social contract and necessary for 'keeping order'.
    - ajkjk 10y ago
      What's your point?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    You don't get to both 'give away a freedom to the government via the social contract in exchange for protection of your other freedoms' and then also say "hey, it's immoral to not have this freedom; Give it back!". It's one or the other. Hum, the whole point of anarchism is that they don't even recognize the first as valid, let alone wanting both.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> That is never deemed just when it occurs between normal people Yes it is. If I lend you $10 and you refuse to pay it back, it is generally deemed "morally okay" for me to be mean about it. Courts, and by extension, police enforcement of court rulings are that principle writ large. The whole concept of ownership is based on social contract. What is "mine" versus "yours" arises from that contract. Theft, because it is rooted in ownership, is thus a relative construct.

smokeyj 10y ago
> The whole concept of ownership is based on social contract Except a social contract is not a contract at all. There's no offer, no acceptance, no consideration, no capacity to contract, etc. > Theft, because it is rooted in ownership, is thus a relative construct I don't disagree here. But I'd like to see the social contract be an actual contract that you opt-into. Specifically, one that can be arbitrated on and dissolved upon violating terms of the agreement. Of course there's a million reasons why people would disagree with that statement. Which is fine, but let's not pretend the government and governed have a voluntary relationship established in some sort of contract.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > Except a social contract is not a contract at all Fine, don't call it a social contract. Call it a foo. People, collectively wielding more power than any individual, agreed on a set of rules that make collective life better (in the view of those people). These rules are the foo. If you are in the geography where these people, your fellow citizens, have power then you must follow the foo or face consequences. If you don't like the foo, you can leave. > I'd like to see the social contract be an actual contract that you opt-into How would you propose enforcing laws? The U.S. Constitution and its ensuing legal corpus is the law of the land. If you don't like it, you can "opt out" by leaving.
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    > Fine, don't call it a social contract. Are you saying that because you agree? Because that was the only point I was making.. We can all agree that gangs, mafias and cartels have collective power and use the threat of force to govern territories. The distinction we're making is whether these cartels constitute a "legitimate" government - whatever that means. I think legitimacy should be measured by consent (crazy idea I know), and that not leaving a territory doesn't constitute consent. Mexican families living in cartel-land do not give consent because they're too poor to leave. Because a said cartel provides "protection" from other cartels does not mean a service was provided. I'm just asking people reason about government in principle, rather than in terms of what they think a government should be.