12 ms·

>Yes, I'd prefer people be thrown in prison for refusing to feed the starving, rather than them starving to death. So I guess you won't complain when some self

by aminok 10y ago

>Yes, I'd prefer people be thrown in prison for refusing to feed the starving, rather than them starving to death. So I guess you won't complain when some self-righteous modern-day Robin Hood engages in armed robbery against you to feed children in an orphanage in Africa. And if you resist? Well, the consequences fall on you. Who are you to deny others who are in need your income. That actions that are unconscionable by any normal moral standard suddenly become socially acceptable to endorse when done through the political process shows how detached political ideology has become from humanity/morality. The political ideology you endorse is sociopathic and narcissistic to the extreme.

aninhumer 10y ago
>So I guess you won't complain when some self-righteous modern-day Robin Hood engages in armed robbery against you to feed children in an orphanage in Africa. An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain. A world-spanning democratic process? Well, it's hard to know if I would truly be willing to give up the standard of living that I'm used to, but in principle I would happy to do so if it would lift the entire world out of relative poverty. >That actions that are unconscionable by any normal moral standard suddenly become socially acceptable to endorse when done through the political process shows how detached political ideology has become from humanity/morality. Actions on behalf of a democratic system are different to actions of an individual, because they have the consent of a majority of the governed. How do you intend that property rights be enforced? Who decides who owns what, and what gives them the right to make that decision? Would it be acceptable for an individual who disagrees (i.e. doesn't consent) to take action on their own to reallocate property as they see fit?
- aminok 10y ago
  >An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain. Morally there's no difference. You just want the armed robbery to be done in a more organized and deliberative process. That doesn't change the moral quality of threatening you with violence to deprive you of your property, when you have not committed any offence to warrant such a violation of your rights. >Actions on behalf of a democratic system are different to actions of an individual, because they have the consent of a majority of the governed. Violating people's rights with the "consent of the majority" is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. The justification is just an ideological cover for violating others rights. >How do you intend that property rights be enforced? Who decides who owns what, and what gives them the right to make that decision? Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights (including the right to not be robbed to provide for the poor), determining who owns what. >Would it be acceptable for an individual who disagrees (i.e. doesn't consent) to take action on their own to reallocate property as they see fit? I don't know, because there are many factors to consider. If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner. The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights ..., determining who owns what. And how exactly do they determine that? What happens when people disagree about ownership? What makes the government's decisions more valid than the individuals'? >If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner. So it's okay to ignore property rights if enforcing them would cause harm? >The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists. And what will this achieve? What mechanism is there for government to recognise and rectify its mistake? >is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. As opposed to two wolves agreeing that they own the grass, and enforcing that until the sheep dies. Power imbalances will always enable abuse, but democracy at least ensures that the power imbalance benefits more people than it harms.
    - aminok 10y ago
      >And how exactly do they determine that? You want me to explain the entire body of common law? What is the point of this line of questioning? Are you trying to demonstrate that everything is subjective, and thus that justice doesn't exist in any objective sense, meaning it's okay for you to use violence against peaceful people to force them to act charitably? >What happens when people disagree about ownership? The same thing that happens now when people disagree with a legal ruling. What are you expecting me to offer as an alternative? Utopia? Perfect justice? >So it's okay to ignore property rights if enforcing them would cause harm? When did I say it's okay to ignore property rights? I said it's okay to not physically resist the legal ruling, given it will lead to civil strife, without providing the desired security of private property (given government is nearly impossible to resist by force). >And what will this achieve? What mechanism is there for government to recognise and rectify its mistake? I'm not talking about rectifying mistakes in specific rulings. I'm talking about rectifying mistakes in larger policy. I'm talking about persuading society to abandon principles that legitimize robbing people of their essential human rights, like their private property and privacy rights, in the name of helping the poor, or achieving some other social objective. I believe that most people share a common understanding of what legitimate property rights are, and share a belief that forcing someone to surrender their private property rights is wrong, and I believe that is is only the layers of ideological indoctrination that people are subjected to, and the obfuscating complexity of modern societies, that leads them to support government policy that endorses violating people's rights. Consequently I believe explaining the injustice of said policies will lead to people dropping their support for the policies, and adopting positions that are in my opinion more just. >As opposed to two wolves agreeing that they own the grass, and enforcing that until the sheep dies This is not about a plot of land, that was there from before man's ascent. This is about two people engaging in a private trade, and a third party claiming ownership over a share of the movable property traded, on account of some contrived ideology that attempts to rationalize theft.

by aminok 10y ago

aninhumer 10y ago

>So I guess you won't complain when some self-righteous modern-day Robin Hood engages in armed robbery against you to feed children in an orphanage in Africa. An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain. A world-spanning democratic process? Well, it's hard to know if I would truly be willing to give up the standard of living that I'm used to, but in principle I would happy to do so if it would lift the entire world out of relative poverty. >That actions that are unconscionable by any normal moral standard suddenly become socially acceptable to endorse when done through the political process shows how detached political ideology has become from humanity/morality. Actions on behalf of a democratic system are different to actions of an individual, because they have the consent of a majority of the governed. How do you intend that property rights be enforced? Who decides who owns what, and what gives them the right to make that decision? Would it be acceptable for an individual who disagrees (i.e. doesn't consent) to take action on their own to reallocate property as they see fit?

aminok 10y ago
>An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain. Morally there's no difference. You just want the armed robbery to be done in a more organized and deliberative process. That doesn't change the moral quality of threatening you with violence to deprive you of your property, when you have not committed any offence to warrant such a violation of your rights. >Actions on behalf of a democratic system are different to actions of an individual, because they have the consent of a majority of the governed. Violating people's rights with the "consent of the majority" is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. The justification is just an ideological cover for violating others rights. >How do you intend that property rights be enforced? Who decides who owns what, and what gives them the right to make that decision? Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights (including the right to not be robbed to provide for the poor), determining who owns what. >Would it be acceptable for an individual who disagrees (i.e. doesn't consent) to take action on their own to reallocate property as they see fit? I don't know, because there are many factors to consider. If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner. The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights ..., determining who owns what. And how exactly do they determine that? What happens when people disagree about ownership? What makes the government's decisions more valid than the individuals'? >If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner. So it's okay to ignore property rights if enforcing them would cause harm? >The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists. And what will this achieve? What mechanism is there for government to recognise and rectify its mistake? >is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. As opposed to two wolves agreeing that they own the grass, and enforcing that until the sheep dies. Power imbalances will always enable abuse, but democracy at least ensures that the power imbalance benefits more people than it harms.
  - aminok 10y ago
    >And how exactly do they determine that? You want me to explain the entire body of common law? What is the point of this line of questioning? Are you trying to demonstrate that everything is subjective, and thus that justice doesn't exist in any objective sense, meaning it's okay for you to use violence against peaceful people to force them to act charitably? >What happens when people disagree about ownership? The same thing that happens now when people disagree with a legal ruling. What are you expecting me to offer as an alternative? Utopia? Perfect justice? >So it's okay to ignore property rights if enforcing them would cause harm? When did I say it's okay to ignore property rights? I said it's okay to not physically resist the legal ruling, given it will lead to civil strife, without providing the desired security of private property (given government is nearly impossible to resist by force). >And what will this achieve? What mechanism is there for government to recognise and rectify its mistake? I'm not talking about rectifying mistakes in specific rulings. I'm talking about rectifying mistakes in larger policy. I'm talking about persuading society to abandon principles that legitimize robbing people of their essential human rights, like their private property and privacy rights, in the name of helping the poor, or achieving some other social objective. I believe that most people share a common understanding of what legitimate property rights are, and share a belief that forcing someone to surrender their private property rights is wrong, and I believe that is is only the layers of ideological indoctrination that people are subjected to, and the obfuscating complexity of modern societies, that leads them to support government policy that endorses violating people's rights. Consequently I believe explaining the injustice of said policies will lead to people dropping their support for the policies, and adopting positions that are in my opinion more just. >As opposed to two wolves agreeing that they own the grass, and enforcing that until the sheep dies This is not about a plot of land, that was there from before man's ascent. This is about two people engaging in a private trade, and a third party claiming ownership over a share of the movable property traded, on account of some contrived ideology that attempts to rationalize theft.