next »

[Gnarf]

You're correct, in the sense that a moral principle is not something we can see, hear, smell or taste. And my case does rest on the moral principle that it is wrong for a person or group of people to take the product of another person's labor without his voluntary consent.

Furthermore, for one to hold this moral principle as true, one must hold it as being true for all people, otherwise it is just a preference, and carries no more weight than a preference for apples over oranges. Thus, as all governments are people, they are no more exempt from this, or any other moral principle, than are any other people.

Of course, you are free to disagree with any moral principle, or to reject morality altogether. But my argument is not directed towards people who reject morality, or who consciously reject the moral prohibition of theft. It is de facto geared towards those who think theft, as described above, is wrong in principle, but who maintain a contradictory belief that taxation is other than theft.

The point is that what is whose product of labour is not clear-cut. By extension, whether someone is stealing your shit or you're giving them what is theirs is debatable. There are plenty of points of views here.

There is no need to enforce property through the use of violence. One can be a pacifist and still work, produce and trade, while suffering robbers as most of us suffer the tax-collector.

But a person who defends his property from a would-be robber is defending his control over the use of his own faculties, body and mind, by which he produced what the robber is trying to take by force. There seems to be something innate in the human psyche that revolts against this kind of enslavement of the body and mind to the purposes of others. It is why most if not all people throughout history, in every part of the world, have regarded theft as immoral and criminal, and have resented the tax collector.

There's something innate in the human psyche that really likes to own stuff.

I don't really follow though. I mean, if you want to keep your property, and someone wants to take your property. Then violence it is. Yes you can give it away, but people doing that seems to be your problem with the current situation. So like, if the government is just a bunch of robbers, how do you deal with the government? How do you deal with robbers, following your rules? If you're not enforcing property through the use of violence then your property is only your property until someone else really wants it. It seems we really agree about that, but I dunno.

[GregWS]

There's something innate in the human psyche that really likes to own stuff.

Be careful about generalizations like this.

I totally used to agree with you, but then I took a general Anthropology course and we looked at some still surviving "primitive" cultures, and my view of what's common to humanity was significantly changed.  A lot of what we consider to be innate, is just that deeply ingrained into the majority of the world's dominant cultures.  There are still (though very few) isolated cultures that survive who are oblivious to the world at large and are happy continuing their simply way of life.  These people are still human, and by saying that things common in our culture are innate, we're effectively saying that these people "don't count" when talking about humanity as a whole, which is an obvious logical fallacy.  I think cultural conditioning plays an absolutely monumental role in what is innate to a person, so being raised in the West (and at first just existing inside our mothers, with her Western world happening around us) is incredibly significant.  If that's the behaviour we've considered "normal," then why wouldn't it seem completely normal to us, and, in a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of way, also lead to us "wanting to own stuff" too.

[Chris Whitman]

If we want to get technical: existentially, it's a bad idea to say that anything other than existence is innately human. It's usually a lot safer to say that these things are constitutive for our culture, and that's often the best you are going to be able to do.

[GregWS]

If we want to get technical: existentially, it's a bad idea to say that anything other than existence is innately human. It's usually a lot safer to say that these things are constitutive for our culture, and that's often the best you are going to be able to do.

That's exactly the page that I'm on.  I do think it is possible to make some overall statements about human culture in general (there are a few things, like incest taboos, that cross all cultures), but all cultures must be taken into account when looking at this.

[Chris Whitman]

Or our culture, if that's what you're dealing with, and that is usually just easier.

You don't need to talk about capitalism in relation to tribal cultures which exist independently from our economic structure unless you are discussing something which is relevant to them, like climate change or whatever. If I'm talking about my property rights as a person living in this society it is just fine to talk about this as being a critical element of our culture and leave it at that. You don't need to bring other cultures into it because they aren't relevant for this topic, and if we don't confine the topic we are discussing to some extent we will be here all day and never get anywhere, which is what is happening now.

[GregWS]

Or our culture, if that's what you're dealing with, and that is usually just easier.

You don't need to talk about capitalism in relation to tribal cultures which exist independently from our economic structure unless you are discussing something which is relevant to them, like climate change or whatever. If I'm talking about my property rights as a person living in this society it is just fine to talk about this as being a critical element of our culture and leave it at that. You don't need to bring other cultures into it because they aren't relevant for this topic, and if we don't confine the topic we are discussing to some extent we will be here all day and never get anywhere, which is what is happening now.

Oh, I wasn't talking about human generalizations in relation to your discussion here, more...in general. 

I agree with your point though. 

[dither]

I don't really follow though. I mean, if you want to keep your property, and someone wants to take your property. Then violence it is. Yes you can give it away, but people doing that seems to be your problem with the current situation. So like, if the government is just a bunch of robbers, how do you deal with the government? How do you deal with robbers, following your rules? If you're not enforcing property through the use of violence then your property is only your property until someone else really wants it. It seems we really agree about that, but I dunno.

I wouldn't make rules for how you have to deal with anyone. That's really a matter of your own ethics. If you're a Christian, for instance, Jesus prohibits even hating your enemies, much less killing them.

My understanding of property is not in the sense of a legal framework. Rather, it arises from recognizing two contradictory states:

1) Liberty - the free use of our faculties to pursue our own happiness
2) Slavery - when we are made, against our will, to serve the ends of others

Forget about "stuff", for a moment. Just think of labor, the use of your mind and body to create something of value. It could be giving someone a back rub, and in enchange that person gives you a haircut.

You give the person a back rub on the understanding that you're going to get a haircut, and, after you fulfill your end of the bargain, he runs away or, even worse, pulls a gun on you and makes you give a back rub to every member of his family.

What I'm saying is, this state of affairs would make any person upset (perhaps barring a masochist). Wouldn't you agree?

[Gnarf]

There's something innate in the human psyche that really likes to own stuff.

Be careful about generalizations like this.

Heh. That was not an awfully serious statement. It was just that "innate in the human psyche" sounded like bullshit to me, so I wanted to use it too But at least that one explains people robbing other people in addition to people not liking to be robbed.

I wouldn't make rules for how you have to deal with anyone. That's really a matter of your own ethics. If you're a Christian, for instance, Jesus prohibits even hating your enemies, much less killing them.

So, dealing with people, it'd be all right to, say, create a government? And I think this was brought up by someone earlier. But like, unless it's magical system where robbers can't exist, it seems you can just as well say that we already live in such a system. It's just not working very well. Turns out robbers take control.

Forget about "stuff", for a moment. Just think of labor, the use of your mind and body to create something of value. It could be giving someone a back rub, and in enchange that person gives you a haircut.

You give the person a back rub on the understanding that you're going to get a haircut, and, after you fulfill your end of the bargain, he runs away or, even worse, pulls a gun on you and makes you give a back rub to every member of his family.

What I'm saying is, this state of affairs would make any person upset (perhaps barring a masochist). Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, that would be upsetting. Now maybe if we had some sort of rules concerning dealing with other people...

It's not necessarily the other guy's fault though. You're likely to get upset if you give someone a back rub on the understanding that you're going to get a haircut and that understanding is unfounded.

[Corpus]

So, apparently Proposition 8 was passed.

What the fuck, guys.

[moi]

What the fuck, guys.

No fuck, guys.

[Neo1493]

Are you really suprised that prop 8 passed people voted for it the first time and won then the 4 judges shot it down then it came back and won again. By the way Iam for prop 8 mostly cuz I was scared by a gay at a young age.

[Corpus]

That isn't even a reason.

I was scared by a straight man at a young age, but I'm not going to vote to abolish marriage between a man and a woman any time soon.

[dither]

Heh. That was not an awfully serious statement. It was just that "innate in the human psyche" sounded like bullshit to me, so I wanted to use it too But at least that one explains people robbing other people in addition to people not liking to be robbed.

Haha. Well, the way I phrased it is probably not scientifically accurate, but I wouldn't quite say the sentiment is bullshit. I mean, it seems like anywhere people co-exist, slavery and expropriation are looked upon negatively by those on the receiving end. Even if you found some primitive tribe that was cut off from the rest of the world, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate you marching right in and taking their food, or forcing them to build a pyramid for you.

So, dealing with people, it'd be all right to, say, create a government? And I think this was brought up by someone earlier. But like, unless it's magical system where robbers can't exist, it seems you can just as well say that we already live in such a system. It's just not working very well. Turns out robbers take control.

I was trying to say that just because the robbers take control, doesn't negate the fact that people create property, and desire to keep the fruits of their labors, and to pursue their own happiness.

Of course, we all have free will, and some people will use their free will to deny others the fruits of their labors. I think that's pretty rotten, even when it's called "government".

And, again, we didn't create the government. That's civics-textbook propaganda. Did you sign a contract? The signatories to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution didn't have some divine authority over us, or anyone but themselves. And even then, it's not like they were agreeing to take personal responsibility for anything the government would actually do. Who is personally responsible, in a legal sense, when the government commits some injustice? It's not a legitimate contract. It's just an abstraction for people to hide behind when they want to plunder or enslave or kill others.

Yes, that would be upsetting. Now maybe if we had some sort of rules concerning dealing with other people...

You can only rule over yourself. I mean, experience has proven that laws and governments don't work. There is no "rule of law", only rule of men. In a real sense, this is anarchy. The government starts a war of aggression that results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deaths, and nobody is held accountable by the "system". Where are these rules governing how we deal with other people?

It's not necessarily the other guy's fault though. You're likely to get upset if you give someone a back rub on the understanding that you're going to get a haircut and that understanding is unfounded.

I thought it was implicit that there was some kind of verbal agreement, if not a written contract. Absent either of those, yes, you couldn't expect anything in return.

[Derek]

One of the (many) sad things about Prop 8 passing was that a large majority of African Americans voted for it.

[Valter]

The really shitty thing is that it doesn't even just ban gay marriages in California, it dissolves any marriages that happened while it was legal. Guess it's time to move to Boston?

I'm not gay, but I'm not going to start telling gay people how they should live their lives. I had figured that America was the home of the free, not the Xenophobes.

[moi]

One of the (many) sad things about Prop 8 passing was that a large majority of African Americans voted for it.

This comment is a bit racist, african americans are allowed to have various opinions.
even though they know how it feels to be in a minority, doesn't make them forced to vote all like one man.

[Bree]

That makes a sad heterosexual panda. I'm also not gay, but saying that they don't have a right to marry is a direct violation of human rights.

[Gnarf]

Shit! You guys are straight!? I've no idea why you're saying that right now! High five!

By the way Iam for prop 8 mostly cuz I was scared by a gay at a young age.

Hahahaha. Are you by any chance not homophobic, just afraid of gays?



And I'll quote, uh, this bit:

You can only rule over yourself. I mean, experience has proven that laws and governments don't work. There is no "rule of law", only rule of men. In a real sense, this is anarchy. The government starts a war of aggression that results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deaths, and nobody is held accountable by the "system". Where are these rules governing how we deal with other people?

There. And I'll try to be super-to-the-point. I agree that there are no "real" rules and so on. The government's rules is the government's rules enforced by the government through the use of violence.

What I don't get is this: Are you suggesting, as an alternative, to have no government and no rules? Because the government is, uh, wrong (breaking the rules?)? If so, could not governments and such exist within that system, since everyone would be following their own rules? (and, you know, if we're going by what experience "proves", we do seem to end up with governments most of the time)

Or are you just saying that a lot of things are kind of bad these days and it'd nicer if things were nice or something? : |

[Derek]

One of the (many) sad things about Prop 8 passing was that a large majority of African Americans voted for it.

This comment is a bit racist, african americans are allowed to have various opinions.
even though they know how it feels to be in a minority, doesn't make them forced to vote all like one man.

I should clarify... it's sad to me that while most African Americans were helping to vote in the United States' first black president, a large majority of them (in California) were simultaneously voting to take away the rights of gays.  With plenty of other people of different colors, of course.  I just thought it was kind of tragic, in an ironic way.

But I think I see what you're saying, so I'll step back and say it was generally just a sad result.  With the economy going badly, and the war still going on, I can't understand why anyone would care what other human being a human being wanted to marry.

[Zaphos]

From rinku's blog: