 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » What is a Right?... |
|
Page 7 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Demon Buddha... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
*Anarcissie* wrote:
[quote]
That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious
reasons, because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs.
[/quote]
Well put. Everyone on the planet is a "person of faith". It is in the
nature of things that we must have faith in something, even if only the
five senses born to us. To have no faith in those would necessitate
death. We simply could not function even on a minimal level. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Demon Buddha wrote
[quote]Anarcissie wrote
That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious reasons,
[/quote]
Nope, quite a few dont anymore.
[quote]because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs.
[/quote]
Wrong again, perfectly possible to proceed based on what has been
established using rigorous science and just recognise that there are
still plenty of areas where our knowledge is still very limited.
[quote]Well put.
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]Everyone on the planet is a "person of faith".
[/quote]
Only in the silliest sense that some have a faith in the value of rigorous science etc.
[quote]It is in the nature of things that we must have faith in something, even if only the five senses born to us.
[/quote]
You dont even need a faith in those, you can have enough of a clue to
test what those senses appear to be suggesting and check if its misleading,
particularly when the consequences of being misled are very serious.
[quote]To have no faith in those would necessitate death.
[/quote]
Mindlessly silly.
[quote]We simply could not function even on a minimal level.
[/quote]
Even sillier. Nothing to stop you being skeptical about what
your senses appear to be telling you etc when it matters. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
24 Oct 2009 16:00:30 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge said:
[quote]Without including a meaning for "moral" and explaining how moral is
determined from immoral, your statement is noithing...
[/quote]
========
On 24 Oct 2009 17:16(PDT), Immortalist said about:
Re: What is a Right?
[quote]On Oct 24, 4:44=A0pm, Michael Gordge wrote:
Try 100 words or less and try even harder to make them your own.
Why?
[/quote]
Common sense.
My First Rule of writing is something like:
Nobody is as interested in my own words as I am.
And for "words" we can substitute concepts, ideas,
hobbies, interests, body, and so forth.
You essay started off well, then got bogged down
in angel-on-a-pin counting. A 3-line simple
question rarely dictates such a long answer, largely
because that's prolly not the answer that was being
seeked. Again, see First Rule.
Personnally about half-way thru, my mind started wandering
but I continued slogging thru in hopes that that your
good intro would be matched by a good final payoff.
Pay my dues. Perhaps due to my mind wandering, I
found no such payoff. Yes, I was doing a cost-benifit
analysis, time as a cost. Again, see First Rule.
Loquaciousness and garrulousness are rarely self-assigned
characteristics.
Michael Gordge said:
[quote]Without including a meaning for "moral" and ...
[/quote]
I'da said: read a dictionary.
That's about what you said, isn't it?
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge said
about:
Re: What is a Right?
[quote]On Oct 25, 9:16=A0am, Immortalist wrote:
OK how does Ayn Rand define "moral"?
Rand is not the subject, strawman, the subject is your unsubstaniated
arbitrary claim that a right is a moral claim, which means absolutely
nothing until you explain what you mean by moral claim and how you
determine a moral claim from an immoral claim. > MG
[/quote]
"what you mean by moral claim"
Huh!?
Last time I looked, those are commonly understood
words. An adjective describing a noun.
What's the problem?
Until you can expalin why the dictionary and
common sense/assumptions won't work, your request seems
to be a red herring or diversion. If you now
ask me to define "common sense," then Immortalist
wins, since he predicted that, and predefeated it.
So why the red herring? Are you more into lip-flapping
and disruption than exchanging ideas?
Or am I missing something?
=================
Quick definitions (moral)
? noun: the significance of a story or event ("The moral of the
story is to love thy neighbor")
? adjective: concerned with principles of right and wrong or
conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those
principles ("Moral sense")
? adjective: psychological rather than physical or tangible in
effect ("A moral victory")
? adjective: arising from the sense of right and wrong ("A moral
obligation")
? adjective: relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to
morals or ethics ("Moral philosophy")
? adjective: adhering to ethical and moral principles ("Had the
moral courage to stand alone")
==============
Quick definitions (claim)
? noun: demand for something as rightful or due ("They struck in
support of their claim for a shorter work day")
? noun: an informal right to something ("His claim on her
attentions")
? noun: an assertion of a right (as to money or property) ("His
claim asked for damages")
? noun: an assertion that something is true or factual ("His
claim that he was innocent")
? noun: an established or recognized right ("A strong legal
claim to the property")
? noun: a demand especially in the phrase "the call of duty"
? verb: demand as being one's due or property; assert one's
right or title to ("He claimed his suitcases at the airline
counter")
? verb: take as an undesirable consequence of some event or
state of affairs ("The accident claimed three lives")
? verb: assert or affirm strongly; state to be true or existing
("He claimed that he killed the burglar")
? verb: lay claim to; as of an idea
? verb: ask for legally or make a legal claim to, as of debts,
for example ("They claimed on the maximum allowable amount")
==============
moral: Cambridge Dictionary of American English
relating to standards of good behavior, honesty, and fair
dealing, or showing high standards of this type
a highly moral man
It's her moral obligation to tell the police what she knows.
morals
[Show phonetics]
plural noun
standards for good or bad character and behavior
a man of low morals
morality
[Show phonetics]
noun [C/U]
a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior
and character, or the quality of being right and honest
Technology is neutral -- its morality is determined by its
political or social use.
morally
[Show phonetics]
adverb
considered from a moral position
morally wrong
If you act morally, you act in a way that you or people in
general consider to be right, honest, or acceptable.
moral
[Show phonetics]
noun [C]
a message about how people should or should not behave, contained
in a story, event, or experience
The moral of the story is that honesty is the best policy.
moralistic
[Show phonetics]
adjective
involved with judging other people's morals and telling them how
to behave
American foreign policy had been rigidly moralistic.
moralize
[Show phonetics]
verb [I]
DISAPPROVING
to make judgments about right and wrong, esp. in a way that does
not consider other people's ideas or opinions
A good teacher manages to educate without moralizing.
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 1:24 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 6:19 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
acting?
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question. The socially constructed
framework I describe attributes no 'rights' to individuals. It simply
articulates what in some traditions would be called Right Action. So,
if members of the community follow the rule "Thou shalt not kill.",
and the rule "Give of your wealth that your sick neighbor may be
cured.", and so on, what possible use is the idea of 'a right to
life'? This just seems like something that property-arians find
appealing; something that they can 'own'.
If people enjoy dealing with the world through property
relations and property-like entities, then that is "use" --
utility -- to them. It's a way of thinking about things. If
the tribal traditions prescribe that you can cut down and
use one tree from the tribal preserve per month, you can
construe that in a variety of more or less equivalent ways,
one of which is "owning" the right to one tree per month.
Perhaps the tribal traditions also prescribe that the
entitlement to one tree per month can be transferred
to another, so now you can "sell" or "give" the right to
someone. It's just a way of thinking and talking about
the situation.
Yes, and now you've set up a State with control of resources. I've
stipulated several times that 'rights' *are* meaningful when they are
part of such a legal system, with the enforcement capacity of a State
or State-like entity.
I don't see any necessary state, unless you're using
the term very, very broadly. A set of traditional beliefs
about how things should be done, enforced by the
people in general does not strike me as a state.
How is the 'tribal preserve' different from a State? Clearly, the
tribe controls the trees and excludes non-tribe members from using
them. Clearly, there is scarcity, otherwise why would there be a
limit on cutting?
[/quote]
No ruling class.
[quote]Your problem is to demonstrate the meaning of 'the right to cut trees'
when there are more than enough trees. That's my point below. Your
response doesn't address that either.
[/quote]
I don't see any logical relation between the supply of
trees and the right to cut trees. There is a nearly
infinite supply of hot air, yet the right of free speech is
often bitterly contested. In the U.S., for example, if I
make a speech which is pretty much like someone
else's speech, I may well be punished as a violator
of copyright or a plagiarist. Some jurisdictions are
even more repressive. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 1:36 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Demon Buddha wrote
Anarcissie wrote
That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious reasons,
Nope, quite a few dont anymore.
because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs.
Wrong again, perfectly possible to proceed based on what has been
established using rigorous science and just recognise that there are
still plenty of areas where our knowledge is still very limited.
Well put.
Nope.
Everyone on the planet is a "person of faith".
Only in the silliest sense that some have a faith in the value of rigorous science etc.
It is in the nature of things that we must have faith in something, even if only the five senses born to us.
You dont even need a faith in those, you can have enough of a clue to
test what those senses appear to be suggesting and check if its misleading,
particularly when the consequences of being misled are very serious.
To have no faith in those would necessitate death.
Mindlessly silly.
We simply could not function even on a minimal level.
Even sillier. Nothing to stop you being skeptical about what
your senses appear to be telling you etc when it matters.
[/quote]
No one said anything about not being skeptical. You
still have to proceed on a basis of guesswork and
assumption in a universe which is largely unknown to
you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
*Anarcissie* wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 1:24 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:19 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
acting?
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question. The socially
constructed framework I describe attributes no 'rights' to
individuals. It simply articulates what in some traditions would
be called Right Action. So, if members of the community follow
the rule "Thou shalt not kill.", and the rule "Give of your
wealth that your sick neighbor may be cured.", and so on, what
possible use is the idea of 'a right to life'? This just seems
like something that property-arians find appealing; something
that they can 'own'.
If people enjoy dealing with the world through property
relations and property-like entities, then that is "use" --
utility -- to them. It's a way of thinking about things. If
the tribal traditions prescribe that you can cut down and
use one tree from the tribal preserve per month, you can
construe that in a variety of more or less equivalent ways,
one of which is "owning" the right to one tree per month.
Perhaps the tribal traditions also prescribe that the
entitlement to one tree per month can be transferred
to another, so now you can "sell" or "give" the right to
someone. It's just a way of thinking and talking about
the situation.
Yes, and now you've set up a State with control of resources. I've
stipulated several times that 'rights' *are* meaningful when they
are part of such a legal system, with the enforcement capacity of
a State or State-like entity.
I don't see any necessary state, unless you're using
the term very, very broadly. A set of traditional beliefs
about how things should be done, enforced by the
people in general does not strike me as a state.
How is the 'tribal preserve' different from a State? Clearly, the
tribe controls the trees and excludes non-tribe members from using
them. Clearly, there is scarcity, otherwise why would there be a
limit on cutting?
No ruling class.
Your problem is to demonstrate the meaning of 'the right to cut
trees' when there are more than enough trees. That's my point below.
Your response doesn't address that either.
I don't see any logical relation between the supply of
trees and the right to cut trees. There is a nearly
infinite supply of hot air, yet the right of free speech is
often bitterly contested.
In the U.S., for example, if I make a speech which is pretty much like someone
else's speech, I may well be punished as a violator of copyright or a plagiarist.
[/quote]
That is just plain wrong. It has to be exactly the same before you have any legal problem.
[quote]Some jurisdictions are even more repressive.
[/quote]
And some where copyright is flouted with complete impunity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Demon Buddha wrote
Anarcissie wrote
That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious reasons,
Nope, quite a few dont anymore.
because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs.
Wrong again, perfectly possible to proceed based on what has been
established using rigorous science and just recognise that there are
still plenty of areas where our knowledge is still very limited.
Well put.
Nope.
Everyone on the planet is a "person of faith".
Only in the silliest sense that some have a faith in the value of rigorous science etc.
It is in the nature of things that we must have faith
in something, even if only the five senses born to us.
You dont even need a faith in those, you can have enough of a clue to test
what those senses appear to be suggesting and check if its misleading,
particularly when the consequences of being misled are very serious.
To have no faith in those would necessitate death.
Mindlessly silly.
We simply could not function even on a minimal level.
Even sillier. Nothing to stop you being skeptical about what
your senses appear to be telling you etc when it matters.
No one said anything about not being skeptical.
[/quote]
Its the opposite of faith.
[quote]You still have to proceed on a basis of guesswork and
assumption in a universe which is largely unknown to you.
[/quote]
No you dont when the consequences are serious, you can usually
choose to just see how things play out, like with the GFC for
example. Play safe and avoid the most risky situations etc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeffrey Turner... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Price wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 4:16 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
James A. Donald wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State,
with a functioning legal system, there simply
isn't any meaning to the term 'rights'.
If rights derive from the state and legislation, then
Hitler, Stalin, etc, did not violate anyone's rights.
Which conclusion is obviously silly.
Rights are what you have AGAINST the state and in defiance of legislation.
Not necessarily. You also have rights againstothers not just the state.
Yes but they are against the State or they are not rights.
If the government gives you a "right", then it cannot be a right:
Mindlessly silly. Have fun explaining the Bill of Rights.
If you knew anything about the constitution you'd know that it
doesn't
claim to grant rights (either in the original or the amendments) only
to
recognise them. And the Bill of Rights has not actually guaranteed
rights (e.g. 2nd amendment.).
[/quote]
So go to Myanmar and explain to the generals that the people have
unalienable rights, which they are violating. Then insist that they
stop forthwith. Make sure your will is up-to-date first. I'm sure
the generals will enjoy their laugh.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Beam Me Up Scotty... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
[quote]Michael Price wrote:
On Oct 27, 4:16 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
James A. Donald wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
What sort of 'framework'? Absent a State,
with a functioning legal system, there simply
isn't any meaning to the term 'rights'.
If rights derive from the state and legislation, then
Hitler, Stalin, etc, did not violate anyone's rights.
Which conclusion is obviously silly.
Rights are what you have AGAINST the state and in defiance of
legislation.
Not necessarily. You also have rights againstothers not just the state.
Yes but they are against the State or they are not rights.
If the government gives you a "right", then it cannot be a right:
Mindlessly silly. Have fun explaining the Bill of Rights.
If you knew anything about the constitution you'd know that it
doesn't
claim to grant rights (either in the original or the amendments) only
to
recognise them. And the Bill of Rights has not actually guaranteed
rights (e.g. 2nd amendment.).
So go to Myanmar and explain to the generals that the people have
unalienable rights, which they are violating. Then insist that they
stop forthwith. Make sure your will is up-to-date first. I'm sure
the generals will enjoy their laugh.
--Jeff
We did that in Iraq.... all you have done is complain about it.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 1:11 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 1:24 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:19 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
acting?
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question. The socially constructed
framework I describe attributes no 'rights' to individuals. It simply
articulates what in some traditions would be called Right Action. So,
if members of the community follow the rule "Thou shalt not kill.",
and the rule "Give of your wealth that your sick neighbor may be
cured.", and so on, what possible use is the idea of 'a right to
life'? This just seems like something that property-arians find
appealing; something that they can 'own'.
If people enjoy dealing with the world through property
relations and property-like entities, then that is "use" --
utility -- to them. It's a way of thinking about things. If
the tribal traditions prescribe that you can cut down and
use one tree from the tribal preserve per month, you can
construe that in a variety of more or less equivalent ways,
one of which is "owning" the right to one tree per month.
Perhaps the tribal traditions also prescribe that the
entitlement to one tree per month can be transferred
to another, so now you can "sell" or "give" the right to
someone. It's just a way of thinking and talking about
the situation.
Yes, and now you've set up a State with control of resources. I've
stipulated several times that 'rights' *are* meaningful when they are
part of such a legal system, with the enforcement capacity of a State
or State-like entity.
I don't see any necessary state, unless you're using
the term very, very broadly. A set of traditional beliefs
about how things should be done, enforced by the
people in general does not strike me as a state.
How is the 'tribal preserve' different from a State? Clearly, the
tribe controls the trees and excludes non-tribe members from using
them. Clearly, there is scarcity, otherwise why would there be a
limit on cutting?
No ruling class.
[/quote]
Lost me there. Let's say there is a 100% vote of tribe members that
instructs the Tribal Police to prevent anyone from cutting more than
one tree per month. Are you saying the tribe members don't constitute
a 'ruling class'?
-tg
[quote]
Your problem is to demonstrate the meaning of 'the right to cut trees'
when there are more than enough trees. That's my point below. Your
response doesn't address that either.
I don't see any logical relation between the supply of
trees and the right to cut trees. There is a nearly
infinite supply of hot air, yet the right of free speech is
often bitterly contested. In the U.S., for example, if I
make a speech which is pretty much like someone
else's speech, I may well be punished as a violator
of copyright or a plagiarist. Some jurisdictions are
even more repressive.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:42 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Anarcissie wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Demon Buddha wrote
Anarcissie wrote
That seems irrelevant. And everyone works off irrational religious reasons,
Nope, quite a few dont anymore.
because our knowledge of the universe is extremely
limited and we have to proceed based on beliefs.
Wrong again, perfectly possible to proceed based on what has been
established using rigorous science and just recognise that there are
still plenty of areas where our knowledge is still very limited.
Well put.
Nope.
Everyone on the planet is a "person of faith".
Only in the silliest sense that some have a faith in the value of rigorous science etc.
It is in the nature of things that we must have faith
in something, even if only the five senses born to us.
You dont even need a faith in those, you can have enough of a clue to test
what those senses appear to be suggesting and check if its misleading,
particularly when the consequences of being misled are very serious.
To have no faith in those would necessitate death.
Mindlessly silly.
We simply could not function even on a minimal level.
Even sillier. Nothing to stop you being skeptical about what
your senses appear to be telling you etc when it matters.
No one said anything about not being skeptical.
Its the opposite of faith.
[/quote]
We don't live in a binary universe. A person may be
generally skeptical, yet believe that the earth is round
and the sun will rise in the morning.
[quote]You still have to proceed on a basis of guesswork and
assumption in a universe which is largely unknown to you.
No you dont when the consequences are serious, you can usually
choose to just see how things play out, like with the GFC for
example. Play safe and avoid the most risky situations etc.
[/quote]
Actually, what most people do is look around and see
what other people are doing, and do the same thing.
This works -- some of the time. Yet it depends on
several significant unknowns. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:38 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:24 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:19 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
acting?
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question. The socially
constructed framework I describe attributes no 'rights' to
individuals. It simply articulates what in some traditions would
be called Right Action. So, if members of the community follow
the rule "Thou shalt not kill.", and the rule "Give of your
wealth that your sick neighbor may be cured.", and so on, what
possible use is the idea of 'a right to life'? This just seems
like something that property-arians find appealing; something
that they can 'own'.
If people enjoy dealing with the world through property
relations and property-like entities, then that is "use" --
utility -- to them. It's a way of thinking about things. If
the tribal traditions prescribe that you can cut down and
use one tree from the tribal preserve per month, you can
construe that in a variety of more or less equivalent ways,
one of which is "owning" the right to one tree per month.
Perhaps the tribal traditions also prescribe that the
entitlement to one tree per month can be transferred
to another, so now you can "sell" or "give" the right to
someone. It's just a way of thinking and talking about
the situation.
Yes, and now you've set up a State with control of resources. I've
stipulated several times that 'rights' *are* meaningful when they
are part of such a legal system, with the enforcement capacity of
a State or State-like entity.
I don't see any necessary state, unless you're using
the term very, very broadly. A set of traditional beliefs
about how things should be done, enforced by the
people in general does not strike me as a state.
How is the 'tribal preserve' different from a State? Clearly, the
tribe controls the trees and excludes non-tribe members from using
them. Clearly, there is scarcity, otherwise why would there be a
limit on cutting?
No ruling class.
Your problem is to demonstrate the meaning of 'the right to cut
trees' when there are more than enough trees. That's my point below.
Your response doesn't address that either.
I don't see any logical relation between the supply of
trees and the right to cut trees. There is a nearly
infinite supply of hot air, yet the right of free speech is
often bitterly contested.
In the U.S., for example, if I make a speech which is pretty much like someone
else's speech, I may well be punished as a violator of copyright or a plagiarist.
That is just plain wrong. It has to be exactly the same before you have any legal problem.
Some jurisdictions are even more repressive.
And some where copyright is flouted with complete impunity.
[/quote]
You're wrong about copyright, and in any case it was
just an example of the numerous limitations placed on
free expression even though there seems to be an
inexhaustible supply of it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 8:51 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 1:11 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:24 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:19 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
acting?
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question. The socially constructed
framework I describe attributes no 'rights' to individuals. It simply
articulates what in some traditions would be called Right Action. So,
if members of the community follow the rule "Thou shalt not kill.",
and the rule "Give of your wealth that your sick neighbor may be
cured.", and so on, what possible use is the idea of 'a right to
life'? This just seems like something that property-arians find
appealing; something that they can 'own'.
If people enjoy dealing with the world through property
relations and property-like entities, then that is "use" --
utility -- to them. It's a way of thinking about things. If
the tribal traditions prescribe that you can cut down and
use one tree from the tribal preserve per month, you can
construe that in a variety of more or less equivalent ways,
one of which is "owning" the right to one tree per month.
Perhaps the tribal traditions also prescribe that the
entitlement to one tree per month can be transferred
to another, so now you can "sell" or "give" the right to
someone. It's just a way of thinking and talking about
the situation.
Yes, and now you've set up a State with control of resources. I've
stipulated several times that 'rights' *are* meaningful when they are
part of such a legal system, with the enforcement capacity of a State
or State-like entity.
I don't see any necessary state, unless you're using
the term very, very broadly. A set of traditional beliefs
about how things should be done, enforced by the
people in general does not strike me as a state.
How is the 'tribal preserve' different from a State? Clearly, the
tribe controls the trees and excludes non-tribe members from using
them. Clearly, there is scarcity, otherwise why would there be a
limit on cutting?
No ruling class.
Lost me there. Let's say there is a 100% vote of tribe members that
instructs the Tribal Police to prevent anyone from cutting more than
one tree per month. Are you saying the tribe members don't constitute
a 'ruling class'?
[/quote]
I specified that the tribal preserve and the custom of limiting
the cutting of trees was a tradition. In any case, if the entire
tribes votes, it is not a class. The limit on cutting was not
imposed because of scarcity, but because the gods decreed
it in dim antiquity, and anyway, everyone knows that cutting
down more than one tree a month is piggy and gross no
matter how many trees there are. Not everyone in the world
is a liberal utilitarian. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 9:25 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 8:51 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 1, 1:11 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:24 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:19 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
acting?
The idea of a socially constructed framework for an
area of freedom which both protects and limits the
freedom seems to appeal to a lot of people for
both moral and utilitarian reasons.
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question. The socially constructed
framework I describe attributes no 'rights' to individuals. It simply
articulates what in some traditions would be called Right Action. So,
if members of the community follow the rule "Thou shalt not kill.",
and the rule "Give of your wealth that your sick neighbor may be
cured.", and so on, what possible use is the idea of 'a right to
life'? This just seems like something that property-arians find
appealing; something that they can 'own'.
If people enjoy dealing with the world through property
relations and property-like entities, then that is "use" --
utility -- to them. It's a way of thinking about things. If
the tribal traditions prescribe that you can cut down and
use one tree from the tribal preserve per month, you can
construe that in a variety of more or less equivalent ways,
one of which is "owning" the right to one tree per month.
Perhaps the tribal traditions also prescribe that the
entitlement to one tree per month can be transferred
to another, so now you can "sell" or "give" the right to
someone. It's just a way of thinking and talking about
the situation.
Yes, and now you've set up a State with control of resources. I've
stipulated several times that 'rights' *are* meaningful when they are
part of such a legal system, with the enforcement capacity of a State
or State-like entity.
I don't see any necessary state, unless you're using
the term very, very broadly. A set of traditional beliefs
about how things should be done, enforced by the
people in general does not strike me as a state.
How is the 'tribal preserve' different from a State? Clearly, the
tribe controls the trees and excludes non-tribe members from using
them. Clearly, there is scarcity, otherwise why would there be a
limit on cutting?
No ruling class.
Lost me there. Let's say there is a 100% vote of tribe members that
instructs the Tribal Police to prevent anyone from cutting more than
one tree per month. Are you saying the tribe members don't constitute
a 'ruling class'?
I specified that the tribal preserve and the custom of limiting
the cutting of trees was a tradition. In any case, if the entire
tribes votes, it is not a class. The limit on cutting was not
imposed because of scarcity, but because the gods decreed
it in dim antiquity, and anyway, everyone knows that cutting
down more than one tree a month is piggy and gross no
matter how many trees there are.
[/quote]
If everyone knows that it is piggy and gross, and would not deviate
from tradition, why is it necessary to impose a limit? What would the
law that the Tribal Police are enforcing say?
-tg
[quote] Not everyone in the world
is a liberal utilitarian.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:12 pm
|
|