| (Jelle NL) said: | Thursday 8, October 2009, 1:58 pm |
reply
|
|
|
|||
| I don't think this is a very fair discussion of the self-ownership principle until anarchism is at least mentioned. Considering it's the only philosophy that actually follows the self-ownership principle to its logical conclusion. reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| I think it depends, wobean, on how seriously you take the notion of "self-possession." It would seem that the libertarians take it further than Locke, in that there are no restrictions as to what you can do with your person - such as selling themselves. And even according to Locke, the "social contract" can be dissolved to reinstate a (temporary) state of nature - if the government is deemed oppressive and unjust. Another question: Is your conception of anarchism comparable to "state of nature"? |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
| As an anarchist myself, you are right. Libertarianism when brought to its logical end means the absent of any form of government no matter how small. I was really disappointed last lecture when the Libertarian team dropped the ball in argument the for freedom from slavery. Whenever I encounter obligations to society versus the morality of libertarianism I love to bring out the Socratic method to help guide the listener towards my line of reasoning. "I would never dream of forcing you to not pay your taxes." (Because it would be immoral of me to force my opinions onto you under the self-ownership principle). "Would it be morally correct of me to coerce you under the threat of imprisonment to not pay your taxes." (Hopefully not) If the above two principles are justified than when taken to its logical end it should also work vice versa. "Would you extend me the same courtesy if I didn't want to pay my taxes." "If it it immoral of me coerce you to not pay your taxes than it should also follow that it would be immoral of you to force me to pay my taxes." If the above last line is correct than governments have no moral justification to exist. |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
| Would taxation be Locke-justified if the commons were over-utilized -- that each person might at a given moment be taking more than their share? Say that the commons is given to the stewardship of government (possibly because the benefits of government are mixed among the shared good), and so, with also being empowered to define what is common, government shapes the share of common good to which each member is entitled and may demand debts against it be repaid. reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Aren't you blurring categories here? What would it mean for the commons to have the stewardship of the government? If such were the case, wouldn't the commons be the de facto government? | |||||
|
|
|
|||
| 1. he is not right. liberty entitles me to do whatever preserves my natural rights (including that to life) and does not infringe on others' natural rights. however, right to life is just that, a right (entitlements or permissions), but not my obligation to live it. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Geolibertarianism adequately satisfies Lockean proviso of 'leaving as much and as good for others', and also agrees with self ownership. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| I like this unalienable rights to life, liberty and property (given by Reason or God; as Locke said). But if the right to life means that you are not allowed to take your own life, then this right turns into a duty. Does this also mean that one has a duty to be free and to have (more) property? In that case Jefferson’s version (life, liberty and the pursue of happiness) seems to be an improvement - a duty to live, to be free and to be happy. ‘Property’ seems to be of a different category; it does not seem to be attached to human beings in the same way as life, liberty and happiness. reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| There is no such thing as 'unalienable rights' as history has repeatedly proven. Intellectually we may say that such things exist but in the real world those with power can remove any rights they choose. At the end of the day the only unalienable rights we have are those we are willing to stand up and fight for. (says the pacifist coward...) | |||||
|
|
|
|||
| Jellie NL) According to Locke, "property" is an extension of personhood. But of course Locke has a disclaimer to the effect that there must be enough of goods and/or property to go around so that no one would lack. Roger Nowosielski reply |
||||
 |
|
||||
| Locke has a foundation from the perspective of "rights" to property, and that those rights cannot be taken away. However, it is clear that property itself (independent of the right to own it) can be taken away according to his evolutionary perspective of survival of the fittest. Even Locke needs Government and laws to protect his property and the right to own it. Locke further needs government limits on property to guarantee that no other player in the game can acquire all other property such that Locke’s survival is threatened. | |||||
|
|
|
||||
| Sorry Roger, changed my post a bit...what was that website with the modern french thinkers, I'd like to check it out. Thx | |||||
|
|
|
|||
| Critical to my argument is that self ownership implies the right to sell one's self into slavery. Hence a pathway for a few to own most everyone else. Are we so far from that in our post modern America? The problem with Nozick's self ownership is that there are extremes of both norm(sanity and concern), and motivation(opinion and desire), among people within a society. Therefore there will be some few who will wind up owning most of those from the most insane (according to norm)to those who are sane yet have completely different values. And much like we see in America today where resource ownership is seen skewed toward capitalists, an imbalance will arise where a few (affording to silently collude), wind up owning most everybody else, where humans are taken as a resource like other common capital, again much like we see Americans treated today by the wealthy financial elite. At that extreme...where is the equality of freedom for all? Therefore Locke's philosophy conflicts in that our Democratic government along with the Constitution is set up to protect the weak from the power of the strong. Unalienable are rights to life and liberty (freedom from oppression), but property rights cannot be included as a limitless freedom. In support of my argument, it is clear that Nozick fails to see the forest for the trees as consideration of his self ownership philosophy shows. Evidenced by compelling current states of resource imbalance between the wealthy and poor...unequal divisions of justice will emerge, where the wealthy can further their positions since influence costs money. Therefore it follows that Locke's philosophy is incomplete and incorrect since it fails the majority while benefitting the minority to have oppressive power over the majority. Finally, in a Democracy where majority sets the rules, and still accounting for protection of minorities, limits on property hoarding should be allowed by taxation of the wealthy to establish limits on runaway inequality(oppressive powers). And further the government of the people, by the people, and for the people should establish, administer, and enforce those limiting taxes. reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| You cannot assert that a part of self-ownership is the ability to sell yourself into slavery (OK, you can and just did) because at the point of sale you no longer own yourself, thus the idea of self ownership has been lost. To 'own' onesself in this instance means the freedom to do as one wishes. Selling onesself into bondage removes this freedom, a freedom we all want and assert even for others - even those who have sold themselves into bondage. |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
| It's blogcritics.org Look for the Politics section and put Bye-bey, Miss American Pie" in the search box, top right. Then click on the entry displayed, which should get you to the article in question, followed by the thread (we have over 1400 comments already, but we get into the meat (sort of) starting with about #100. And thanks for responding. Besides, you might find the site interesting in any case - we have plenty of writers on any number of topics. Roger Nowosielski reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Should be "Bye-bye . . . reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Well, rights are only unalienable says both Locke and Jefferson because they are endowed by the Creator. What about one who does not believe in a creator? How can atheists believe in unalienable rights? It seems that without God there can be no justification for rights that exist prior to a state agreeing upon them. Is the result for atheist states simply the model we have in the USSR or China where human rights are ignored? I want to believe in unalienable rights - how can I do that without God? Also, please don't respond by saying 'Reason' - explain the reasoning (I don't think there is a suitable rationale sans God, so explain it!!). reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| You and I are people with individual thoughts and beliefs of our own. The fact of our being conscience of our lives and our thoughts, creates self-ownership. In other words, because of my independent ability to think and reason as I choose, these thoughts should be able to be expressed freely, as long as they do not interfere with others free thoughts and execution of those thoughts. This is how I as an atheist believe in human rights that exist in nature. | |||||
|
|
|
||||
| Very good question. The idea of unalienable rights does seem to hinge on the idea of a Creator. So for Locke, the Creator serves as a bedrock from which unalienable rights can be derived. But think - the force of "unalienable" (in connection with rights) serves mainly to assert that a person is not in the position to bequeath them to anyone (such as selling themselves to slavery or committing suicide). And if that provision is important to you, then you seem to have a problem. If not, however, we can still insist on (certain) human rights being innate as a matter of value judgment. And I think Kant here provides the lead insofar as the Kantian categorical imperative stipulates that persons should be treated as ends (in themselves), never as means. Are you comfortable enough with this resolution? |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
| Question: "I want to believe in unalienable rights - how can I do that without God?" Answer: Just belief in the rights that work for you. Rights are always a matter of consensus. You can not found them on some non-human authority. And even in the case of a "solid foundation", they can always be taken away from you by people claiming to speak on behalf of that same solid foundation (God or Reason or Reality or Nature or ...). I belief that it was Dewey who said that democracy is the only metaphysical foundation. |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
| Most would agree that all people (rich or poor) deserve as unalienable the rights to life and liberty, since we each are born and bring with us zero tangible property other than our bodies and the mind that is later to develop. Therefore the idea that the physical resources that exist on earth should on a very basic level be shared equally by all at least at the moment of birth. Also for the sake of this argument please consider wealth to be either money or property, independent of other unfair advantages under a capitalist structure like beauty, intelligence, sanity, talent, size or any element that gives one an unfair advantage over others. In so many words, few will deny that all people come to this earth with nothing physical except our bodies but leave without the body we came with. During our stay whether under God or by evolutionary thinking, the only things we can collect that we have any possibility of taking with us and as such unalienable are intangibles such as rights to beliefs, attitudes, and feelings, such as love, hate, existence or nonexistence of an intelligent Creator and so on. So, whether one believes that God placed us here, or we are the result of evolution, no one can deny that the current evidence is that resources are divided unequally among people such that resources appear limited either synthetically by manipulation and control or by sheer finiteness of resources, either way therefore subject to laws of supply and demand. But even though we are all set here on Earth on an equal basis as far as what we bring with us to earth, some of course are born into wealth and others are not. So anyone should agree that inequality and disagreement originates and hinges on how much wealth one is born into. So it follows, the more wealth one is born into, the stronger the motivation to interpret as unalienable the "right" to acquire and own unlimited amounts of property as well as unlimited access to life, and liberty. The less wealth one is born into the stronger the inclination to interpret as unalienable the "right" to acquire and own their fair share of property along with unlimited access to life and liberty. So, according to agreed upon and undisputed rights to intangibles it follows that here lies the conflict...those born fortunate feel like there should be less government and taxes that infringe on their rights to unlimited tangible property (resources). This is reasonable since losing their property would also encroach on their rights to life and liberty as they know it. Meanwhile the poor feel like there should be more government and taxes that support their hopes to acquire tangible property (resources) that might serve to show proof of their rights to life and liberty as well as reward their efforts. This also seems reasonable since it requires resources to survive and denied access to tangibles property (resources), their right to life and liberty are encroached upon. From this we see that rights to intangibles are unalienable to all whether endowed by a Creator, or by evolution. However it’s also clear that rights to property are unalienable in America only to those born into wealth and property, not to mention in some way that falls into a category of "in demand" attributes such as wealth, beauty, talent, intelligence etc. With respect to atheist societies where human rights are discounted, as well as where they are held in higher regard like America. The only difference is the stated agreement about the "worthiness" of rights of people based on their personal levels of "in demand" attributes such as wealth, beauty, talent, intelligence etc. In the USA our ideas of "worthiness" and therefore our Constitution and government was originally derived from Godly principles where atheist countries are derived from evolutionary (natural) principles of worthiness. Here in America the wealthy are able to say "they are poor because it is the grace of God", where in atheist countries they say "they are poor because of evolution and luck", which is also the academic base in America. |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
| I would submit to you that saying unalienable rights are endowed by a creator is at least as unsatisfactory an account for those rights as simply answering that they come from reason. Not being aware of a reasoned explanation, you can take heart that if such an explanation exists you can be presented with it and, being a person capable of reasoning, decide if it is valid or not. An explanation that says they come from a creator is hearsay, and explains precisely nothing. Perhaps the creator speaks directly to you, and provides an account. Good for you, but any attempt to convey that explanation to others is again hearsay. What happens when that divinely inspired account conflicts with the accounts of others which were divinely inspired? We are left wondering which rights from which creator are the truly unalienable ones. I find faith to be deeply personal, and ultimately at odds with the notion of ubiquitous, unalienable rights. |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
| THE OPPRESSIVE POWER OF THE MAJORITY: What about our abuse of the unalienable, natural rights of Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics? Hmmmmm The Declaration of Independence and that other document, the US Constitution (violated by President Jackson). Through force and/or coercion and violations of our own Supreme Court rulings we stole land and labor from all three groups. Should we give the land back? How can we ever compensate Blacks for slavery? reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| We did not steal land and labor from anyone, because the will of the majority defines fairness and justice. The minority obviously should not be allowed to overrule the majority's right to life and happiness. Therefore, everything we do through our representative government is fair and just. Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics implicitly agreed to give up certain rights when they agreed to be part of society. | |||||
|
|
|
||||
| why would you compensate people for injuries made to their ancestors by other people who are also dead? sounds like you have a false sense of entitlement. the situation you are born into is luck, and what you do with it is in your hands. | |||||
|
|
|
||||
| The minority (settlers) stole land and labor from the majority (Native Americans) without their consent. Was this just? Furthermore, they were denied participation in our representative government and, in those cases where they participated, their rights were trampled (Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, 1831) and government treaties/agreements were deliberately broken. Not a fine example of "everything we do through our representative government is fair and just." It is not always just and never had been, particularly in regard to the minorities and the inappropriate control over Congress by big business and the wealthy (the few force and guide legislation, not the majority). Nevertheless, it seems to be the best system we can devise, considering the alternatives. Still, there remains a lot of unjust inequalities that need to be addressed, not for only the majority, but for the betterment of our whole society. I do not believe that the Blacks gave their consent for forced slavery by the south, nor consented to be a part of southern society in North America. They were attacked in Africa, their families and society broken, shackled, and shipped to the south through brutish force. They were the majority in many areas of the south and were denied participation in the representative system of government. We stole their labor through sheer force and after the Civil War the Blacks were intimidated and coerced by the white population until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. We stole through force and coercion the southwestern part of the US from indigenous Hispanics and Native American Indians. They were the original majority. Where was their rights in our fair and just system? They were sacrificed for Manifest Destiny and reservations were created for the Native Americans. If the racial roles were reversed, would you still believe this just? We have trampled the unalienable, natural rights of Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics in North America. While the people have changed, the same government is still in existence; with added constitutional amendments, legislation, and case law. The concept of a false sense of entitlement is used to justify no retroactive compensation, yet this mantra ignores fundamental moral and ethical questions. Is this moral and just? Is it false to remedy an unjust action because of the passage of time? Our courts say yes and the prosecution of many criminal deeds have a statute of limitations inherent within the common law legal system. Some unjust, immoral, and unethical acts are forgiven by society due to the passage of time. Is this always right and just? How do we rectify past injustice? Can we ignore past injustice because some perceive this as a false sense of entitlement for past immoral and unethical misdeeds? After the passage of time, is ignoring any or all past unjust actions always warranted? |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
| Xorox, "The oppressive power of the majority," as it has been used by the Founders, had to do with protecting the white minority property owners from "mob rule." It took no account of what the colonists did to secure (or appropriate) the land (and the New World). So yes, you do seem to have a valid point. I believe this point was raised in the fourth lecture, which sort of suggested that Lock, in addition to laying out the foundation for the new government, was also an apologist: he was, if I am not mistaken, one of the colonial administrators. reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| It could be interpreted that J. Locke's actions (or lack of action) contradicted his own later philosophical writings. Having previously invested in slavery, why didn't Locke subsequently write that he deplored the slavery trade? He was administering, in part, the slave trade after writing the Second Treatise. Looks like duplicity to me. | |||||
|
|
|
|||
| @rogernovotny while I still question the 'innateness' of rights (as you point out, they rely on insisting/judging values) you bring up categorical imperatives... I guess that cat. imp.s could fit the bill for secularists as they provide a certain 'Reason' based unconditional morality, yet it seems to me that Kant's or anyone's individual reason still hinges on another's consent or agreement with it. If I dissent with Kant, then his categorical imperatives are not truly unconditional. (I feel like I am coming off as completely ignorant with my argument that "his reason is as good as mine"...) As you can tell I am very muddled. Perhaps it's because skepticism can always say "no" to everything...? I still feel as though without God there really is no inherent system of 'rights.' Sure we can reason preferable behavior, but (as I am seeing it) preference and even 'Reason' are relative. If something is going to force the responsibility of rights on me (i.e. if they really are unalienable) then that something better be unquestionable. by the way, you can call me juristime. reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| I would shy away from using "reason" to arrive at value. I'm not certain how exactly Kant arrives at the categorical imperative (should be covered in the next lecture or so), but the fact-value distinction is rather solid (although some philosophers have tried to close the gap somehow). The use of reasoning as means to arrive at "morality" (and absolute morality at that) is subject to pitfalls. And unless you're willing to hypothesize certain qualities about human beings as kind of apriori (which is what I think Kant did), then - in the absence of appeal to a deity (which is also a big presumption), one is kind of stuck and must accept the inviolability of a human being as an article of faith. You simply will the value. (Ultimately, you can't win a moral argument with a Nazi!) I'm a Wittgensteinian, so I have sort of a recourse here (since I can speak of "forms of life" and "language games" in which morality is embedded) but even so, I don't think there can be a kind of solid grounding that you're looking for. But why should the "unalienable" part of rights worry you? To say their "innate" is perhaps a weaker claim - though it still presupposes a lot. Could you live with the lesser claim? |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
| Yes, "preference" and "reason" are relative. And so is "God". For it are always people who speak on behalf of God; who try to understand the holy text. There are no unquestionable or absolute foundations for your rights. But the fact that the Declaration of Independence or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is man-made and rest on consensus does not make it trivial. | |||||
|
|
|
|||
| Jelle, NL, No, it's far from trivial. But mere consensus may not be enough. You don't wan't "rights" to be a matter of convention. You do have somewhat of an anchor for "morality" as being embedded in our language - and consequently, our "form of life," as Wittgenstein might say. And in that sense it's not quite arbitrary. Contingent, yes, because it wouldn't necessarily follow for another "form of life" or for all possible worlds, but not arbitrary or merely conventional. That's why "justice" is such an important moral concept - serving as a kind of litmus test for evaluating our moral or other practices. reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Thank you, Roger - Don't you think that Wittgenstein would say that language games, including the language games of justice or rights, are made by human beings? These games have certain rules, but they too are man-made (conventional, if you like). Why would consensus be not enough? I agree that justice is an important moral concept. How would you define it? (My definition: Justice is to wish for others, what you would wish for yourself) |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
| Jelle NL Language emerges out of and in conjunction with practice. And it serves either to validate or invalidate a practice. If a practice is incoherent, so it will be with the language and the practice will disappear or or least be shown to be incoherent. So the coherence of language derives from coherence of human practice. Hence, every language game has certain logic. So it's not just a matter of simple convention, like naming things. It's almost like an organic type of process. I won't say anymore now for fear of getting metaphysical, reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Roger - I think Wittgenstein would answer: Language is like a tool box. As time goes by some tools become obsolete, while new ones are developed. We select the tools we need or prefer to get our jobs done (your “organic type of process”). The logic (or coherence) behind this “natural selection” remains our logic, not that of something non-human. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Is it an general law or an arbitrary rule if only the 300 millionth percentage of people have to pay taxes? What about the 301st millionth? What about the 302 millionth? Ok, you get the idea. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Perfect, Jelle NL. I was only addressing the coherence question as a way of grounding our linguistic and other practices (without the necessity of appealing to a creator or some kind of transcendental reason) - namely to say that practice that don't make sense to begin with either will have to be modified to reflect certain logic or scrapped altogether. (Obsolescence is of course another matter, but it doesn't reflect on coherence, only on what's, shall we say, currently in fashion. The idea of our, human kind of logic is well taken. Although it is contingent in some absolute sense - relative to other forms of life and a variety of possible worlds - it is, nonetheless, binding and defining a given form of life. (This subject was ably argued and I'll provide the reference once I come across it. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Regarding your earlier comment, Jelle NL - about consensus. It's not a kind of consensus which comes about as a result of, say, voting on the issue. The way I see it, and if it is a consensus, it's a kind of tacit consensus which emerges in the course of practice. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Most would agree that all people (rich or poor) deserve as unalienable the rights to life and liberty, since we each are born and bring with us zero tangible property other than our bodies and the mind that is later to develop. Therefore the idea that the physical resources that exist on earth should on a very basic level be shared equally by all at least at the moment of birth. Also for the sake of this argument please consider wealth to be either money or property, independent of other unfair advantages under a capitalist structure like beauty, intelligence, sanity, talent, size or any element that gives one an unfair advantage over others. In so many words, few will deny that all people come to this earth with nothing physical except our bodies but leave without the body we came with. During our stay whether under God or by evolutionary thinking, the only things we can collect that we have any possibility of taking with us and as such unalienable are intangibles such as rights to beliefs, attitudes, and feelings, such as love, hate, existence or nonexistence of an intelligent Creator and so on. So, whether one believes that God placed us here, or we are the result of evolution, no one can deny that the current evidence is that resources are divided unequally among people such that resources appear limited either synthetically by manipulation and control or by sheer finiteness of resources, either way therefore subject to laws of supply and demand. But even though we are all set here on Earth on an equal basis as far as what we bring with us to earth, some of course are born into wealth and others are not. So anyone should agree that inequality and disagreement originates and hinges on how much wealth one is born into. So it follows, the more wealth one is born into, the stronger the motivation to interpret as unalienable the "right" to acquire and own unlimited amounts of property as well as unlimited access to life, and liberty. The less wealth one is born into the stronger the inclination to interpret as unalienable the "right" to acquire and own their fair share of property along with unlimited access to life and liberty. So, according to agreed upon and undisputed rights to intangibles it follows that here lies the conflict...those born fortunate feel like there should be less government and taxes that infringe on their rights to unlimited tangible property (resources). This is reasonable since losing their property would also encroach on their rights to life and liberty as they know it. Meanwhile the poor feel like there should be more government and taxes that support their hopes to acquire tangible property (resources) that might serve to show proof of their rights to life and liberty as well as reward their efforts. This also seems reasonable since it requires resources to survive and denied access to tangibles property (resources), their right to life and liberty are encroached upon. From this we see that rights to intangibles are unalienable to all whether endowed by a Creator, or by evolution. However it’s also clear that rights to property are unalienable in America only to those born into wealth and property, not to mention in some way that falls into a category of "in demand" attributes such as wealth, beauty, talent, intelligence etc. With respect to atheist societies where human rights are discounted, as well as where they are held in higher regard like America. The only difference is the stated agreement about the "worthiness" of rights of people based on their personal levels of "in demand" attributes such as wealth, beauty, talent, intelligence etc. In the USA our ideas of "worthiness" and therefore our Constitution and government was originally derived from Godly principles where atheist countries are derived from evolutionary (natural) principles of worthiness. Here in America the wealthy are able to say "they are poor because it is the grace of God", where in atheist countries they say "they are poor because of evolution and luck", which is also the academic base in America. reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| zzzz | |||||
|
|
|
||||
| Greg - Is it right then to conclude that our definition of justice (or rights) is contingent and subjective (the result of forces beyond our control; like the family we are born into or the education we received). Would it be possible to arrive at a defintion of justice that is less subjective; that is intersubjective? If I understand Prof. Sandel correctly - his book “Justice; what is the right thing to do?” arrived a few weeks ago at the American Book Center here in the Netherlands - the answer is: yes. Such a definition would be the result of discussion (public reasoning) and consensus; and not a matter of non-human foundations or neutral ground. | |||||
|
|
|
|||
| Should the amount of children one is allowed to have be controlled, as large family size is a means to achieving disproportionate wealth and property? reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| China and various other countries attempt to limit the number of children per family - with mixed results. Large families tend to be most common in very poor countries (since they do not expect all their children to survive) and among religious parents (who believe having lots of children is both a "duty" and a "blessing"). |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
| "However it’s also clear that rights to property are unalienable in America only to those born into wealth and property, not to mention in some way that falls into a category of "in demand" attributes such as wealth, beauty, talent, intelligence etc." Great post, but from this arguement you have implied that the poor or middle class could never attain property or wealth. So those with wealth, whether acquired by "luck" in birth or "luck" in personal matters, should be required by the minority to pay the highest percentage of the tax burden. This is the case in our society where the wealthiest pay the highest percentages in the tax bracket. To me this is counter to the idea that the government of our country was founded on the idea of majority rule with minority rights. The majority should not be allowed to infringe upon the rights of the minority whether it is in regard to taxes or civil liberties and rights. In taxing the rich minority excessively the majority are violating their rights. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| If the suffering of the majority outweighs the suffering of the minority, if majority (50% 1) rule is moral, and if the collective society and community owns individuals, then what is the need or basis for ANY individual rights? Explain your answer in the context of why slavery is immoral? Please cite documented historical, scientific, sociological, psychological premises for your arguments. Satisfactorily answer this question, and you will change my beliefs about the utility AND morality of libertarianism. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| majority equals 50 percent plus 1 reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Simple majority is not a decision - nor does it represent the will of enough people to determine what to do. The worst case of this is in the U.S. Supreme Court, where ONE vote usually determines the law for everyone in the country. I think that there needs to be at least twice as many people for something as opposed for "democratic" (mob rule) to claim a "majority". | |||||
|
|
|
|||
| Jelle NL "Such a definition would be the result of discussion (public reasoning) and consensus; and not a matter of non-human foundations or neutral ground." I don't want to beat Greg to the punch, but this seems right. The definitions of such terms are never fixed, are always subject to challenge as new questions and circumstances arise which put previous conceptions to a test. So in that sense, yes, the definitions do evolve in the course of public debate and are therefore consensual. One might think of the definition of such a term as justice as a kind of (mathematical) limit with respect to a sequence of numbers approaching it. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| I look to the Bible for examples of inalienable rights. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve owned nothing. The Garden and all in it belonged to God. God asked Abraham to slay his son Isaac. Hmm, nothing inalienable about Isaac's life. God and Satan amused themselves torturing Job. God struck down countless enemies of Israel. Even Jesus was not spared his inalienable right to life. And Judas was sacrificed for the greater good. It seems that a Judeo-Christian basis for inalienable rights lacks evidence. I am bothered by the inalienable right to life. Suicide should be permitted. While each one of us has no say in his or her entry into the world, I certainly can decide how and when to exit this world if I so choose. If I can't take my own life, then I can't be a martyr either. No justification would exist then for me to sacrifice my life for the sake of another person's life. Locke's inclusion of property among the inalienable rights may be a bit of a stretch. If property is inalienable, then it would be valid in other cultures beyond white Europeans. Yet, many societies exist in Africa and Asia and perhaps in Australia and South America where land is held in communal trust rather than individually owned. In particular, I remember when I lived in the Philippines, groups of indigenous peoples there owned land as community property (”ancestral lands” was the term used). The concept of privately owned land was alien to them. These groups' lands were often taken out from under them by big corporations or land developers who obtained written deeds to the lands according to the government's Torrens title system (very similar to American land title documentation). Eerily like what happened in the New World to Native Americans by the European settlers. Locke's presumption that the acquisition of land used in one's labor, say the field of grain planted by a farmer, is OK as long as there's plenty of land to go around for everybody is specious. Land may have appeared to be plentiful for the taking by European settlers in the New World, but that confiscation disregarded any a priori claims that Native Americans may have had. Back in Europe at the time of John Locke, why couldn't peasant farmers on manorial lands lay claim to the land they tilled as an extention of their labor? Oh, an aristocrat already owned the vast lands tilled by the peasant farmer. Well, that didn't stop the white settlers in America from taking Indian lands. Were these manorial lands acquired by the European aristocrat or his descendents in a fair and just way? Probably not. Usually wealth is obtained originally from less than scrupulous means and becomes legitimate over time. Or somebody happened to be in the right place at the right time and received the King's favor. Looking at the world today, clearly there is not enough land available for everybody to confiscate as an inalienable extension of one's labor. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Judging by the rate of comments per lecture, there is an attrition. Perhaps it's a good thing because by the time we reach the tenth or the twelfth episode, only the good will survive Any thoughts? BTW, what must I do to avoid the "delete comment" message that gets posted right above the "reply" message. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| I wholly believe that one has direct possession of one's self from the beginning. However, we slowly trade our ownership over ourselves as we integrate more and more into society. We can at any time chose to deny society its claim to some portion of ourselves, however we must then live with the consequences of that denial. Take as granted the premises that I own my body, and it is mine to do with as I please. If then I were to consume damaging products, such as drugs or unhealthy foods, that is my right. However, if I then request aid from society when my health falters, I must provide some portion of my self in recompense. This would hold that money is a store of labor, and as such I am in essence trading some of myself for the services rendered from someone else. However, if I were to DEMAND that society provide my health care, without direct recompense from myself at the time of care, the story changes. For demands on society to be warranted we must yield to society some control over ourselves. This would be in the form of laws which prohibit my consumption of damaging goods in some form, and direct taxation to provide those services (as opposed to payment on delivery). Therefore, to what degree society may encroach on my rights to my own self must be determined by the demands I make on society. This might be a vague rubric, but I believe it holds the key to uniting Libertarian thought with Utilitarian thought. It is also what I hold to be. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Since Locke argues for the unalienable rights for life, liberty, and property, would this argument preclude war as a practice? If one group wages war against another, isn't the whole point to deny the other group of its life, liberty, and property? reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Obviously, rights do not extend to all people - especially when it might be inconvenient, uncomfortable, or if they have what you want. | |||||
|
|
|
|||
| Jelle (I suppose NL stands for Netherlands), Would you be interested in joining a discussion group? (see the description right below the general comments section.) Roger Nowosielski reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| Roger - Thank you for the invitation, but I don't follow you here. (description below the general comments section?) reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Jelle, I have no idea whether the discussion circle is visible/accessible to you. Perhaps I should specify the point of focus in the general description section. Anyway, here is my first post: One of objects will be to discuss the efficacy of the re-constructive efforts by such philosophers as Michael Sandel in light of a great many postmodernists text (Foucault and Lyotard, for instance) which not only caution us against optimism but in some radical instances - Foucault being the prime example - suggest that no escape from power relations is possible. So we have to be able to find an escape clause in Foucault in order to avert the nihilistic conclusion. For those interested in the focus of this debate in the foreseeable future, you may email me at rogernowosielski@yahoo.com and I'll provide you with the appropriate links and reference material to key texts. Thank you. Roger Nowosielski |
|||||
|
|
|
|||
| I recently finished Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, and I think he adds some things to a discussion of property rights based on Locke’s notion of property as a phenomenon that finds its origins in the state of nature. Rousseau finds private property to be more or less the root of all evil in human society (with desire for reputation a close second). He sees money and the unequal distribution of private property as a social, not a natural phenomenon. He also sees both as fundamentally immoral and corruptive and the key origin of inequality amongst human beings. He states: “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried to his fellow men: ‘Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one.’” (p. 44). Rousseau draws heavily from Locke (for his theories of ideas, for drawing the line of division between animals and human beings at abstract reasoning through language, and a labor theory of value and right to property). Still he disagrees on a couple of very significant point from Locke. Locke sees a natural basis for money and the unequal distribution of property. These phenomena for Locke are both morally defensible and natural (that is, pre-social contract, pre-societal). In Chapter V of Second Treatise of Government, Locke offers a moral defense of money as a way to acquire an unequal share of private property without letting goods go to waste or keeping them from those who need them when the owner does not (i.e., hoarding): Par. 46. “And indeed it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use of. If he gave away a part to any body else, so that it perished not uselessly in his possession, these he also made use of. And if he also bartered away plums, that would have rotted in a week, for nuts that would last good for his eating for a whole year, he did no injury; he wasted not the common stock; destroyed no part of the portion of goods that belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselessly in his hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its colour; or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for a sparking pebble or diamond, and keep those by him all his life, he invaded not the right of others, he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it.” Locke argues re: the natural basis for money and the unequal distribution of wealth. Par. 50. “But since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of man in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value only from the consent of men, whereof labour yet makes, in great part, the measure, it is plain, that men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found out a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and silver, which may be hoarded up to any one, these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands of the possessions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value and gold and silver, and tacitly agreeing in the use of money, for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.” For me the audacious part of this statement is the claim that the establishment of money as a universal medium of exchange occurred in a state of nature. Locke says it is a “tacit agreement” that occurred “out of the bounds of society” and “without compact.” To me, the creation of any semiotic system--kinship, language, systems of exchange--is by definition the product of collective meaning-making and should in no way be regarded as “natural.” Each of these systems, it seems to me, is the contingent product of a particular culture and history and so in no way pre-cultural, universal, or necessary. Summary: For Locke, money and the unequal distribution of wealth and property it facilitates, comes before human society and is naturally just. For Rousseau, these are products of society and absent from the state of nature and, further, are both unjust and corruptive. --Tom Dodson reply |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Tom Dodson has got good head on his shoulders. | |||||
|
|
|
|||
| In response to your question: 2. John Locke believes that government, once it is set up, should be guided by the principle of majority rule. However, he also believes that the purpose of government is to protect people’s rights, including their “unalienable” right to property. What if these two goals conflict? What if a poor majority wants to tax a rich minority? I have a possible solution that is may differ a bit in the area of right to property and national borders: What if we created virtual countries? I mean if I'm from European Union and I want to be an American, I apply for my American citizenship, but I never leave my property in European Union. I mean my property would be connected to my citizenship and hence part of the American national system, once I become an American citizen. I mean virtual countries to where people stay and never have to migrate, if they would like to be part of another system of government. Instead, they just apply and their property, tax, and status would change to the applicable national state of choice? Ofcourse, there would be common agreements and restrictions made between nations to where properties are still planned and architected to serve the neighboring nationalists living in the same neighborhood? Would this process not completely elimintate the need for militaries to guard our borders, and or the need for immigration and solve refugee issues? Would this process not possiblly eliminate any chance of another world war? No borders and virtual countries(nations) may solve most our hunting issues such as possiblity of Wars, hunger, revolutions, immigration, and refugees amongst others. Is this not what will eventually happen, anyway? Just a thought? msojdehei@hotmail.com reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| If it is put forth that because we live in a society that we give up our property rights simply because we have earned more and been more successful than others then the end result is Tyrany of the majority!!!!! There will always be more poor than rich and so the successful will always be at the mercy of the unsucessful. This is what causes all republics and democracies to fail in the end. reply |
||||
|
|
|
|||
| John Locke’s “Consent/Tax” idea is a workaround for the flawed concept of private property. True private property only exists in isolation. A man can “consent” to leave the “state of nature” and join a community, but tax should be justified differently. When private property is removed from isolation it becomes partially private property with the community owning a share. All property in a community is an improvement of an existing property. Property is built from the property of others. Einstein’s contribution to science would not be possible if he was segregated from mankind’s knowledge bass or intellectual property (i.e. lived on an island, never learned math, a language…). Therefore, society owns a share of all property. Thus society has a right to tax assets as long as it is reasonable (a fair share of the profit). A reasonable tax does not stifle growth or innovation essential to the advancement of the individual and society. In other words: If a man is nurtured through a community to acquire the skills to improve property, the community owns a portion of the improved property. This is also true if a man chooses to join a community or government because he gains leverage, to improve his original property, beyond his own ability, through the resources of the community. Jefferson substituted “happiness” for “property” – wise move reply |
||||