Bush Asks for Action on HIV/AIDS

[David Floyd]

It wouldn't be YOUR choice, but you DID have a choice in the matter.

That's a pretty weak argument, Imran. You can't reasonably argue that I have a choice in what a dictator decides to do after being legitimately elected, especially if elected on false principles, and ESPECIALLY if I saw what the problem was and voted for the other guy.

You might say it's my choice to stay in the country, and you are correct - but the entire point is that I shouldn't have to move somewhere else in order to enjoy freedom.

[Ben Kenobi]

First of all, if you grant the right to property, and also grant that my right to life can't violate your right to property, and vice versa, that position is indefensible.

Tough. I said that the natural rights to life, liberty and happiness can conflict long ago in this thread.

Would you argue that the right to property says that one MUST own property? Hopefully not - that would be a silly argument. All the right to property means is that you have the right to any property you can legitimately (morally) acquire. Similarly, the right to life simply means you have the right to your own life, not that you have the right to prolong your life at the expense of another.

You can charge a mother for neglect, if she fails to take care of her child. There are certain things required for life, food and shelter, without which, one could not have a meaningful right to life. Is there any difference between slitting the throat of your child, or leaving the child in the open to die from exposure? I would say no. This is the same reasoning with the man who comes to your door. By refusing shelter, you are leaving this man to die.

You are right in that we should not expect the right to 'prolong' life, but giving food and shelter is hardly prolonging life.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, maybe it would be nice if everyone lived by it, but there is certainly no imperative written into natural law that one MUST live by the Golden Rule.

I have a hard time conceiving of morality without the existence of the golden rule in some form. Besides, you failed to answer the question. What would you want if you were in the situation of the man in the cold? Would you agree that his right to property should take precedence over your life?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's a pretty weak argument, Imran.

No it isn't. You said you don't want to back something where you have 'no choice in the matter'. THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS!

You can't say that using your words was a weak argument, unless you admit your original statement was a weak argument.

the entire point is that I shouldn't have to move somewhere else in order to enjoy freedom.

If you don't move, then don't be surprised when you realize that you will never be able to enjoy your version of 'freedom'.

[David Floyd]

obiwan,

I said that the natural rights to life, liberty and happiness can conflict long ago in this thread.

Then you have the wrong concept of freedom.

You can charge a mother for neglect, if she fails to take care of her child.

So? The mother voluntarily chose to become responsible for a child, through the act of birth and not giving him/her up for adoption. This isn't coercive - it's voluntary.

There are certain things required for life, food and shelter, without which, one could not have a meaningful right to life.

Ah, so now the right has become a right to a MEANINGFUL life! Interesting.

Is there any difference between slitting the throat of your child, or leaving the child in the open to die from exposure?

Again, the child argument is silly, because the obligation to take care of a child is voluntary, which you can withdraw from at any time through adoption.

I would say no. This is the same reasoning with the man who comes to your door. By refusing shelter, you are leaving this man to die.

It's not the same at all. If this stranger came from your womb, you might have a point - but even then, your obligation to take care of your child ends when the child can take care of himself. Stop with the silly analogy of mother/child - it's not relevant.

You are right in that we should not expect the right to 'prolong' life, but giving food and shelter is hardly prolonging life.

Sure it is. How is it not?

Besides, you failed to answer the question. What would you want if you were in the situation of the man in the cold? Would you agree that his right to property should take precedence over your life?

Hopefully I would. His right to property would not be in conflict with my right to life. The fact that I am destitute, without transportation, in the cold, whatever, isn't his fault, and if it were, then yes, he would be responsible for helping me.

Imran,

No it isn't. You said you don't want to back something where you have 'no choice in the matter'. THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS!

Now you're arguing semantics. You know good and goddamn well what I meant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I don't. All I know is your words and you said you had no choice in the matter, rather than it wasn't your choice.

I think you KNOW what you meant, and it was having 'no choice in matter' rather than 'it wasn't my choice'. For the later to be US policy, you'd have to be dictator. Anyone that believes in democratic governance (though I'm not so sure you do) would say something is invalid because he had no choice in matter, and not because it wasn't their specific choice.

[David Floyd]

I think you KNOW what you meant, and it was having 'no choice in matter' rather than 'it wasn't my choice'. For the later to be US policy, you'd have to be dictator. Anyone that believes in democratic governance (though I'm not so sure you do) would say something is invalid because he had no choice in matter, and not because it wasn't their specific choice.

Lookit. If there are 100 people, and 99 of them want to kill me, I effectively have no choice in the matter. Likewise, in an election (assuming straight democracy) if 51% of the people want to limit or eliminate the freedom of the other 49% (or any part of that), then I, as part of the minority, effectively have no choice.

That's why I don't support democracy - it is simply majority rule. It's much better, in my opinion, to have a set of rules that even a supermajority cannot get around, and cannot change. This eliminates the possibility of my freedom being taken away by 51% of the population. If the majority still want to do something that I disagree with, they still can, as long as it doesn't violate my rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You think just about everything someone wants to force on you is a right, so you don't really believe in a democracy (or democratic republic, if you will), but an economic oligarchy. The majority can't do anything as long as it doesn't violate whatever you think your rights are. So the country is ruled by men who own the most money and the people have no voice.

Btw, doesn't taking your money for a military force (to defend the US) violate your right to property?

[David Floyd]

You think just about everything someone wants to force on you is a right,

Well, certainly. I believe in the right to life, liberty, and property, and there's not a lot one can do to me without violating one of those rights.

so you don't really believe in a democracy

Duh. I thought this was clear.

The majority can't do anything as long as it doesn't violate whatever you think your rights are.

What I think has nothing to do with what is absolutely true. Oh, I forgot, you take the contradictory position of not believing in absolutes.

So the country is ruled by men who own the most money and the people have no voice.

The people have no voice? Well, they certainly have no ability to steal other people's money, if that's what you're getting at. Nothing wrong with that.

Btw, doesn't taking your money for a military force (to defend the US) violate your right to property?

Yep, although I'm also open to the user-fee argument for a military used by Berzerker, assuming the military is entirely defensive and not capable of offensive operations outside the country, and assuming the military is not 1% stronger than necessary to maintain a minimum defense, and assuming conscription is not employed.

I'm open to hearing more about the argument, but I don't necessarily agree with it.

On the other hand, taxation for the current US military is clearly theft - it is taking my money to fund foreign wars and a huge military in an era where there is no significant conventional military threat to the US.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then you have the wrong concept of freedom.

True freedom means being a hermit and living off the land. Freedom within a society, by definition, is limited,
by having to take other people into account.

This isn't coercive - it's voluntary.

Mmm. Interesting critique. What if I argue that becoming a part of society entails certain rights and responsibilities from all the members? If you don't like the society, you can leave.

right to a MEANINGFUL life!

Not quite. Right to meaningful life does not necessarily equate with a meaningful right to life. Can you follow me? A meaningful right is one that carries it's principles as to follow the intent of the right. How can you have a right to life without some provision for food and shelter?

Whereas, a right to a meaningful life can add lots of other things to what is needed, as not originally intended.

How is it not?

I'm thinking again, of what is needed for everyone to live. Prolonging life reminds me of respirators, etc, where the life is extended at great cost. Nobody can live without food and shelter of some sort.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's legalized theft, so you'll have to deal, non-entity .

although I'm also open to the user-fee argument for a military

COERCION! You are taking my right to property without my express assent you leftist commie bastard!

Would you say that your government is an oligarchy or benevolent dictatorship where the 'leader(s)' make sure that no one violates other people's inherant rights?

[David Floyd]

True freedom means being a hermit and living off the land. Freedom within a society, by definition, is limited, by having to take other people into account.

A hermit who lives off the land might indeed by truly free. However, this is not the only way one can be free. Freedom is simply the lack of coercion - one does not exercise freedom by murdering another person. Murder is a coercive act and anti-thetical to freedom. Of course you have to take other people into the account, to the degree that you can't violate their rights. This is obvious, and fits the definition of freedom easily.

What if I argue that becoming a part of society entails certain rights and responsibilities from all the members? If you don't like the society, you can leave.

Interesting argument. Suggest a place I can go where I will be absolutely free of societal constraints, and I might say you have a point.

Of course, you don't have a point, because even if I go to Antarctica, I still won't be able to do as I please. There are international treaties to think of, you know.

But in any case, the point of government is simply to protect individual freedom, so how can joining a society run by a government (that is, a moral society/government) imply that one must give up individual liberty?

How can you have a right to life without some provision for food and shelter?

Quite easily. Rights only involve human interactions, not interactions between you and a bear. A bear can't violate your right to life - it isn't human. And certainly the weather can't violate your rights. Thus, the need for food and shelter are natural. If you can't get them, you die of natural causes. But since your death was not caused by another human, you can't claim a right violation. It wouldn't make any sense.

Nobody can live without food and shelter of some sort.

So what? No one can live without a kidney, either, but that doesn't mean that I'm morally compelled to donate a kidney.

[David Floyd]

It's legalized theft, so you'll have to deal, non-entity

Legalizing a violation of a natural right is impossible. The whole point of a natural right is that a law of man can't violate it.

Would you say that your government is an oligarchy or benevolent dictatorship where the 'leader(s)' make sure that no one violates other people's inherant rights?

My ideal government is simply based around a constitution, which simply states the powers reserved to the government, as well as the functions the government MUST undertake. That is, the government MUST protect individual liberty, and cannot violate individual liberty for any reason other than retaliatory force. If I kill someone, the government retains the necessary police powers to prevent me from killing again, or stealing, or whatever.

This constitution would NOT include a provision for change - that is, the absolute limit on government intrusions on individual liberty, with the one exception of retaliatory force, would be just that, absolute, and not even 99.999% of the population could change that.

But the details aren't that relevant right now. The main point is that the government should not EVER be allowed to violate my right to life, liberty, and property, except in the case of retaliatory force.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But is it a republic, democracy, oligarchy, dictatorship? Or does that not matter as long as some basic rights are protected?

Legalizing a violation of a natural right is impossible. The whole point of a natural right is that a law of man can't violate it.

There is no such thing as a natural right.

[David Floyd]

Or does that not matter as long as some basic rights are protected?

As long as individual rights are paramount and held inviolable, the actual form of government doesn't matter to me.

There is no such thing as a natural right.

And I suppose there is no such thing as an absolute right or wrong either, huh?