Natural Rights

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

That's hypocritical, seeing as how you've also ignored the post in which I made clear what my argument was, and seeing as how you're the one who decided to respond to my post a page late. I was content to go back into seclusion once the thread had sunk, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to respond when you address one of my posts...

It isn;t hypocritical. I made the mistake of trying to "amswer" your debate even after I made mine clear and I could see they were not the same.

It's not an arbitrary matter of saying "I don't feel like reciprocating today." It's possible for any individual to avoid reciprocity if said individual can justify said avoidance.

Yes, but justification is dirt cheap to come by, speically when you might have reason to believe your lfie may be at risk.

I was not inferring that anybody was a murderer -- I was careful to use the "if" modifier. If the person who was killed was a murderer, then the person committing the homicide may have been justified in doing so. Note that this modifier is "if," not "if and only if" (iff) -- there may be other valid justifications for one neighbor killing the other (assuming the presence of information that you have not given).

But that is the thing: my point is not basedf on any information to be had other than what is on the plate. The question is a theoretical one: if you have no assurance of shared moral values, and hence that the other person will act with reciprocity towards you, then is it reasonable not to act to eliminate a possible threat?

I've addressed this -- reciprocity is not an all-or-nothing affair, so in order to justify that somebody needn't be treated with moral reciprocation one must first justify that said person is morally inferior (e.g. that they're a murderer or whatever). Simply stating an inequality is insufficient -- causality must also be established between the inequality and morality (e.g. "I am a faster runner" does not automatically equate to "I am morally superior," particularly since an equally valid case could also be made as to why "I am a faster runner" automatically equates to "I am morally inferior"...).

BUt you seem to act as if it is a given that both persons will share moral codes, beyond a belief in reciprocity, and that is my point: even if both individuals share a basic moral code which calls for reciprocity of action, that does not mean they share the belief that the other individual actually deserves such reciprocity. The step from "I am fast" to "I am moraly superior for being faster" does not need to be made: all that needs to be asked is if it is possible for one actor to reasonably believe that the other could create such a system, and thus not be inclined to act with reciprocity. And the fact is that it is rather simple to make such a step: once you have given the set of characteristics different values,, you can easily then create a hierarchy of people based on which of those characteristic they possess.

I wouldn't consider "his skin color is different from mine, therefore he is morally inferior" to be a particularly valid argument, so I'll ask you to justify said line of logic before dismissing my calling it "silly." I see no reason not to throw such a justification out on its ass, since I see no causal relation between "skin color" and "moral worth."

The question is not whether you do: the question is: Is that a link that CAN be made (the logic of it is immaterial)? If it can be made, then it means the other individual besides me could have made it: as long as we share nothing but a stripped down moral code which calls for reciprocity, I have no way of knowing if he has augmentend and altered this code in ways which would make it impossible for me to expect reciprocity.

Given what they know in the hypothetical, they can infer nothing more than that the neighbor has the same desires as they do (I'm assuming there that they know that their neighbor is a human). There's certainly no guarantee that this is the case -- hence the reason why people will tend to form societies (in an attempt to better guarantee that everybody shares the same desires). But given the incomplete knowledge held by both parties, there is no reason for either to infer that the other party has different knowledge/beliefs/desires, hence they would naturally expect reciprocity.

Ah, but you see, it is what they CAN NOT KNOW that matters most. You are right, there is no reason to infer a difference,but there is no reason to infer equality either. Given the level of ignorance, the question then becomes which course of action is more "reasonable". Outside of a society (specially if these happen to be the only folks in the entire neighborhood), why take the chance that the other who happens to have the ability to kill you, might not. It is more reasonable to remove the threat, and KNOW that one is safe. Only in a social situation can the more reasonable act be to "trust", not only becuase you do have some idea that the other shares common moral codes, but becuase being in a society, there are consequences to breaking reciprocity, so either out of fear of them you don;t act, or it adds an extra level of trust that the other won;t act ebcause he is afraid of the consequences.

Which leads me back to berz and his arguement. Man's state of neture IS SOCIAL. The idea that men as individual came to form society is silly: man evolved in a societal situation. NOw, over time, specially as economic structures changed an allowed for new forms of society, and also called for new social structures, things like the concept of murder needed to come along, BUt I still hold that outside of this social millieau the concept of "murder" looses most of its meaning and power. And no, man does not have a universla desire not to be murdered, man has a universal desire not to die, whatever the cause of that death might be.

(It's worth noting that all of my good friends and I have bloodied our noses in one or more debates at some time or another, though often we're all drunk at the time. There's just something about alcohol that brings out the piss and vinegar in me.)

Never have had a debate while drunk: my sober ones are weird enough (like the four hours, or was it five?, I spent debating (well, at some point, screaming) about the US's inability to conquer China by aphibious assualt and follow up)

[Berzerker]

Lorizael -

I dropped out becaused I realized this debate was futile. I twice pointed out a crucial flaw in Berzerker's basic premise, and he twice utterly failed to respond to that...

You twice claimed that science says the universe has always existed and I responded with a question you ignored - why do we see the universe expanding as if it began with a "big bang"?
Recognise that term? It's what many scientists believe began the universe... So "science" doesn't say the universe has always been here...

One more point for you to ignore, regardless of whether or not the universe has always been here, this planet and life on it has not always been here so someone or something did create the Earth. Are you now going to tell us the science says the Earth and life on it has always been here too?

Bebro -

For rules - depends how you understand them, but lots of moral standards exist without laws, because (a vast majority of) people consider certain things morally right, even when not defined per law.

Yes, what Gepap doesn't understand is that ideas preceded laws, not the other way around. And the act of "murder" is an act based on ideas first and actions second, so the concept of what constitutes murder existed before any law was adopted to reflect that concept.

TCO -

Berzie, you know you really are a self-caricature. Now run and complain to Ming. You little crybaby.

Is that GP? I've never complained to any moderator about you or anyone else. But I'm surprised you have room to pull that out of your a$$ with your head in the way. What's wrong? Did one of the moderators have to give you a time-out because of your obnoxious behavior? Well, if I was going to complain to anyone, it would be to your parents for not teaching their spoiled brat some manners.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course it is. That's their reason for the actions. Every revolution on Earth is the change the law. The law is central. The only way to make your morals powerful is to change the law.

And they were in the position to change the law because they eventually did. If the law changed because of them, it is only reasonable to assume they were in a position to change the law.

Your argument is like saying that petitioning for a law or a repeal of law means that the law isn't relavent to their actions.

We discuss about wether moral views "that matter" can exist without law. Of course future law-making is relevant as background of a revolution, but the point is that as long this new "revolutionary" law is not made, the moral views that inspired the revolution exist without a law that reflects those views. Probably the idea about a future law exists, but that is another point (and it would btw rather support my position - moral ideas first, law later). The law itself does not exist as law (means: it does not exist as a force to influence people´s behaviour) before the revolution has succeeded and made this damn law official

At the times when Mao or Ghandi still hadn´t seized the power, it is safe to say that their moral views were not reflected by (Japanese or British) law, otherwise Mao or Ghandi would not act against the occupying forces. At this point, they were not in the position to change a law (Japanese or British still in power). So at this point their actions are not grounded in law. They even act openly against Japanese/British law. Still they are not able to make own laws to reflect their morals views better. So in praxis no law exists which reflects their views before they seized power.

But there moral views were powerful enough to create big movements that changed China and India fundamentally. Only these movements made it even possible to come into a position to seize power, and change laws finally (I agree that was their goal).

You do realize that law itself is rooted in self-interest and moral views, right?

Absolutely.

[Az]

Berz, have you answered me? because I can't find your answer.

[BeBMan]

Hey Az, one-liners aren´t allowed in this thread, only two page long articles...

[Berzerker]

What question, Azazel? Your last post was ~3 pages ago and was a statement about your philosophy of happiness, not a question to me.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
It isn;t hypocritical. I made the mistake of trying to "amswer" your debate even after I made mine clear and I could see they were not the same.

It's hypocritical that you complained when I did the same thing as you. When I stick to my guns, then I've done something wrong. When you stick to your guns, well, that's perfectly acceptable. You keep applying double-standards.

if you have no assurance of shared moral values, and hence that the other person will act with reciprocity towards you, then is it reasonable not to act to eliminate a possible threat?

It is not reasonable to do so based on that justification alone -- it's an awfully vast leap to go from "shared values are not assured" to "I am justified to strike first."

...all that needs to be asked is if it is possible for one actor to reasonably believe that the other could create such a system, and thus not be inclined to act with reciprocity.

It is entirely possible for one actor to reasonably believe that another actor is not going to reciprocate, but the key word is "reasonably" -- it is only possible for one actor to reasonably believe that this is the case if he/she can justify said belief, otherwise the belief is unreasonable. "Joe has killed people with premeditated malice before, and it is likely that he will do so again" is one such justification. "Joe is not as fast as me, so it is likely that he will kill me with premeditated malice" is not.

The question is not whether you do: the question is: Is that a link that CAN be made (the logic of it is immaterial)?

The logic is not immaterial -- if a "justification" is illogical, then it is not a reasonable (i.e. applicable) justification. You're asking "is it possible that X logically follows from Y," and the only way to justify that X logically follows from Y is to construct a logical argument showing that this is the case.

...I have no way of knowing if he has augmentend and altered this code in ways which would make it impossible for me to expect reciprocity.

You do have a way of knowing, though: if the person is reasonable, then he can be expected to apply reasonable justifications in his moral code, and thus he can be expected to reciprocate; if the person is unreasonable, then there is no reason to expect him to apply reasonable justifications to his moral code, and he cannot be expected to reciprocate.

Ah, but you see, it is what they CAN NOT KNOW that matters most. You are right, there is no reason to infer a difference,but there is no reason to infer equality either.

I was operating on the assumption that both parties recognized the other as human. This provides the basis for inferring equality -- "this person is like me, he therefore thinks like me." Obviously all people do not think alike, but this does not present a problem, since it's possible to reasonably infer the presence of differences ("this person is wearing a yellow hat, he apparently has no fashion sense"). The point is that the default inference is that of equality, and differences must be justified from there on out.

And no, man does not have a universla desire not to be murdered, man has a universal desire not to die, whatever the cause of that death might be.

Man has a universal desire not to die, but a great deal of this desire is beyond the scope of rights/morals -- it would be nonsensical to say that people have a right to live forever, because it's impossible for people to live forever. However, the desire not to be murdered is within the scope of rights/morals.

[Az]

Originally posted by Berzerker
What question, Azazel? Your last post was ~3 pages ago and was a statement about your philosophy of happiness, not a question to me.

Well, I kinda expected feedback on that.

BeBro. I used to like those. I am too tired now.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
It is not reasonable to do so based on that justification alone -- it's an awfully vast leap to go from "shared values are not assured" to "I am justified to strike first."

"justified"? Who needs "justification"? Who is going to complain? You conscience? If you are dead, that don;t matter, now does it? The question is not one of justifications. The question is "if shared values are not assured, and I can not expect recirpocity, is it reasonable to allow an armed individual who might be my opponent to be there?"

It is entirely possible for one actor to reasonably believe that another actor is not going to reciprocate, but the key word is "reasonably" -- it is only possible for one actor to reasonably believe that this is the case if he/she can justify said belief, otherwise the belief is unreasonable. "Joe has killed people with premeditated malice before, and it is likely that he will do so again" is one such justification. "Joe is not as fast as me, so it is likely that he will kill me with premeditated malice" is not.

Why? Lack of previous action is NOT proof of no future action. I refer above: "justifications" are irrelevant really, I mean, to whom will the action have to be justified? Yourself? BUt you already acted with reason, so what would be left?

The logic is not immaterial -- if a "justification" is illogical, then it is not a reasonable (i.e. applicable) justification. You're asking "is it possible that X logically follows from Y," and the only way to justify that X logically follows from Y is to construct a logical argument showing that this is the case.

It is not difficutl to go from any of those difference to a moral value judgement. If I am faster, all other things being equal, I wil be more successful in life. I am better, and will be better. What more is needed to justify my belieef in my superiority? And if I am superior, why would that not be a moral superiority as well? What argues for moral equality? Is not the difference based on somehting? Why is my being fater NOT proof of my speriority, and thus greater moral value?

You do have a way of knowing, though: if the person is reasonable, then he can be expected to apply reasonable justifications in his moral code, and thus he can be expected to reciprocate; if the person is unreasonable, then there is no reason to expect him to apply reasonable justifications to his moral code, and he cannot be expected to reciprocate.

BUt the other person could have reasonably come to the conclusion that lacking shared values other than a core belief in reciprocity among equals, they can not trust you, just as you do not trust them.

I was operating on the assumption that both parties recognized the other as human. This provides the basis for inferring equality -- "this person is like me, he therefore thinks like me." Obviously all people do not think alike, but this does not present a problem, since it's possible to reasonably infer the presence of differences ("this person is wearing a yellow hat, he apparently has no fashion sense"). The point is that the default inference is that of equality, and differences must be justified from there on out.

I do not think the default is equality. That other is not like you. Yes, he is human, but he is very different, and I have no way of knowing what they are thinking. I am "I", he is "he", we are distinct. We may share a common humanity (though if the differences in look are extreme enough, that might not even the the first belief) but it does not really follow that our thoughts are so similar to trust in reciprocity. I think that what one has to prove is that a basic common humanity leads to equality: not that the obvious difference between individuals do not equate to other differences deeper down.

Man has a universal desire not to die, but a great deal of this desire is beyond the scope of rights/morals -- it would be nonsensical to say that people have a right to live forever, because it's impossible for people to live forever. However, the desire not to be murdered is within the scope of rights/morals.

That it is impossible to live forever is not an arguement against the notion that people never want to die: desires are not rational, and it is possible to desire the impossible. How much of humanity would jump at the chance of immortality? Is it not one of the greatests dreams?
Very few things are as important to a living thing as life, with immortality for their genes being one of the few things that trump this.

And again, I doubt sldiers want to die in war, even though their deaths are not murders.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
"justified"? Who needs "justification"?

You do, if you want to make the case that your beliefs are reasonable. A reasonable belief is a well-justified belief. You asked "is it reasonable to do X," my answer was "if you are justified in doing X" -- that's what it means to be reasonable.

Why? Lack of previous action is NOT proof of no future action.

Lack of previous action provides a basis for justifying the belief that there will be no future action. Unless we assume the presence of additional information, there is no basis for justifying the belief that there will be future action.

I refer above: "justifications" are irrelevant really, I mean, to whom will the action have to be justified? Yourself? BUt you already acted with reason, so what would be left?

The action would be justified to yourself. I don't understand your final question.

If I am faster, all other things being equal, I wil be more successful in life. I am better, and will be better. What more is needed to justify my belieef in my superiority? And if I am superior, why would that not be a moral superiority as well?

What does "how fast you can run" have to do with your moral worth? If you're a faster runner, all things being equal, then you're not stronger than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to weightlifting. You're not smarter than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to, I dunno, fixing a plow, or winning at Trivial Pursuit. You're not hardier than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to fighting off disease. You're not more righteous than anybody else, so you are not morally superior.

BUt the other person could have reasonably come to the conclusion that lacking shared values other than a core belief in reciprocity among equals, they can not trust you, just as you do not trust them.

This is not a reasonable conclusion for him to make, for the same reason that it is not a reasonable conclusion for you to make.

I do not think the default is equality.

It makes no sense for it to be anything else. If I meet Joe Blow for the first time, and default to the assumption that his thought processes are vastly different from my own, then I'd never attempt to interact with him since doing so would be impossible. Even if I were to attempt such an interaction (for whatever reason), I would be severely hampered by the fact that I would have no idea what Joe was thinking (rather than having "incomplete information" as I would were I to default to equality, I instead have "zero information" by defaulting to alienism)-- rather than operating on the working assumption that his desires were "like mine, more or less," I would have to operate on the assumption that his desires were "completely alien and beyond my comprehension," so we would never be able to reach an accord on anything. Man is a social animal, so obviously people did interact with each other, this being the result of people defaulting to equality rather than alienism (or inequality or whatever you want to call it).

That it is impossible to live forever is not an arguement against the notion that people never want to die:

It's an argument against the notion that "living forever" is a natural right. I didn't say that people didn't have this universal desire, I just said that the presence of this desire is not relevant to the topic.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

And no, man does not have a universla desire not to be murdered, man has a universal desire not to die, whatever the cause of that death might be.

You know people who want to be murdered?

That it is impossible to live forever is not an arguement against the notion that people never want to die: desires are not rational, and it is possible to desire the impossible.

Rights - moral claims - are not immunities to the laws of physics, they are moral claims against other people taking what belongs to you.

Azazel -

Well, I kinda expected feedback on that.

Not much to add to what I've already said about utilitarianism. Increasing the happiness of one group by decreasing the happiness of another is not a moral foundation for "society" even if the first group is larger than the second.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Lorizael -

You twice claimed that science says the universe has always existed and I responded with a question you ignored - why do we see the universe expanding as if it began with a "big bang"?
Recognise that term? It's what many scientists believe began the universe... So "science" doesn't say the universe has always been here...

One more point for you to ignore, regardless of whether or not the universe has always been here, this planet and life on it has not always been here so someone or something did create the Earth. Are you now going to tell us the science says the Earth and life on it has always been here too?

Ack, you're not getting the point. There was no time before the universe existed. What that means is that there was never a time in which the universe could not have been, because there was no time when it did not exist. Therefore it has always existed.

Yes, before the Big Bang the universe as we know it today did not exist, but the universe in some other form was there. The universe itself has no origin.

And the Earth came to be because a lot of atoms swirling around the Sun began to hit each other, clump together, and form their own gravitational mass. No design needed there.

As far as life goes, there's evolution. And evolution, contrary to what creationists and intelligent design people may say, does include the genesis of life.

Now, for a third time, I ask you to respond to this.

This is circular reasoning here. You say that there is a Creator who made the universe. You say that this creator made natural rights. You say that the Creator shows evidence of natural rights in the universal desires of humankind. Then you say that the evidence of this Creator is in the universal desires of humankind.

That doesn't work. You prove the existence of a Creator by citing the existence of a part of the Creator's creation, but without actually presenting any hard evidence that the Creator had anything to do with that creation.

[David Floyd]

Agathon, I haven't abandoned our discussion, just been busy

Seriously, you did. Not as bad as Berz though.

Well, when orange - someone who is pretty much anti-David in terms of political beliefs - says that I beat a fellow lefty, I tend to believe him

In this case it is also preventing 100 other murders.

No, the 100 other murders are prevented by a guy deciding not to kill 100 people. He can make that choice no matter what you do.

No one said that the decision didn't lie with him. But if you have good reason to think he'll go through with it then the choice you mentioned isn't available - you have good reason to believe that either 1 or 100 people will die.

Point A)Your scenario is absolutely not realistic.
Point B)I may believe that another person will murder 100 people, but that wouldn't excuse my murder of one person. My actions and his are NOT dependent upon each other - we are individuals capable of making our own decisions, and we each are responsible for what we decide. If I decide to commit murder I am just as much in the wrong as he is, because murder is wrong. There aren't degrees of wrong - murder IS wrong, 100%.

No. All I am saying is that you can make a difference. So do you want to make things worse or better.

You're absolutely right. I can make a difference by taking positive moral action, rather than negative moral action. That is, I can make a difference by behaving morally, and refusing to commit murder, thus saving the life of the person I am being told to kill. This is the only life I can personally affect, and I can either kill this person, or not. I choose not to commit murder - what's YOUR choice?

No, in the case described you have the power to ensure that 1 or 100 people die.

No, you, and the mass murderer, are simply trying to push extra responsibility onto my shoulders. I am responsible for my own actions, and the 100 people have nothing to do with me. The 1 person only has something to do with me, should I decide to murder that person. But if I do nothing, and refuse to commit murder, I also refuse to become involved in a situation that is not of my own creation - that is, I solve a supposed "moral quandry" by refusing to play the game. My decision is that I won't murder anyone, period, and that I refuse to accept responsibility for someone else's murders - I refuse to take ANY responsibility, as I did not "pull a trigger", as it were. I am in NO way responsible for the life/death of ANYONE, except for the person I am being told to murder.

Blame isn't an all or nothing property.

Oh, there are situations where blame can be distributed. For example, if I told Person A that Person B was coming to kill him, and as a result Person A hit Person B with a baseball bat, I would share partial responsibility because I intentionally misled Person A as to the intentions of Person B.

But in your scenario, you have already said that there is no lying taking place - no fraud. It is hard for me to envision a case other than fraud in which responsibility would have to be shared (yes, yes, if there were two murderers, but they would each by equally responsible anyway, so it doesn't matter - since morality isn't a math problem, the moral/legal responsibility doesn't diminish by being involved in a group), so in this case, there is no shared responsibility.

What matters is that you acted or did not act to make the best of a bad situation.

Sure, and by refusing to commit murder, I am taking all of the positive action that I am able to take.

Because you are changing the case. The proviso in this case is that you have good reason to believe that he will carry through his threat.

But this doesn't matter - evil does not justify evil.

I didn't say it wasn't. But aren't 100 murders worse than one?

Interesting, yet irrelevant question. It doesn't matter how many people he is threatening to kill, because evil doesn't justify evil, and one can't pass personal responsibility on to another simply by wishing it away.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

You do, if you want to make the case that your beliefs are reasonable. A reasonable belief is a well-justified belief. You asked "is it reasonable to do X," my answer was "if you are justified in doing X" -- that's what it means to be reasonable.

A reasonable act does not need to be justified: it needs to conform to reason. They are similar, but not the same. Let say two people are on a boat, and the boat is not seaowrthy enough to last long with both people in it, so one throws the other out. The act is reasonable: if one does not leave the boat, both die. If one exists the boat somehow, one lives. It is rational, reasonable then for one actor to dispacth the other, to save himself. BUt how can you moraly justify the act? BY your line or arguement, only if one decided to take thier own life would both living be justifiable: but that is not rational, if one can live. It is rational, if not justifiable, to save yourself by kiling the other. Reasonableness and justified are NOT equal.

Lack of previous action provides a basis for justifying the belief that there will be no future action. Unless we assume the presence of additional information, there is no basis for justifying the belief that there will be future action.

Again, reasonable and justified are NOT the same.

The action would be justified to yourself. I don't understand your final question.

You may justify afterwards, perhaps build a moral code to justify your act retroactively, but at the moment that it happens, justification is really moot. And the second part reffers to my above arguement: reason and justification are NOT equal. I mean, look at the very word, "justify", can such a word be utterly separate from its very roots, Justice? But we live in a situation before justice. Where does justification all of sudden come from?

What does "how fast you can run" have to do with your moral worth? If you're a faster runner, all things being equal, then you're not stronger than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to weightlifting. You're not smarter than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to, I dunno, fixing a plow, or winning at Trivial Pursuit. You're not hardier than anybody else, so you are not superior with regards to fighting off disease. You're not more righteous than anybody else, so you are not morally superior.

"Righteous"? "Righteous" assumes a already exiting and shared moral code by which you could measure a thing called "righteousness". BUt in this situation there is no shared moral code. I said" all things being equal", which means that one know he is as strong, as smart, but there is a difference, one is faster. All other things being equal, this difference does give one advanatges over the other: were did this difference come from? Why does one have a natural advantage oevr the toher, period? And why wpould this natural,e asy to measure, easy to sense difference not be the surface evidence of a deeper superiority? After all, I am better. (Remeber, all other things being equal-except one thing, in which one does have advantage).

This is not a reasonable conclusion for him to make, for the same reason that it is not a reasonable conclusion for you to make.

Of course it is reasonable: just examine the facts: We are different, i do not know how he thinks, I have nothing to base my trust that he will act with recirpocity towards me but his word, which could be a lie, and he has the baility to end my life: why not kill him? Again, to whom does the act need to be "justified"? He will be dead, I alive! Who is left?

It makes no sense for it to be anything else. If I meet Joe Blow for the first time, and default to the assumption that his thought processes are vastly different from my own, then I'd never attempt to interact with him since doing so would be impossible. Even if I were to attempt such an interaction (for whatever reason), I would be severely hampered by the fact that I would have no idea what Joe was thinking (rather than having "incomplete information" as I would were I to default to equality, I instead have "zero information" by defaulting to alienism)-- rather than operating on the working assumption that his desires were "like mine, more or less," I would have to operate on the assumption that his desires were "completely alien and beyond my comprehension," so we would never be able to reach an accord on anything. Man is a social animal, so obviously people did interact with each other, this being the result of people defaulting to equality rather than alienism (or inequality or whatever you want to call it).

I agree that man is a social being: that very fact argues deeply against liberterianism, since liberterianism is a system deeply built on the notion of the individual being are atom in relation to all others: the very fact that man in the state of nature is NOT alone. If we view man as atoms, as distinctly alone, seperate from each other, if we accept the notion that all of men's social structures are created by different atoms choosing to come together (as opposed to naturally occuring structures, or artifical structures being built upon natural foundations) then you have to assume alienism between the atoms coming together, becuase anythign else is not rational. And how then did society come to be? That is my point: if you acceot that man is by nature social, it becomes, as far as I am concerned, much mroe difficult to accept liberterianism at any level.

It's an argument against the notion that "living forever" is a natural right. I didn't say that people didn't have this universal desire, I just said that the presence of this desire is not relevant to the topic.

It is relevant, since this is what Berz feels is the foundation of natural rights, or one of them and this is his thread. And when he says "people have a universal desire not to be murdered", he is being somewhat disingeneous, since he sepaartes this from the universal desire not to die, but for the person murdered, the end result is the same, so it really does NOT make a true difference to them.

[Drake Tungsten]

Good god, this has to be the longest 299-post thread in the world.