Conscription

[David Floyd]

Of course, if you are not a libertarian

Vel has some Libertarian beliefs, as does Imran, but Berzerker and I are the only two "all out" Libertarians on the thread (and, AFAIK, on the forum as a whole right now, although Wraith and Rex Little post occasionally).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
A)When were property rights "removed"?

Income tax. 1913 I believe.

Originally posted by David Floyd
B)To accept the assertion that a government can remove any rights, first you have to accept the assertion that natural rights do not exist.

I could just care less if rights are natural or not, and most people also careless. Only Libertarians tend to care about them.

Originally posted by David Floyd
So, ultimately, people only have rights as long as the government wants them to?

Yes, and as far as the govt is democratic the People make that decision.

Libertarians want to make laws that you see as natural rights, but in actuality are simply undemocratic because the People don't want them. They have good reason to reject the theory of natural law, because that would be going back in time to a period where there was much more suffering. Libertarians want to turn back progress.

[David Floyd]

Income tax. 1913 I believe.

I gotcha. I thought you were referring to all property rights in one swoop.

I could just care less if rights are natural or not, and most people also careless. Only Libertarians tend to care about them.

If rights are natural, then it follows that it is not the government's place, or within its power, to "remove" them, now doesn't it?

Yes, and as far as the govt is democratic the People make that decision.

Remind me again why I would want people dumber than me deciding how I should live?

Libertarians want to make laws that you see as natural rights, but in actuality are simply undemocratic

Duh. Democracy sucks.

They have good reason to reject the theory of natural law, because that would be going back in time to a period where there was much more suffering

Actually you are misunderstanding natural law/rights - there has never been a time in which natural rights were strictly observed by a government. That's sorta like arguing that free capitalism will fail on the basis of Victorian Britain - that's a silly argument, because there were laws in favor of businesses as opposed to workers, rather than the government backing out altogether.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Which is why we have no rights under your philosophy, only permission from "society", i.e., the majority (I suppose). You don't understand the difference between a right and a privilege.

You may be correct. You are talking about rights. But I would say that I'm talking about benefits, not priviledges.

[KrazyHorse]

You have no right to life in a civil society if you're not prepeared to defend that society from violent change. You will rightly be tooseed in jail if you decialine service when the verty life of the nation is at stake. Conscrip[tion is unjustified for Veitnam-type excyursion, but justified for WWII type war,

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Remind me again why I would want people dumber than me deciding how I should live?

I don't always like the results of democracy either. In fact I rarely do. However I argue that by definition democracy does tend to be fairer than any alternative.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Income tax. 1913 I believe.

Hmm...are you equating labor with property?

I could just care less if rights are natural or not, and most people also careless. Only Libertarians tend to care about them.

Would you start caring if the majority - "society" - enslaved or murdered you and your family?

Yes, and as far as the govt is democratic the People make that decision.

You mean a minority since the majority can't or doesn't vote, but I'll accept that you believe a majority of those who do vote get to make these decisions. So, why would you call for a revolution when the majority doesn't vote the way you want? If you really believed that, you wouldn't be a communist or anything other than a small "d" democrat.

Libertarians want to make laws that you see as natural rights, but in actuality are simply undemocratic because the People don't want them.

True, democracy is immoral just like any other system that ignores natural rights. As Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" said, why would I want to trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away.

They have good reason to reject the theory of natural law, because that would be going back in time to a period where there was much more suffering. Libertarians want to turn back progress.

No, their reason to reject natural rights is their contempt for other people's freedom. Even Imran argued for ignoring all our rights under the 9th Amendment to the Constitution because he feared some guy might claim a right to have sex with a farm animal.

As for your comment about natural rights being responsible for past suffering. At what time in history did natural rights - libertarianism - prevail? The first historical governments were despotic monarchies often accompanied by caste systems which prevailed for millennia with sporadic republics popping up here and there followed by ~democracies. It would be nice if you backed up such outrageous claims. Besides, this past suffering was a result of slow/rare production gains. Life spans and quality of life have dramatically increased over the last 2 centuries because of these gains you complain about. Now, identify when and where this system of natural rights prevailed or withdraw your Kidiculous assertion.

[Berzerker]

However I argue that by definition democracy does tend to be fairer than any alternative.

"Fairer" as defined by you, which is not an example of "democracy".

[Velociryx]

DF

Then the only conclusion of your argument is the tyranny of the majority. 50% + 1 legally lording it over 50% - 1, if it came down to it, able to do anything they wanted to the minority in the name of the "voluntary social contract and good".

Can you read, or did you just not see the "subject to judicial review" part. The majority CANNOT do whatever it wants to the minority. They are bound by the parameters of the Constitution. And before you start talking about how antiquated that document is, remember that it can be, and has been amended. Rediculous to call democracy the tyranny of the majority, and equally rediculous to discuss the 50% + 1 majority that's entirely possible, but never yet happened in 200-odd years.

Templar

(4) is not an option - you can't just join another country at will. In some respects US citizens are stuck with US citizenship.

Bullocks. It's done every day. Not "at will," no. But to say that it's too hard to be an option is nonsense and flies in the face of reality. If you can't be arsed to go through the process, then obviously whatever has your panties in a wad isn't all THAT terrible to you.

I am arguing that your stand on conscription raises questions of your inconsistency on either your moral position on conscription or your moral position on property.

And you would be arguing from an incorrect premise in that case. There's no inconsistency here. Duration IS important, and in fact, defining to me. What's also important is that I had to make a choice....send in my draft card, or not? Play by the rules or buck the system? I chose to accept that the rights, priveleges, and opportunities I have (that are safeguarded for me BY this country) do not come free, and that I may be called on to defend them. I gave the nod to that by sending my draft card in. How was that involuntary? How does that make me a slave? How is a government demand of something (potentially, not absolutely) in return for safeguarding all the wonderful opportunity and freedom we have, immoral? The slightest breeze bowls your arguments over.

So if the people elected a communist government that immediately extinguished your private property claims, then you would be willingly giving up your property, not having it taken. After all, such would be the policy of an elected government ...

And to think, this is one of the results of the glorious revolution you wish for. Yes, IF a communist government were ever elected, I'd have the same choices I mentioned to you, and I would choose "change the system." or "leave." I wouldn't be alone in that.

DF

Then, as I pointed out earlier, why do we let Conscientious Objectors avoid the draft with no consequences? No one ever addressed that.

Another reason that conscription in this country is not immoral. If there's no punishment for those who object, then what's it to you if someone doesn't really want to go, but also doesn't object?

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

Can you read, or did you just not see the "subject to judicial review" part. The majority CANNOT do whatever it wants to the minority.

Sure it can - with your added caveat of "if a judge says so", which in many ways is the same as saying "if the government says so".

They are bound by the parameters of the Constitution.

That would be a good start, if they actually cared about following the Constitution, were apolitical in their decisions, and looked to the meaning and intent of the Constitution, not just lawyerly ways to define words.

And before you start talking about how antiquated that document is, remember that it can be, and has been amended.

Funny, that's the argument I make towards those who think conscription is Constitutional. The Constitution is, as written, a great document, and amendments took care of various flaws, such as civil rights.

Rediculous to call democracy the tyranny of the majority, and equally rediculous to discuss the 50% + 1 majority that's entirely possible, but never yet happened in 200-odd years.

No, 50% + 1 hasn't happened, but are you seriously saying that in the US, the majority has not at various times tried to strip a certain minority of their rights? If nothing else, Japanese-Americans in WW2, but there are plenty of other examples, even if you don't define conscription as refusing to acknowledge and respect someone's rights, as I do.

Another reason that conscription in this country is not immoral. If there's no punishment for those who object, then what's it to you if someone doesn't really want to go, but also doesn't object?

You just entirely missed the point. The question wasn't "Can I get out of the draft?", the question was, "If military service is a duty and an implied social contract, and it doesn't matter what people's individual morality is when put against society's needs, then why do we allow for COs?"

Try answering THAT one.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -
Hmm...are you equating labor with property?

I'm using the term the way it's used in the Constitution.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Would you start caring if the majority - "society" - enslaved or murdered you and your family?

See you have your priorities all screwed up. Redistributing property and taking away gun ownership rights are not oppressive. I'm not arguing for the government to murder people.

Originally posted by Berzerker
You mean a minority since the majority can't or doesn't vote, but I'll accept that you believe a majority of those who do vote get to make these decisions.

Not voting is just like voting. It means you don't care one way or the other or you don't like either of the politicians. It can also mean that you are against the system. Maybe you shouldn't vote

Originally posted by Berzerker
So, why would you call for a revolution when the majority doesn't vote the way you want? If you really believed that, you wouldn't be a communist or anything other than a small "d" democrat.

I don't call for a revolution by the minority. And I am a democrat with a small "d." I don't vote.

Originally posted by Berzerker
True, democracy is immoral just like any other system that ignores natural rights. As Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" said, why would I want to trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away.

That's absurd. Redistributing property or taking away gun ownership rights are not tyranical. They benefit people. Now denying the People to decide their laws is tyranical.

Originally posted by Berzerker
No, their reason to reject natural rights is their contempt for other people's freedom.

I would have to agree with you that most people reject your view of freedom. Authoritarian govt is authoritarian govt even if it's constitutional.

Originally posted by Berzerker
As for your comment about natural rights being responsible for past suffering. At what time in history did natural rights - libertarianism - prevail? The first historical governments were despotic monarchies often accompanied by caste systems which prevailed for millennia with sporadic republics popping up here and there followed by ~democracies. It would be nice if you backed up such outrageous claims.

And I pray to God that there never will be one. The US tried to be one. It was the original goal of the Constitution. Fortunately the People realized that that way caused suffering and it was outright rejected.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Besides, this past suffering was a result of slow/rare production gains. Life spans and quality of life have dramatically increased over the last 2 centuries because of these gains you complain about.

Suffering is caused by authoritarianism and capitalism (expolitation). I'm not talking about owning crap. I'm talking about people having their basic needs met. Nothing has done anything to help that except democracy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
"Fairer" as defined by you, which is not an example of "democracy".

It's fairer according to the vast majority of people everywhere. That IS democracy my friend.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Templar -

I've never mentioned that my argument relies on this "labor theory", that comes from you. And then you proceed to offer this gem:

You can call it whatever you like, but your idea that a property interest is acquired via admixture of labor with material is John Locke's labor theory of property. I don't know if you've read Locke or not, but if you haven't you should go read it. It will sound just like your position. Therefore, you are an exponent of the labor theory.

If I've "smuggled" something into this labor theory, then I'm not using this theory now, am I?

See above, you are using the labor theory (whether you are familiar with the term or not. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swins like a duck, and quacks like a duck ...

And don't feel bad, Locke himself had to smuggle in first-come-first-serve to further explain his theory. That is, it is needed as a barrier against person B admixing his labor with material after person A has admixed her labor with the very same material.

First-come-first-serve however is not the only possibility. In fact a better criterion might be efficiency. So that even if you built your dirt farm on Greenacre first, my plans for a factory would be a far more efficient use for Greenacre - so I should get Greenacre, even if you were there first. Labor + optimized efficiency is as much a posibility as labor + first-come-first-serve is. Locke in essence elided labor with first-come-first-serve. So don't feel bad, you are in good company.

Btw, you were the one doing the "smuggling", I equated the labor to produce property with the property wrt moral authority and you smuggled in stolen goods to change what I said. Nice try, but that dog won't hunt.

It's one thing if the sculptor in my statue example is aware that the gold is stolen. If the sculptor acts in good faith that the gold is not stolen, then the story is different.

Would that be a "social construct" based on moral considerations? Yes, I do believe so... That's right Templar, my views on property stem from moral considerations. That isn't confusion, just a basis for a system of property. Would you base a system of property on immoral considerations?

Fair enough. You are predicating a property regime based on the interest generated by labor. But labor can only create a pre-proprietary interest. The interest is pre-proprietary because property can only exist in a civil society where property rights are publically recongized and held without pure recourse to force.

Moreover, I assume that even if a society were to enact a communist social contract that you would want to argue that the ensuing property regime were unjust if it failed to take into account pre-proprietary labor interests.

No you didn't, you said the gold ore was stolen and fell into the hands of the statue maker. I responded to your scenario by pointing out that the ore producer has the moral claim to the ore even if the statue maker added his labor. What was your comeback? Oh yeah, you shot down my "labor theory"...

The sculptor has a claim to the statue as an entity ontologically distinct from the gold, the miner has the claim to the gold. This would not be a problem except for the fact that the statue's existence is based on the gold. Due to this state of affairs labor theory alone cannot determine to whom the gold belongs - if it belongs to the miner, then the labor of the sculptor is not recognized. If the gold belongs to the sculptor (obviously, the statue as distinct belongs to the sculptor under labor theory), then the labor interest of the miner is ignored.

This argument IS how I shot down labor theory. First-come-first-serve is usually inserted as a bulwark against these sorts of hypotheticals. That is, the miner is first with the gold, so his or her labor interest is the controlling labor interest. However, in my statue example, the miner's claim is complicated by the fact that the statue is itself a distinct entity from the gold. So first-come can resolve the controlling interest in the gold, however because the statue is dependent on the gold for existence, the sculptor' labor interest controls the sculpture, and the miner has NO labor interest in the statue itself, even first-come cannot resolve the problem.

That's why labor + first-come is insufficient to deal with property. Obviously in the real world a court would be required to determine the ownership of the gold in such a situation. However, whatever property determination which is made will rely on something beyond labor + first-come. Ergo, property regimes are underdetermined by labor + first-come.

Now, what was UR's explanation for the origin of this "pre-existing right"? Was he saying you have a pre-existing right to add your labor to material you've stolen to produce something?

UR pointed out that for labor to work, there must be a pre-existing right for a laborer to admix his or her labor with the material. This is why pure labor theory doesn't work - and why even Locke had to smuggle in first-come-first-serve.

Implying I've made some contradictory concession to your argument is ridiculous when I've opposed conscription based on ownership in this thread and others long before you appeared.

You have not made a contradiction, you have used an exploded theory to make your case. It would be as if we were discussing physics and you backed your findings with Aristotlian physics. Locke's labor theory is very much in the same position with contemporary property theory. You haven't contradicted yourself, only used obsolete ideas.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Duh. Democracy sucks.

The better way to argue this is that contemporary democracy is not about "majority rule" simpliciter. Rather, the majority is constrained by the amount the government can do.

You and I would merely disagree about how much authority a government may morally claim in terms of property interests.

Actually you are misunderstanding natural law/rights - there has never been a time in which natural rights were strictly observed by a government. That's sorta like arguing that free capitalism will fail on the basis of Victorian Britain - that's a silly argument, because there were laws in favor of businesses as opposed to workers, rather than the government backing out altogether.

Exactly. In theory, you could have a democratic government that was fully constrained against acting in ways that run contrary to natural rights (granted much of this constraint will have to be maintained by the people - but that's a problem for any system).

In practice, you never see this though. STill, I don't think this a problem with democracy per se.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
DF

Templar

(4) is not an option - you can't just join another country at will. In some respects US citizens are stuck with US citizenship.

Bullocks. It's done every day. Not "at will," no. But to say that it's too hard to be an option is nonsense and flies in the face of reality. If you can't be arsed to go through the process, then obviously whatever has your panties in a wad isn't all THAT terrible to you.

I'm pretty sure that EU member-state citizenship requires either a vital or rare skill or a giant fee. Of course can you blame them? Most EU states are such nice places they would be overrun if just anyone could move in - even with effort.

So if you can't pay the fee or don't have a listed skill, no amount of effort will earn you citizenship.

And you would be arguing from an incorrect premise in that case. There's no inconsistency here. Duration IS important, and in fact, defining to me.

If crooked-ass LA cop tosses you in jail for a day for no reason whatsoever, I assume you will be pissed (I would). Will you be any less pissed off if the cop responds, "but it was only a day! What are you complaining about?" If you would still be angry, you can see how duration is not an issue relevant to you imprisonment. Likewise, duration is not relevant to conscription. After all, for a libertarian, a taking is a taking - duration only goes to the amount of damage actually inflicted.

What's also important is that I had to make a choice....send in my draft card, or not? Play by the rules or buck the system?

That's like saying taxes are really volutary. Pay or go to jail forever. It's not a significant choice.

I chose to accept that the rights, priveleges, and opportunities I have (that are safeguarded for me BY this country) do not come free, and that I may be called on to defend them. I gave the nod to that by sending my draft card in. How was that involuntary? How does that make me a slave?

Sure, so pay market value to soldiers. Pay the cost in taxes and don't externalize. And no, it doesn't make you a slave. Actual conscription is the slavery or indentured servitude - not filling out the card.

So if the people elected a communist government that immediately extinguished your private property claims, then you would be willingly giving up your property, not having it taken. After all, such would be the policy of an elected government ...

And to think, this is one of the results of the glorious revolution you wish for. Yes, IF a communist government were ever elected, I'd have the same choices I mentioned to you, and I would choose "change the system." or "leave." I wouldn't be alone in that.

I certainly don't believe in glorius revolutions that occur at gunpoint and would want no part of that - good ends cannot justify evil means. Now having said that ...

I can't argue that you are being incosistent here. If you believe that elected communism has the same democratic pedigree as elected conscription and that the democratic pedigree is sufficient to justify the actions, then you are perfectly consistent.