Conscription

[Velociryx]

DF: I don't have to back up or justify anything. The fact is that in this country we DO have a social contract. Right now. That's not a matter of conjecture, it's there. Part of that contract says that we will pay taxes. Another part says that we will send in our draft cards. You can buck both systems if you want to, tho if you buck the tax thing, there ARE punishments which will land you some jail time. We go easier on CO's with the whole draft thing tho.

The only justification such a social contract needs is that we, the people, through our elected representatives have chosen to make it so.

That is not to say that because it IS so, it should remain so for all time, but the fact of the matter is that in the here and now, that's the rules of the club. If they bother you....one valid response is to attempt to change them.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Now, if you'd apply that single-minded determination to something that mattered, you'd really go places!

-=Vel=-

Hey we each have our goals. You are about as determined as I am. You want to be rich, and I want a better world. In my opinion a better world does matter. It really doesn't matter if you think so. I'm not going to bother with your goal. I have my own, and no I'm not going to quit fighting for it.

btw, If you really want to show me that you can become rich all by yourself give all your wealth up and move to isolation. If you can become rich there then I will stop figthing for a better world. You see no one does it all by themselves. Society does more for individuals than idividuals could ever do for themselves.

[David Floyd]

DF: I don't have to back up or justify anything.

Well, humor me, then. Tell me why you think a social contract exists.

The fact is that in this country we DO have a social contract. Right now. That's not a matter of conjecture, it's there. Part of that contract says that we will pay taxes. Another part says that we will send in our draft cards.

No, those are laws, not contracts. If you want to argue that whatever law happens to be on the books is the same as a social contract, then you've also gotta argue that slaves should have obeyed their masters and Japanese-Americans should have contritely submitted to detention camps. Do you make those claims?

You are also taking the moral element out of government - if government can create any contract it wants by simply passing a law, then the government isn't really limited, is it? At least, certainly not limited by any moral consideration.

You can buck both systems if you want to, tho if you buck the tax thing, there ARE punishments which will land you some jail time. We go easier on CO's with the whole draft thing tho.

Again, those are laws. You do understand the difference between a law and the theory of a social contract, right? Social contract isn't whatever the government happens to say it is at the moment - that definition fails.

Now, you could also argue that the social contract is to follow the law, but again, you are simply making an argument for authoritarianism. If you want to make that argument, fine, but let's be up front about it.

The only justification such a social contract needs is that we, the people, through our elected representatives have chosen to make it so.

Ah, so now social contract should be decided by majority vote?

But I am assuming that you think social contract and law are synonymous. Am I correct?

That is not to say that because it IS so, it should remain so for all time, but the fact of the matter is that in the here and now, that's the rules of the club. If they bother you....one valid response is to attempt to change them.

[Velociryx]

Kid - a better world is a good and worthy goal. No denying it, and it's something I'd like to see myself, however, your methodology is what distrubs me, not the goal itself.

I utterly reject the notion that you can have a better world if your every move, thought, and action is dictated to you by the state. That's absurd. Only YOU can decide what would make your little part of the world better, and only by making those decisions for yourself will the world as a whole improve.

If you like having every aspect of your life dictated to you, come on over and I'll boss you around. Doesn't sound too attractive, does it? And yet, that's essentially what you want to see imposed on the whole world (well, except for you, cos you envision yourself, no doubt, as one of the party bosses, so no one will get to sass you, right?).

I will not be dictated to. Not by you, not by your croonies, not by anyone. So, I reject your version of utopia.

As to becoming wealthy on a deserted island. Too easy. Wealth is defined by the society you're in, and in that case, wealth is whatever I choose to make it.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Nope....social contract =! law, but laws are made in support OF said social contract. As to why it exists....because we wish it to exist. It certainly doesn't exist in nature, on its own, and without us.

Governments are not human beings, therefore, governments have no morals (no more than my cat does). That the government is made up of human beings to serve society as a whole gives it a moral element, but the government itself is not capable of morality.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If you like having every aspect of your life dictated to you, come on over and I'll boss you around. Doesn't sound too attractive, does it? And yet, that's essentially what you want to see imposed on the whole world (well, except for you, cos you envision yourself, no doubt, as one of the party bosses, so no one will get to sass you, right?).

You know damn well I'm a democrat with a little "d" as DF puts it. Stop with this crap making me out to be a tyrant. I believe in relative equality in outcomes not totalitarian govt. Come with a real argument, not this crap.

[Velociryx]

Kid....if only it were so. You have said repeatedly that when the glorious revolution begins, it will begin with the deaths of all the capitalist pigdogs who resist. That those who do not resist will be put in your own private little gulag to torment and torture...erm...no, "re-educate" as you see fit.

But this does not smack of tyranny to you? Oooooohkay then....

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

Nope....social contract =! law, but laws are made in support OF said social contract.

No, laws are made to protect the rights of individuals - or at least, that's why laws SHOULD be made, and that's the only logical reason for having a law, if you believe in the concept of freedom.

As to why it exists....because we wish it to exist. It certainly doesn't exist in nature, on its own, and without us.

We "wished" a social contract into existence?

No, the only way a social contract could be in any way valid is if the formation of the nation was predicated on a certain social contract - that is, if it has been here from the beginning. Now, you can argue however you want, either way, on that topic, but you CANNOT argue that conscription could have been part of the original social contract in 1776 OR 1783.

If you are arguing that social contract can change, then it isn't really a social contract, and really just law. If it looks, walks, talks like a duck...

Governments are not human beings, therefore, governments have no morals (no more than my cat does). That the government is made up of human beings to serve society as a whole gives it a moral element, but the government itself is not capable of morality.

But governments must still "behave" morally, the same way that you or I must. Simply because the government, as a whole, isn't an individual, doesn't make it OK for the government, as a whole, to sanction murder.

[David Floyd]

ou know damn well I'm a democrat with a little "d" as DF puts it. Stop with this crap making me out to be a tyrant.

The irony is, Vel is the one arguing for conscription, which is probably the most tyrannical of all government actions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx


Kid....if only it were so. You have said repeatedly that when the glorious revolution begins, it will begin with the deaths of all the capitalist pigdogs who resist. That those who do not resist will be put in your own private little gulag to torment and torture...erm...no, "re-educate" as you see fit.

But this does not smack of tyranny to you? Oooooohkay then....

-=Vel=-

If we took up arms against your govt you would do the same thing.

[Velociryx]

No, laws are made to protect the rights of individuals - or at least, that's why laws SHOULD be made, and that's the only logical reason for having a law, if you believe in the concept of freedom.

That's one good, valid reason that laws are made, yep. But it does not explain the existence of every law on the books, and some of those others are there in support of our social contract.

As to the existence of the social contract...yes, we created it. If that is difficult for you to swallow, then I would ask if you could show me an example of a social contract existing outside the bounds of a society? Perhaps find me one walking around in the woods outside?

No?

Because they do not exist until we create them, based on what we, as a societal group, believe.

Social contracts CAN and DO change as the societies themselves change.

We're not living in the same world we were living in a hundred years ago, or even twenty years ago. And as the nature of our society changes, so changes the social contract. Not a big mystery.

As to conscription being tyrannical...oh yes, letting CO's go without punishment...such harsh tyranny, eh?

And Kid....it'll be a great party, I'm sure....but you'll have to steal the guns initially, yes? I mean, we wouldn't want you to bruise your ego making guns at a big ol, mean exploitive gun factory, nor using YOUR hard earned dollars to actually purchase them.....just, you know, steal them from the pigdogs (who aren't really human anyway, true?)

-=Vel=-

[Kramerman]

No, those are laws, not contracts. If you want to argue that whatever law happens to be on the books is the same as a social contract, then you've also gotta argue that slaves should have obeyed their masters and Japanese-Americans should have contritely submitted to detention camps. Do you make those claims?

I do. Those are the laws. Laws are a reflectio of the contract. Does that make it right? I cannot say.

[Berzerker]

Templar -

Labor is a fairly strong leg, and I, you and most reasonable people grant it creates a moral interest in the fruits of the labor. Fine. First come, however is not at all straightforward.

First come, first serve was a phrase used in the prior thread in reference to a hypothetical Kid offered to identify a property owner - a man who gathered together seeds for planting in an unoccupied/unowned field. And it is quite straightforward when we don't introduce hypotheticals in the attempt to explore complicated scenarios where the property owner is in doubt.

Hypothetical: lets assume you come into possession of the world's oil supply via labor.

Can we deal with hypotheticals that can arise in the real world?

There are two things oil is really good for (or says a chemical engineer friend of mine): production of advanced polymers and fuel. You decide to burn all of the oil for fuel. This is your desire. My friend points out that there are alternative fuels to oil but no readily available alternatives for polymer production. Suppose the community at large demands both energy and polymers. Under first come, you can frustrate the community's desire for both, and inefficiently burn the oil. On the other hand, the community might impose a system whereby the community calculates the amount of energy your oil will generate, gives you an equal energy share in natural gas, and takes your oil for polymers (ignore transaction costs for the example). You might even be religiously opposed to polymers (it will bring about the rapture!). but the community extinguishes your interest in the oil while, by giving you the equivalent energy in natural gas, respects your labor claim in terms of reparation.

Clearly, if you do not want the oil used for polymers this is a violation of your moral interest in the oil based on labor and first come. However, I also think this is the right outcome - even though it does not respect first come. See? First come is not at all obvious.

You're arguing that other people have reason to ignore the owner's moral authority - so what?

I brought up efficiency to show that labor theory is separable from first come first serve. Since they are separable they require independent justification as moral principles.

They aren't separable wrt moral authority and they both rely on the same moral principle - ownership. You own your labor and first come is a statement of ownership as well.

The stolen property is the gold, not the statue.

The statue is made of the gold.

Under the labor theory + first come, the miner has no right to the statue considered apart from the gold. And that is the problem.

It isn't a problem, which is why I said the statue maker has the moral authority to melt down the statue before the miner takes possession.

The miner, under ONLY labor + first come has no right to the statue in itself and this creates a problem vis-a-vis the miner's rights with respect to the gold. You are not keeping the statue and gold distinct. The fact that one entity (the statue) depends entirely on another entity (the gold) creates the problem - it does not solve the problem (as you seem to argue). (This sort of problem -where does one thing end and another begin - rears its ugly head all the time in intellectual property, BTW.) If you think the gold and the statue are not separate entities argue that point. But once you do, you will be adding a third principle besides labor and first come to your moral theory of property.

Did you even read what I said? The statue maker's moral authority is limited only to melting down the statue, not keeping the statue. The miner's moral authority is limited only to the gold, not the statue.

Contemporary property theory recognizes that property is a creature of the community (or state or nation or whatever).

And that's why contemporary property theory is immoral. Just ask the victims looted by the Nazis...

Just property systems take into account competing moral interests like labor, efficiency, first come, and so forth and try to balance these various interests into a fair and stable system.

Where did you prove efficiency constitutes moral authority? To use your words, I shot that down. That leaves only labor and first come, so you'll have to identify the "and so forth".

First, see above. Property is not a material thing, it is a relationship between a person and a thing.

Is that not the context we are using?

Second, this is circular. What you want to say is that property itself is moral authority over a thing. Fine. You're in good company so far.

You keep saying "this is circular" without explaining why.

But that means you are looking for an argument that jumps from labor and material (incl. intellectual "material" I presume) to moral authority of a person over that admixture of labor and material. Again, fine. That's is exactly what you should be thinking about. However, to immediately say that the material labor is being mixed with is property (i.e. "Property = material owned by the person making the effort.") is to assume that the laborer has a proprietary interest to the material before any labor is admixed with the material.

Property = material owned by the person making the effort. How could you read that and conclude I meant property was a thing with no relationship to the owner?

But admixture, you say, is the key to the moral authority that constitutes property.

You've left out "first come", i.e., actual ownership of the material.

Thus you assume proprietary interest in the material as a starting point, and add labor to to prove that there is a proprietary interest in the material. That's circular.

Huh? The labor was not added to prove a proprietary interest in the material, first come proves that. The labor is merely what I've done after acquiring the material to make use of the resource.

Underdetermination means that labor and first come alone are insufficient to determine all conflicts that will arise under a property system. Ergo, you need more than these principles to fully explain any comprehensive property system.

You're restating an opinion, I'm waiting for the proof.

Your argument is essentially Locke's, whether you are aware of this or not.

I'm not aware and don't care. If you want to debate, then deal with what I'm saying, stop avoiding my arguments by replacing me with Locke and announcing how his theory has been invalidated (no proof of that assertion either ).

Thus all of the standard objections to Locke apply.

Which is meaningless to me. I'm not aware of Locke's "labor theory" nor have you actually shown these irrelevant objections (not that I care). Refute me, not Locke.

The proof here is in all of my posts. The proof in the world is that property theory has moved beyond Locke, and your own Lockean reasoning.

*sigh* You mentioned Nozick, that isn't proof. You mentioned Locke, that isn't proof I'm using his theory. If you can't respond to what I've said, then stop dragging others in to do your debating. You claimed you shot down my arguments, but all you keep doing is claiming Locke's arguments have been refuted.

[Velociryx]

With regards to the status made of gold:

As soon as it goes to the court for resolution, it's out of the hands of the folks participating, and in this case, if I was judging it, I'd order the statue maker to sell his statue, pay the man the value of his gold and keep the difference. The gold does nothing by itself, and is easily replaceable (he can just go buy himself another hunk of gold, if he wants).

If a third party stole the gold and gave it to the statue-maker...well, that's a separate issue between the thief and the statue maker....but at least the solution above begins to get to the bottom of things.

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

Vel, why do you have the moral authority to make such a decision? You don't own the gold, the miner does. Obviously this hypothetical removes any value other than money from the miner's perspective, but let's say the material stolen had sentimental value. Let's say the miner had some attachment to the gold that only he could understand. What then?