Conscription

[Velociryx]

It's a raw material. That would be like me having an emotional attachment to the particular pavement that makes up my driveway.

But hypothetically, even if he DID have some sort of bizzare emotional bond with his hunk of gold, too bad. Once it becomes clear that he and the statue maker cannot resolve their differences between themselves, it goes to the courts to be decided. At that moment, it's out of both their hands.

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

Vel,

That's one good, valid reason that laws are made, yep. But it does not explain the existence of every law on the books,

You are absolutely right on that point - many laws on the books have nothing to do with preventing people from violating the rights of other people, and those are immoral laws.

and some of those others are there in support of our social contract.

You still haven't told me what this social contract is, what the terms are, and who specifically made it up ("wished" it up was your term, I believe) at what specific time.

As to the existence of the social contract...yes, we created it.

Who? I certainly didn't. And when?

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?

Oh, you are absolutely right, and in a way that's my point. I believe that the only point of government is to protect natural rights of the individual - certainly not to enforce some social contract that has to be artificially created in the first place. If you want to say that the social contract is simply to not violate the rights of others, then congratulations, but even that isn't a valid social contract, as such, because preventing such rights violations is the sole purpose of government to begin with. If you want to take that definition, which would be palatable to me, then you would also have to admit that the social contract is synonymous with moral laws and moral government, not some separate entity.

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

So now you are saying that things the majority of society believe should be sorta codified into a social contract, but not actually codified into law, however, the law should be based on the social contract. Only thing I can say to that is "Whahuh?"

You are simply making two assertions here. Number one, that the social contract equals the law. Number two, the social contract can't be immoral because it is simply a reflection of what "society" wants.

Number one is pretty obvious, and I don't see why you don't just grant the point.

Number two implies a couple more things. First of all, it implies the absence of an absolute moral standard, which is a position I categorically reject (as do most Libertarians, I believe). This implies that it is perfectly alright for "society", by which you really mean a minimum of 50% + 1, to do anything it likes, even killing certain parts of the population or robbing them at a whim.

And don't try to pull out the defense that certain individual rights are protected by the courts. First of all, this is only true (or at least supposed to be) in certain systems, such as the US systems, and each system is different, in any case. Further, if courts can override the "social contract", then isn't the social contract again the same as law? Finally, if judges can act contrary to societal beliefs in overriding the social contract, aren't you really saying that the beliefs of society are irrelevant, when it counts, and that society (and thus the social contract) must be held to some higher standard?

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.

Here, though, it seems you are arguing that the "social contract", not, in fact, the courts, is the highest law. In fact, you have to be arguing this, because if you are arguing that the social contract is subordinate to the courts, then you also have to concede that there are certain things the social contract can't require, no matter what the nature of society, until you change the Constitution.

So which is it? Is the "social contract" the final word, or do judges have the final word?

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

If all that it took to get CO status was to unilaterally claim CO status, with no questions asked, then you'd have a point. This would be nothing different than a volunteer system, as anyone who didn't want to go fight wouldn't have to.

But, in fact, this isn't what happens, and you know it.

Kramerman,

I do. Those are the laws. Laws are a reflectio of the contract.

So you are arguing that slaves had no moral right to rebel, and the Japanese-Americans had no right to defend themselves from unjust incarceration?

Does that make it right? I cannot say.

You can't say whether or not slavery is wrong? You don't know whether or not it is wrong for the government to lock up hundreds of thousands of people who committed no crime?

[Kramerman]

So you are arguing that slaves had no moral right to rebel, and the Japanese-Americans had no right to defend themselves from unjust incarceration?

i could care less about morals. Rights are just things written on paper, they mean nothing if no one can enforce them. If slavery laws were in place, then it is lawfully ok in that society to hold slaves.

However, i believe that might makes right. If slaves rebel, well, great for them. If japanese-americans could fight the system thru the court system, then great. All im saying is you can NOT say slavery and japanese-american incarceration was wrong in those societies. UNder their social contract, they were right, but the social contract can always be changed either thru willful abridgement or force.

You can't say whether or not slavery is wrong? You don't know whether or not it is wrong for the government to lock up hundreds of thousands of people who committed no crime?

I personally dont think it is right, but I canot say definatively that it was not right. who am i to say that? again, might makes right.

[David Floyd]

i could care less about morals. Rights are just things written on paper, they mean nothing if no one can enforce them.

Then you can have no basis or grounds for definitely condemning murder.

If slavery laws were in place, then it is lawfully ok in that society to hold slaves.

Of course that's true, but hardly the point.

However, i believe that might makes right. If slaves rebel, well, great for them. If japanese-americans could fight the system thru the court system, then great. All im saying is you can NOT say slavery and japanese-american incarceration was wrong in those societies.

I can very easily say it, because I have a basis for condemning things such as murder, slavery, etc. If might makes right, you are also saying that might makes MORAL right. If that is the case, then you are arguing that the Holocaust was morally right, because the Germans were stronger than the Jews. But then you also have to turn around and argue that the Nuremburg Trials were right, because the Americans were stronger than the Germans. So, in effect, you are arguing that even though the Holocaust was right, it was also right to punish those who perpetrated the Holocaust.

But that's not all you are saying. You are also saying that the Holocaust was both right and wrong at the same time. It was right for the Germans, because they were stronger than the Jews, and it was right for the Jews, because they were weaker than the Germans. However, it was also wrong for the Germans, because it was wrong for the Americans, who ended up being stronger than the Germans.

However, your phrase "might makes right" is pretty ambiguous. On what scale does might make right? If I'm stronger than you, does that make it right for me to kill you? If that's the case, then the Holocaust example can get even more complex. Even though the Holocaust had to be morally right from the perspective of the Jews, because they were clearly the weaker GROUP, an individual Jew who managed to kill an SS soldier in the Warsaw uprising, for example, must have been acting morally correctly, because individually, he was stronger. Yet he was still wrong, because the SS as a whole was stronger than the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto as a whole.

But wait, you say. Might makes right applies to society, not to each individual. Society can say that murder is wrong, because society is stronger than the individual, and one society can say that another society is wrong, if that society turns out to be the stronger party.

But wait a second. How and why was society founded? Your argument has to be that it was founded on the principle of might makes right. That is, through strength (or more likely, the combination of strength, cunning, and intelligence), one person was able to rise to the top of a group of people and make those people do what he wanted, because again, might makes right. Eventually, we got early government, etc., but this was all predicated on the position that might makes right. And if that argument works for an individual (or even a group of individuals) in ancient times, why shouldn't it work for a Jew against an SS officer? Sure, in ancient times, the warlord probably ended up getting killed at some point, but while he was strong enough, his actions were right, weren't they? Similarly, the Jew in Warsaw certainly ended up dying, but did that negate the fact that he was stronger than the SS officer he killed?

The point I'm making is that the principle of "might makes right" isn't logically consistent, because we end up with many - even most - situations being both right and wrong, and both arguments having equal weight. This is stupid.

You can argue that "might makes what is", and I'd agree with that to a large degree. That argument is much easier to make.

[Velociryx]

DF, then the crux of our disagreement is this:

I do not believe that "natural rights" exist.

Show me where they are in "nature."

Pretty elusive, yes?

Rather like Unicorns.

-=Vel=-

[Kramerman]

The point I'm making is that the principle of "might makes right" isn't logically consistent, because we end up with many - even most - situations being both right and wrong, and both arguments having equal weight. This is stupid.

You can argue that "might makes what is", and I'd agree with that to a large degree. That argument is much easier to make.

Saying might makes right isnt logicall is like saying time is not logically consistent because it is relative. Just because right and wrong, like time, is relative (form my POV, remember, this whole arguement is based on POV, which our's differ), doesnt mean it isnt logical. All this means is that it depends entirely on perspective and POV.

And yes, I agree, "might makes what is" is a much better way of putting it.

Ill continue with your example of jews and nazis. A jew is killed by a nazi. the jew thinks this is wrong, but who cares? he is dead. The nazi killed him, and thus the jew is dead. the nazi can then rationalize this as an act of "good" to his people using their moral beliefs that jews are "evil". Likewise, jews and their sympathesizers will lable it "evil" using their morals to rationalize it as such. Remember, to a nazi, killing jews is a good thing. like Osama bin Laden kiling americans is a good thing. We are just as 'evil' to OBL and his followers as he is to most americans. Its relative.

To you, i probably seem like a cold hearted bastard. keep in mind tho i was raised with very similar values as you, so i have a personal bias of 'right' and 'wrong' to. To make our society work, we have to protect the citizens and their property so htey are free to live, work, and innovate. we do this with various laws, such as against murder and theft. before laws, pre-civilized societies just new what was 'good' and 'bad', because they were raised knowing what would hurt their society, such as large scale murdering and stealing that would damage the solidarity necessary in early social groups, as it would damage it today.

Imagine if the world collapsed into anarchy tomorrow. 'morals' against killin and stealing may linger for a time, but as people get hungery and are desperate to survive, they could revert to canibalism, stealing and hording of guns and ammo, killing anyone who threatens them, or killing people to ease one's personal gain and increase chance of survival.

grrr... im mighty busy, and i types this really quickly so its probably really scatter brained.... ill try and get back more on it later.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Velociryx
DF, then the crux of our disagreement is this:

I do not believe that "natural rights" exist.

Show me where they are in "nature."

Pretty elusive, yes?

Rather like Unicorns.

-=Vel=-

I share this thought. There are no such things as natural rights. RIGHTS only exist if you can back them up. Our society tries to make the welfare of our citizens better by garunteing them certain rights, and protecting those rights. If the US dindt protect those rights, then they might not as well exist.

They say we have the right to life, property, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. I will argue against these as natural. I again bring you to my anarchy model. WHen you are trying to survive, who will protect your life? Your Mad Max sawed-off shotgun, thats what. If this fails, then nothing protects your life. IF the right to life was natural, i would conjecture that people wouldnt be able to die in natural disasters, or by animals looking for food or hosts (including pathogens). This is not the case. People live and die everyday at the whim of others. SOme may argue WE SHOULD HAVE this right be natural, but that is but that is a super cooky idealistic dream, like heaven, not reality.

And the right to liberty... in a state of anarchy, if i had a shot gun and you didnt, i could easily chain you up like a dog and force you to be my slave. The slaves of early america obviously did not have the natural right of liberty. In the same way i could take your food and shelter, and land, and all other forms of property. where are your natural rights now?

Kman

[Kramerman]

To tie this in to the topic:

rights are a creation of man... and i personally love them. I would hate more than anyhting else to have to live in a state of anarchy, where i had no rights, i had no protection from laws.

Because of this, I love them and I would fight for them because they allow me and my loved ones to enjoy a quality of life that most others dream about. If some ass hole threatend that way of life, then fight, fight , fight, or else risk losing your 'rights' that protect you, because your new gov may not be nearly as benevolent.

[The Templar]

Berz, calmly repeat after me: "the statue and the gold are separate entities with different labor entitlements arising out of them".

The minor owns the gold, the sculptor owns the statue. Unfortunately, the statue is dependent on the gold.

Only a few things left to respond to here:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Templar -

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

Again, the ownership of the material, on your argument, comes through the admixture of labor. If I come across an unowned tree and say "that's mine" and move on, yet you come by and take the wood and make a sculpture, who owns the wood? I would guess you would say I have no right to the tree since I have not admixed my labor with it. (And yes, you own the sculpture as well here). First-come means that you admixed your labor first.

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

These arise, but usually in the context of intellectual property. Material stuff is easier to think about though, so I use the example that I do. Even so, if a property theory fails to account for all possible configurations, then it isn't a complete theory is it?

And finally,

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

Nazis? Whatever.

There are more claims than just labor and first come that can be made in property. Efficiency, waste, and personality/personal connection are three that often are at odds with labor and often come up in American law. There are more interests than just labor.

As for Vel, he has the right idea on the statue question. In essence, a tribunal will have to balance the moral considerations (and take into account precedent and statute).

Enough of this, back to conscription.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Kramerman


I share this thought. There are no such things as natural rights. RIGHTS only exist if you can back them up.

Might and right are two separate and distinct concepts (hence the distinction between the two). One can have a moral right that he or she cannot enforce via self-help. Right?

WHen you are trying to survive, who will protect your life? Your Mad Max sawed-off shotgun, thats what.

You forget that people can make a moral choice. If I am surrounded by immoral people and have to use my sawed-off shotgun to defend my rights I fail to see how this does not leave the immoral people in the position of being morally wrong.

If this fails, then nothing protects your life. IF the right to life was natural, i would conjecture that people wouldnt be able to die in natural disasters, or by animals looking for food or hosts (including pathogens). This is not the case.

You are confusing moral rights with states of affairs. You are confusing 'is' with 'ought' - Hume's dreaded naturalistic fallacy. Please stop.

People live and die everyday at the whim of others. SOme may argue WE SHOULD HAVE this right be natural, but that is but that is a super cooky idealistic dream, like heaven, not reality.

Murderers have the power to murder. They are still wrong.

Please keep your categories distinct. It will improve your arguments.

[David Floyd]

Vel,

DF, then the crux of our disagreement is this:

I do not believe that "natural rights" exist.

Vel, the problem is that without a concept of natural rights, there is no effective way to morally condemn things such as slavery, the Holocaust, and numerous other examples in history that are clearly wrong. I'm not saying that this alone justifies the existence of natural rights, but then again, because of these examples, you have to either take the position of admitting that either the Holocaust was perfectly OK, or that it was absolutely wrong.

Kramerman,

Ill continue with your example of jews and nazis. A jew is killed by a nazi. the jew thinks this is wrong, but who cares? he is dead. The nazi killed him, and thus the jew is dead. the nazi can then rationalize this as an act of "good" to his people using their moral beliefs that jews are "evil". Likewise, jews and their sympathesizers will lable it "evil" using their morals to rationalize it as such. Remember, to a nazi, killing jews is a good thing. like Osama bin Laden kiling americans is a good thing. We are just as 'evil' to OBL and his followers as he is to most americans. Its relative.

It doesn't matter what all these people think, according to your argument, for one very simple reason. You stated an absolute - might makes right. If this is so, the Jew who is killed by the Nazi cannot condemn the Nazi for killing him, because of your absolute that might makes right. The Jew knows that it is perfectly OK for the Nazi to kill him, and can't object to the concept, even though he might prefer a different outcome.

That's the problem with stating that there are no absolutes. Not only is that an absolute in and of itself, but eventually you do state one, because deep down, everyone but EVERYONE believes in some form of absolute right and wrong, absolute values.

To you, i probably seem like a cold hearted bastard. keep in mind tho i was raised with very similar values as you, so i have a personal bias of 'right' and 'wrong' to.

No, those are only personal preferences, not beliefs of right and wrong, because right and wrong are by nature absolutes. Something can't be "kind of right", or "both right and wrong at the same time". It's either right or it's wrong.

To make our society work, we have to protect the citizens and their property so htey are free to live, work, and innovate. we do this with various laws, such as against murder and theft. before laws, pre-civilized societies just new what was 'good' and 'bad', because they were raised knowing what would hurt their society, such as large scale murdering and stealing that would damage the solidarity necessary in early social groups, as it would damage it today.

What's your point? Of course I support laws against murder and theft. However, you're making a mistake. If I rob you, I'm not harming society - society won't fall apart because of a simple robbery between two people. I'm harming YOU. If I murder you, more than likely your murder doesn't affect "society as a whole" in any meaningful way - but it affects you, violates your rights.

Imagine if the world collapsed into anarchy tomorrow. 'morals' against killin and stealing may linger for a time, but as people get hungery and are desperate to survive, they could revert to canibalism, stealing and hording of guns and ammo, killing anyone who threatens them, or killing people to ease one's personal gain and increase chance of survival.

As Berzerker would say, let's debate real world hypotheticals. However, you speak of hoarding weapons and ammo and using force against those who would violate your rights as a negative thing. How could that possibly be negative?

I share this thought. There are no such things as natural rights. RIGHTS only exist if you can back them up.

Then you think that might makes right. You believe in that absolute. However, your absolute leads to the scenario I described earlier - final result, it doesn't make sense.

WHen you are trying to survive, who will protect your life? Your Mad Max sawed-off shotgun, thats what. If this fails, then nothing protects your life. IF the right to life was natural, i would conjecture that people wouldnt be able to die in natural disasters, or by animals looking for food or hosts (including pathogens).

Rights have nothing to do with animals, diseases, or hurricanes. They have to do with interactions between humans. If a dog could violate your rights, then presumably you could put a dog on trial for biting you. Maybe we can sue cancer.

And the right to liberty... in a state of anarchy, if i had a shot gun and you didnt, i could easily chain you up like a dog and force you to be my slave. The slaves of early america obviously did not have the natural right of liberty.

So you are claiming that because people took advantage of a man made law allowing slavery, that means there is no right to liberty? No, that simply means that people were ignoring it.

Same with your chain example. If you chain me up, you aren't taking anything away from me, nor are you proving that natural rights don't exist. You are simply chaining me up and ignoring my rights.

Rights are not God - they can't shoot lightning bolts at you if you ignore them. Rights do not protect themselves, they simply exist. If you choose to ignore them, and I'm not strong enough to do anything about it, then it's tough for me to exercise my rights. Hence "might makes what is". But the concept of brute strength simply ignores rights - it doesn't take them away.

I would hate more than anyhting else to have to live in a state of anarchy, where i had no rights, i had no protection from laws.

But the problem is that unless you acknowledge absolutes, you have to admit to the fact that if the government decides to shoot you, then you have no moral basis from which to object.

[Kramerman]

DF -

It doesn't matter what all these people think, according to your argument, for one very simple reason. You stated an absolute - might makes right. If this is so, the Jew who is killed by the Nazi cannot condemn the Nazi for killing him, because of your absolute that might makes right. The Jew knows that it is perfectly OK for the Nazi to kill him, and can't object to the concept, even though he might prefer a different outcome.

ok, this totally skews my arguement. my arguement is based on perspective. remember, the nazi thinks he is good, and the jew is evil, and vice versa...

And also, remember, i conceded to you that it isnt might makes right, that is misleading, the phrase is just catchy. I meant "might makes what is" as you suggested, this is a much better wording of my arguement.

That's the problem with stating that there are no absolutes. Not only is that an absolute in and of itself, but eventually you do state one, because deep down, everyone but EVERYONE believes in some form of absolute right and wrong, absolute values.

you cant take verything i type as literal. ask my friends, if anyone knows the paradox of saying there are no absolutes, i do . i did not mean there were absolutely no absolutes, but it just takes too long to clarify everything so well to prevent misinterpretations like this. tho all too often, most take adavantage of ambiguity like that to make arguements based on semantics...

I agree that MOST everyone deep down believe in some right abd wrong. shoot, even I, a fairly hardcore cultural relativist do, at least deep down inside. really, its more of just a bias.

No, those are only personal preferences, not beliefs of right and wrong, because right and wrong are by nature absolutes. Something can't be "kind of right", or "both right and wrong at the same time". It's either right or it's wrong.

i totally disagree. There are MANY shades of grey betwen black adn white. But again, you have the arguement of moral absolutes, and i have the arguement of cultural relativism, and that morality is based on perspective. this is a fundemental difference between us that will not allow us to agree on anyhting else on this matter.

What's your point? Of course I support laws against murder and theft. However, you're making a mistake. If I rob you, I'm not harming society - society won't fall apart because of a simple robbery between two people. I'm harming YOU. If I murder you, more than likely your murder doesn't affect "society as a whole" in any meaningful way - but it affects you, violates your rights.

you miss my point. If one person in a society steals from one person, yeah, nothin much will impact the society. But if EVERYONE steals from everyone, or a large precentage does anyway, then you have a big problem and society is profoundly impacted. IF im afraid of being robbed, im not gonna go to work, im gonna stay home and protect my things. in this scenario Everyone else does the same. our society would not last, that was my point. same thing with murder. one murder, no biggy. large scale murder... big problem.

As Berzerker would say, let's debate real world hypotheticals. However, you speak of hoarding weapons and ammo and using force against those who would violate your rights as a negative thing. How could that possibly be negative?

by hording i infered you would be taking their weapons and equipment by force, i guess i dint make that clear. And as thus, you would be VIOLATING THEIR rights

Then you think that might makes right. You believe in that absolute. However, your absolute leads to the scenario I described earlier - final result, it doesn't make sense.'

you jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth. Again, maybe you missed where i conceded to you that "MIGHT MAKES WHAT IS". as for not making sense, I already explained cultural relativism and POV earlier, i wont cover that ground twice, unless you think something was unclear.

Rights have nothing to do with animals, diseases, or hurricanes. They have to do with interactions between humans. If a dog could violate your rights, then presumably you could put a dog on trial for biting you. Maybe we can sue cancer.

you miss my point. if the right was 'natural' doesnt that mean the right to life should occur naturally in nature? that is what i think it means, but maybe i am misinterpreting it. If means something else than that, i dont think it is natural, rather, the right is MAN-MADE.

So you are claiming that because people took advantage of a man made law allowing slavery, that means there is no right to liberty? No, that simply means that people were ignoring it.

of course there COULD be a right to liberty, if it is man made and enforced by man-made laws, but just as easily there could be a right to SLAVERY, as enforced by man-made laws, no???

Same with your chain example. If you chain me up, you aren't taking anything away from me, nor are you proving that natural rights don't exist. You are simply chaining me up and ignoring my rights.

Well, this now comes down to personal philosphy, and i dont believe we differ on this anymore than on the semantics. i will elaborate:
If i ignore someones rights, as by chaining them up, to you i am merely ignoring them. To me, however, that right, IN THAT SITUATION (remember, rights can be made and enforced at anytime, but they must be backed up or they are meaningless), is non-existant. Do you see that from my POV? By ignoring the right at will, it effectively does not exist, no? You should agree with this, as you see the same thing, but rather the right is there, but it just is being ignored temporarily.

Rights are not God - they can't shoot lightning bolts at you if you ignore them. Rights do not protect themselves, they simply exist. If you choose to ignore them, and I'm not strong enough to do anything about it, then it's tough for me to exercise my rights. Hence "might makes what is". But the concept of brute strength simply ignores rights - it doesn't take them away.

again, this is just a difference in interperation.
You think rights just exist, and they can be ignored at times. I believe they only exist when they are actually WORKING, by being enforced.

hence, might makes what is

Brute strength in your eyes ignores rights, in mine, it either enforces rights, or effectively takes another's away. To different interpretations to the same end: someone is being screwed over because they cant protect themslves or be protected.

But the problem is that unless you acknowledge absolutes, you have to admit to the fact that if the government decides to shoot you, then you have no moral basis from which to object.

you misunderstand my standpoint. If the gov decides to shoot me, from their perspective it may be right, and from mine it may be wrong. Nothing more. My standpoint merely says that morality is relative to POV, and in the end, "MIGHT MAKES WHAT IS".

[Berzerker]

Vel -

But hypothetically, even if he DID have some sort of bizzare emotional bond with his hunk of gold, too bad. Once it becomes clear that he and the statue maker cannot resolve their differences between themselves, it goes to the courts to be decided. At that moment, it's out of both their hands.

It's his gold!!! Where did you get the moral authority to decide what happens to HIS gold? Did the thief who stole the gold give you this authority? Did the statue maker - the recipient of stolen goods - give you this authority? Or did the actual owner of the gold give you this authority?

Templar -

Berz, calmly repeat after me: "the statue and the gold are separate entities with different labor entitlements arising out of them".

The gold was STOLEN! Is that calm enough? Sheesh. Repeat that until it makes sense...

The minor owns the gold, the sculptor owns the statue. Unfortunately, the statue is dependent on the gold.

Hmm...I thought they were separate entities and now you say the statue is dependent upon the gold? Is the gold dependent on the statue? Nope. So, who owns the gold?

Only a few things left to respond to here:

Cool, I assume that means you will respond to my arguments now?

Again, the ownership of the material, on your argument, comes through the admixture of labor.

No it doesn't, ownership began when he staked a claim to the land - you know, mineral rights. These exist even if he mines no minerals. Labor by itself cannot constitute the moral authority to own the ore, the miner must first own the land. That's why the statue maker lacks the moral authority to own the statue, because while he labored to make the statue, he didn't own the gold used to make it.

If I come across an unowned tree and say "that's mine" and move on, yet you come by and take the wood and make a sculpture, who owns the wood?

Geez, you can't stick with your first hypothetical? What exactly do you mean by "and move on"? If you own the land upon which the tree grows, the tree and the wood are yours.

I would guess you would say I have no right to the tree since I have not admixed my labor with it.

Why? Have I not already explained to you that labor need not be mixed with a resource in order to own the resource? If the miner owns the land from which he could extract the ore, he still owns the ore even if he doesn't mine it.

(And yes, you own the sculpture as well here). First-come means that you admixed your labor first.

No it doesn't, it means you are the first to own the land or resource.

These arise, but usually in the context of intellectual property.

I see, someone in world history actually owned all oil deposits?

Material stuff is easier to think about though, so I use the example that I do. Even so, if a property theory fails to account for all possible configurations, then it isn't a complete theory is it?

You didn't even respond to my rebuttal of your oil hypothetical, so let me know if you find a configuration.

Nazis? Whatever.

What's wrong, did I find a configuration that ruins your "contemporary property law"? That configuration doesn't ruin my argument, just yours...

There are more claims than just labor and first come that can be made in property. Efficiency, waste, and personality/personal connection are three that often are at odds with labor and often come up in American law. There are more interests than just labor.

So you believe efficiency creates the moral authority to own what belongs to others? And "waste" does the same? That's why I brought up the Nazis and their efficiency, but your response was "whatever" - real convincing there.

As for Vel, he has the right idea on the statue question. In essence, a tribunal will have to balance the moral considerations (and take into account precedent and statute).

What moral authority do you have to keep stolen goods? I asked him what moral authority he has to take the miner's gold and he didn't answer either.

Enough of this, back to conscription.

Too bad, I was expecting proof and all I got was one long routine. I sure hope you remember this debate the next time you want to shoot off your mouth about your past "victories"...

[Kramerman]

templar, i dont have enough time to look at your points now, maybe later. hopefully my response to DF will clarify lots of stuff.

[Berzerker]

Vel -

I do not believe that "natural rights" exist.

Show me where they are in "nature."

Rights (natural) are moral claims individuals have against other people interfering in their lives. So asking where they can be found in nature is illogical since not all species have the ability to formulate and understand morality. And these moral claims derive from universal desires held by human beings... To deny natural rights is to deny the existence of a morality... As David points out, if the victims of the Nazis had no rights because their "society" said so, then upon what basis would you condemn the Nazis?