Conscription

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ohhhh, I see. So now there are multi-layered subsidies....ones that you cannot seem to find any source material on. Interesting. Not surprising, but interesting nonetheless.

Give it up or back it up, Kid. I can fax you a copy of the mountain of paperwork I have on my home purchase. You can pour over it all you want to, and you won't find any mention of governmental subsidization of that transaction. Shocking, I know....

-=Vel=-

I had a few seconds to find some information for you, but don't start asking for more. I can't be bothered by your ignorance and lack of logic.

http://rhol.org/rental/fedact.htm

[Velociryx]

Yep...good job! (seriously!).

The problem with the link provided?

It does not support your assertion that (your quote) all home purchases are subsidized by the government.

There are programs mentioned that provide for banking structure, and a few outright subsidies of specific groups (ie - the "Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944"), but nowhere in the information you provided does it support your assertion.

Good try, but ultimately one that works against your own, stated position.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

I'm bored with you now, and you are starting to annoy me. Good day.

[Velociryx]

I can certainly understand why! It sux when your own information can be used against you, eh?

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

Templar -

As usual Berz relies on the labor theory of property. Which I've shot down so many times in the past few weeks it is just getting plain boring to continue to pee in Berz's cheerios.

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

The labor theory is inadequate to account for property. Berz smuggles in a sort of first-come-first-serve principle to boplster the labor theory (although this is an ad hoc principle he fails to justify), but Urban Ranger and I shot that down as well in a previous thread.

If I've "smuggled" something into this labor theory, then I'm not using this theory now, am I? 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.
Btw, I don't recall you responding to my answer in that thread, so enlighten us as to how and what you and UR shot down...

Put simply (1) Berz confuses pre-proprietary interests with a property schema. The former is a moral consideration, the latter is a social construct.

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?

(2) UR noted that there has to be a preexisting right to admix your labor with material, and I gave the classic statue and gold example.

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"...

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? Funny how you tell Vel to reply himself only for you to bring UR into this. You do a lousy job of stating my position so I can't imagine you've discovered the concept of accuracy when stating UR's position.

Until Berz (or someone else) has some new stuff to say about the labor theory, I see no reason to keep beating that dead horse.

If you can reduce the mistakes in your post, I can shorten my responses.

Even Berzerker with his insistence on labor=property is going to have to side with my argument. A taking is a taking.

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. Now, explain why equating labor with property creates a contradiction with opposing conscription.

[David Floyd]

I'll reply to much of this new stuff later, but this stands out:

Since one cannot, by definition, be a voluntary slave, the entire argument is....rather silly.

No, what is rather silly is your reasoning. Your reasoning leads us to the conclusion that any government which is (semi) democratically elected can do anything it wants, and that "anything" must be construed as voluntary.

But that's kinda ridiculous - if the government takes an act that most people don't support, then I fail to see how it's voluntary. In fact, in the case of conscription, no matter WHAT the support for it, it isn't voluntary for the 1 person who dissents.

[Velociryx]

And my retort to that would be that *your* logic is rather silly. Dissent all you want. We DO NOT live in a nation ruled by direct democracy. It's a representative democracy. Thus, our elected officials decide what's cool, and what's not cool, subject to judicial review to make sure that the stuff deemed as okay by the lawmakers, doesn't violate the constitution.

And IN a representative democracy, the decisions made will not (EVER) have the unanimous support of the people....and that's okay. That's why they call it "majority rule."

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

The State is responsible for the excess population we have and in times of peril, it only follows that the State should be able to spend that excess pop. to secure itself and enhance its ability to continue to make excess pop. possible in the future. If you care to live in a world without the costs and benefits of the State, go ahead and try, though of course, don't complina when an agent of A state has his boot to your throat..and fine, complain about the immorality all you weant, who's going to come to your aid? No one, so hope there is a heaven, cause otherwise, you are screwed.

Have a nice day

[David Floyd]

And IN a representative democracy, the decisions made will not (EVER) have the unanimous support of the people....and that's okay. That's why they call it "majority rule."

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". And you'd have no way to morally condemn this, either, because you see, moral condemnation has to be based upon a set of consistent absolute morals - otherwise it's just silly.

But in a system of consistent absolute morals you can't say that something is OK solely because the majority says so - that's ludicrous.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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". And you'd have no way to morally condemn this, either, because you see, moral condemnation has to be based upon a set of consistent absolute morals - otherwise it's just silly.

But in a system of consistent absolute morals you can't say that something is OK solely because the majority says so - that's ludicrous.

That's why you have idividual rights. But we get to choose what those rights are. They aren't absolute. Individual rights should benefit everyone, not just the minority. In the case that they do, they aren't beneficial and will be discarded.

[David Floyd]

That's why you have idividual rights. But we get to choose what those rights are.

Precisely why it's simply tyranny of the majority.

Individual rights should benefit everyone, not just the minority.

What is this nonsense? Individual rights apply to each individual, and each individual has the same individual rights. If my exercise of my rights doesn't benefit everyone, then tough ****.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
What is this nonsense? Individual rights apply to each individual, and each individual has the same individual rights. If my exercise of my rights doesn't benefit everyone, then tough ****.

Take the example of property rights. This was an individual right, but it didn't benefit society so it was removed. But individuals still have individual rights, but the govt is able to suspend them when they don't benefit society. No one cares about individuals belief in morality when it conflicts with the interest of society.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And Templar: I'm not saying I'd be against your market-based proposal....looks sound enough to me....what I am saying is that I agreed to the total package when I accepted my US citizenship. Part of that total package was in filling out and sending in my draft card. That's the way it works. The choices are as I have been saying they are all along: 1) deal with it, 2) don't deal with it, and accept the consequences, 3) change it, or 4) leave. Not rocket science.

(4) is not an option - you can't just join another country at will. In some respects US citizens are stuck with US citizenship. (1) 'deal with it' was no doubt the message given to civil rights proponents. Such an argument amounts to "we have the power to violate your rights, so deal with that fact". I am arguing that conscription is immoral. "Deal with it" is not a moral argument.

Moreover, if libertarian dogma is that labor is property and the government should leave hands of the market then conscription as a taking of labor (duration is not an issue here) is wrong. Period. Libertarian conscription is as possible as a square circle or Kosher pork.

The fact that there is a market driven solution does two things. (1) It vitiates any sort of necessity defence of conscription - to wit, given a market driven alternative, conscription is not necessary. (2) Conscription is a government intrusion in the market place (and because of (1), it is not a necessary intrusion) that externalizes costs. When costs are externalized then transactions do not take in to account all costs generated. This is a classic example of market failure. Ergo, the government intrusion not only takes labor, it destroys the market for soldiers. This, for a libertarian, shoul raise all sorts of red flags.

Of course, if you are not a libertarian (or god forbid you are a social conservative) conscription may not be a moral problem for you. But if you are not a libertarian (and you really do argue like one for the most part), then you have a moral justification gap for your views on property.

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.

BY the government elected by the people, and thus, voluntarily. Since one cannot, by definition, be a voluntary slave, the entire argument is....rather silly.

-=Vel=-

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 if you don't like it, you could always leave

[Berzerker]

Kidicious -

That's why you have idividual rights. But we get to choose what those rights are. They aren't absolute. Individual rights should benefit everyone, not just the minority. In the case that they do, they aren't beneficial and will be discarded.

Who is this "we" doing the choosing and discarding?

Take the example of property rights. This was an individual right, but it didn't benefit society so it was removed.

By whom?

But individuals still have individual rights

Not according to you, these "rights" are grants of permission from others, not moral claims by individuals.

but the govt is able to suspend them when they don't benefit society. No one cares about individuals belief in morality when it conflicts with the interest of society.

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.

Templar Did you just shoot down my arguments again? I have to ask so I'll know where to find your rebuttal when you jump into a future thread claiming to have shot down my arguments in this one.

[David Floyd]

Take the example of property rights. This was an individual right, but it didn't benefit society so it was removed.

A)When were property rights "removed"?
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.

But individuals still have individual rights, but the govt is able to suspend them when they don't benefit society.

So, ultimately, people only have rights as long as the government wants them to?

And you people morally condemn the Nuremburg Laws

No one cares about individuals belief in morality when it conflicts with the interest of society.

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