The Social Contract?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Exactly! BK and others are trying to invalidate my argument by telling me I should just leave the country if I don't like it - they are ignoring the "trying to change the rules" aspect. I can't change the rules by myself, but I can certainly exchange in discourse about the rules, and I think that those who support the current system owe a better response than "If you don't like it, leave".

And you owe something for the educaton that you recieved, and the roads that you travel, and the security that you live in, and...

[Ben Kenobi]

You said it applied to families and then was widened to neighbours, where in fact it was intended immediately to be applied to all of the citizens of a state.

The social contract would not have came about without some earlier concept of filial responsibility. That is all I am trying to say, and I think you mean the same thing, regardless of the terms that we attach to the concept.

'Social contract' for me is interchangeable, and can mean both the contracts within families, and between those of neighbours.

[David Floyd]

The Sierra Club is exceedingly moderate. Kyoto was just bad cuz all it did was encourage companies to move to the 3rd world to avoid having to insteall new technologies.

You miss the point. Most Americans are not in favor of serious environmental reform, at least not at the cost of economic prosperity (ie, their wallets).

Serious tort reform, i.e., abolishing American's access to tort. The only people who want serious tort reform are the companies who make defective products and doctors who hurt their patients.

Not at all. I feel that it is unfair to, for example, put cigarette companies out of business because people smoke themselves to death, and unfair to put gun manufacturer's out of business because some gun owners behave irresponsibly/stupidly. I don't want to make it impossible to recover civil damages, I just want those damages to be reasonable.

No, you asserted those untrue facts, which have not been borne out in poll after poll.

OK, you win, a majority of Americans support serious environmental reform at the expense of economic prosperity

Robbery is taking something illegally.

Certainly, but the connotation - the perception - of robbery really has nothing to do with the legality of the situation. It has to do with the fact that you are taking something that isn't yours. Parents don't teach their children not to steal because people who steal go to jail.

nye,

It's not a strawman. You profess to not want to be responsible for any but yourself. Go ahead. Be free.

Wrong. I'm responsible to others to the extent that I cannot harm or coerce them.

[David Floyd]

And you owe something for the educaton that you recieved, and the roads that you travel, and the security that you live in, and...

Well, I'm in favor of total privitization of education - and indeed I was in private schools for much of my pre-college life. I prefer to pay for roads in the form of tolls, and as for security, I am quite willing to pay user fees for security provided to me, for the same reason I am willing to pay for toll roads.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The social contract would not have came about without some earlier concept of filial responsibility. That is all I am trying to say, and I think you mean the same thing, regardless of the terms that we attach to the concept.

'Social contract' for me is interchangeable, and can mean both the contracts within families, and between those of neighbours.

Well, that is not what the term means, but of course it is a concept developed after thousands of years of human history during which allegiance was given to family, then tribe, and then lord.

The new bit was that each of us owed allegiance and should be of assistance to all the others who make up the much larger group, and they to us. Not up to a lord, and then down from him, but from each to all.

[Ben Kenobi]

Allowing you to leave is not justification for unfair treatment.

So do you believe it is unfair for DF to pay into social security or medicare?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by David Floyd
2)However, liberals claim over and over again that the money you put into SS is not "your money" - that's how they justify it, after all. It's neither yours now or yours when you retire - it isn't saved for you. It goes into the general funds. This being the case, if we just cut off Social Security tomorrow, then no one is out any of their own money, right?

Intriguing concept of the day: it's the taxpayer's (as an abstract entity of General Will) money

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
nye,

Wrong. I'm responsible to others to the extent that I cannot harm or coerce them.

That's a good rule, but it's pretty silly to try to build a modern society on just that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Allowing you to leave is not justification for unfair treatment.

In the case of liberarian arguments, however, I think it is a fair retort. They deny that society has any right whatsoever to regulate behavior that doesn't result in the harm of another. Membership in society, however, is voluntary, and if you don't like the fact that a society has the right to govern you, you are free to seperate from it. There is the little problem of all territory in the world being divided up by the various social groups, but you could live on the high seas. There's no government or taxation there. We'll even throw in free weather reports.

Every group of humans that has ever existed has regulated the behavior of its members. That is how humans live and exist. Behavior that enhances the survival of the group is legalized. Behavior that hurts the group is outlawed. Libertarians would seek to do away with a fundimental aspect of our existence. We may as well try to outlaw sex or eating as trying to outlaw law itself.

It isn't merely that they seek to end the social groups right to regulate their own behavior, they seek to end social groups right to regulate any behavior whatsoever. They seek the most fundimental transformation of humanity ever, the complete seperation of people from each other into atomized indivuals, completely devoid off any responsibility for one another, a situation that has existed nowhere at anytime except in the most disrupted of societies, and in such "societies," not even the rule of "an ye harm none" was obeyed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That's a good rule, but it's pretty silly to try to build a modern society on just that.

It's not just silly, it's impossible. Human beings can only exist because of the obligations we have to one another.

[David Floyd]

Intriguing concept of the day: it's the taxpayer's (as an abstract entity of General Will) money

So, then, you subscribe to the belief that money collected under the guise of Social Security taxes are not guaranteed to be returned to you in the form of Social Security benefits? In other words, that money simply goes into the general fund, or is used to pay for people who previously paid into the system?

That being the case, it certainly doesn't seem unfair to cut off Social Security benefits immediately, given that any money being withheld doesn't belong to Social Security recipients anyway, right?

nye,

That's a good rule, but it's pretty silly to try to build a modern society on just that.

It's silly to build a code of laws around the concept that I can do what I want, as long as I don't hurt or coerce others? Why?

[David Floyd]

chegitz, Libertarians are not anarchists. Of course we believe in laws that regulate behavior. The behavior we wish to regulate, though, is simply behavior that results in harm to another. If you aren't hurting anyone, why shouldn't you do what you want? More to the point, why should doing so be illegal?

[Ben Kenobi]

David Floyd:

One more thing. While you may believe that it is wrong for the state to charge you money for social programs, consider this.

I oppose abortion. I believe that abortion kills an unborn child. Here in Canada, a proportion of my income, should I make enough to pay, would go to kill babies.

Now I disagree with this provision, so that leaves me with four options.

1. To stay here in Canada, pay what I owe the state, and then use that money that I pay, as my commitment to the state. If I pay money to the state, then I should have a say in where it goes.

Then I can try to change the laws, so that a portion of my income does not go to kill babies.

The cost of this approach, is that until the law changes, some of my money is going to kill babies.

2. I can choose to withhold the money that would otherwise go to the state, for which the state would punish me by throwing me in jail. While my money would not be going to kill babies, it does mean that I would not be able to change the law for others, and it does mean that I have to bear the consequences of my decision to withhold the money.

3. I can choose not to make enough money such that I would be paying to the state. Again, none of the money that I make goes to kill babies, but the cost is to myself, in my lifestyle that comes from such restrictions.

4. I can choose to leave Canada and go elsewhere.

Are you willing to live with one of these choices DF? If not, then I challenge you to be consistent in your principles with respect to taxation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You miss the point. Most Americans are not in favor of serious environmental reform, at least not at the cost of economic prosperity (ie, their wallets).

That's not at all true. They just want their sacrifice to be meaningful. There is a reason why the hottest car in the U.S. is the Prius, even though it costs $10K more than a comparable non-hybrid car in the same class. Kyoto would be a meaningless sacrifice because all it would do is cause companies to move to 3rd world coutrnies to avoid regulations in the 1st world. Pollution isn't diminished and our economy sinks to boot. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts are massively popular.

All environmental regulations were radical at one time, and carried what was considered a heavy economic cost. It just turns out, however, that the economic costs had previously be borne unwillingly by the population at large, rather than the polluters. On The News Hour with Jim Lehrer today, they were discussing a new government program tracking air pollution and noting that it costs us hundreds of billions of dollars in sick days and medical treatment. Who should pay for that, the polluters or you and me? I say the polluters should, and so does your philosophy.

[David Floyd]

Are you willing to live with one of these choices DF?

I'm not sure what you're asking me. Do I agree that those are your options? Yes I do. Do I agree with your choice? Well, I don't know what your choice is.

But we are engaged in a discussion about the rights and wrongs of a situation, and hypothetically what would be better. Given that, an answer that is essentially "If you don't like it, leave", is simply counter-productive. It neither counters my argument or advances your own. Granted, it's a relevant choice I could make, but it's not a relevant answer.