The Rights of Man
Magnus Kempe
br...@inmic.se (Bruno Poterie) writes:
: Your beliefs are seemingly those of "Liberal anarchy" [...]
Absolutely not. I am an advocate of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. In
other words, I consider that there should be a government, which would
be responsible for the justice, the police, and the army. This has
nothing to do with anarchy, which I consider to be evil.
: It is a consistent feature of most people who share your beliefs,
[don't try to associate me with people I don't know,
and haven't approved of]
: that when leaving the theory and going into the practical, it all
: boils down to:
: "The governement has no right to levy taxes on me"
Going into the practical -- which is the application of the
theoretical, what I have written means:
"A government of laws, not of men."
I.e. free men have rights. The government is a voluntary
association of free men, in order to protect their rights.
The proper role of a government is to uphold justice, *not*
to force anybody's wishes down my throat.
: Take this as a sweeping generalisation, and with a pinch of salt.
Do you mean you don't want to be taken seriously? I write what
I think. I'll assume that is also your method of arguing.
: [...] Consider a practical example, health insurance.
: [states correctly my position in regard to health insurance: it
: should be run by private companies, and should not be compulsory]
: if you have an accident and are not or not enough insured, then you
: are left on the side of the freeway, with your blood soaking the grass?
No. First of all, you are a client to the hospital. You may refuse
to go there, if you so wish. Supposing that you *are* in the hospital,
you will be treated for your wounds, as long as you are insured, or
as long as you can pay. If you can't pay, you have to rely on other
people's *voluntary* charity -- whatever it is that you can't pay
for, be it food, shelter, or anything else.
Your need is not a blank check over other men's property.
: [...] if you have no job, you have no insurance. [various facts
: about consequences of not being insured]
Not necessarily. You have no insurance if you don't pay for it,
that's all.
: In the reality, no community can afford such a behavior [...]
There is an ugly hidden premise, lurking behind your assertion.
You assert that the "community" should force everybody into
contracting an insurance, because the "community" is responsible
for its member's actions.
What is a "community"? A set of individuals. Is an individual
responsible for the actions of all other individuals? No. Are
all other individuals responsible for the actions of some one
individual? No. You are sole responsible for your not being insured.
You are not responsible for anyone else not being insured.
Again, your need is not a blank check over other men's property.
Neither is their need a blank check over your property.
: [...] It is no wonder that
: all -without any exception- "Liberal Anarchists" i met until know
: were young-to-middle age, single, male, with a confortable revenue and
: a job with future. I would be very pleased if you could break the
: statistic. But honestly, i am very doubtful about the ultimate, even
: if uncounscious, motivations of this political theory.
This is an Ad Hominem argument. But I'll take the greatest pleasure
in breaking your "statistics". I am young, not single, male. I don't
have a comfortable revenue, as I live in a country where that is not
possible [i.e. Sweden] -- as a matter of fact, I am proud to say
that I am eligible to receive money from the state [this is called
"social help". That wouldn't pay back what the state takes in monthly
taxes, though]. Finally, I have a nice future in my job, because
I chose it, I paid for it, and I earned it -- I didn't get any
stinking help from the state nor from the community.
The ultimate *conscious* motivation of Laissez-Faire Capitalism is:
the recognition of man's nature, of his inalienable rights, and
of the power of reason.
: Now to the original problem: why is it evil for a government to spend
: money on buildings? And why is it OK if a private company do it?
: If you follow the financial flows, and the circulation of wealth,
: i see very few practical reasons. [stuff about Eiffel tower]
: Of course this is not at the individual level, rather at the society's.
Whom does the product of a man's work belong to? To himself, or to
the "society"? If to the "society", who decides what to do with
it? A dictator, or unlimited majority rule (i.e. democracy)? If
unlimited majority rule, what about "minorities"? Should they
have a piece of the cake too? Then, what about the individual,
who is the ultimate minority? Should he have a piece of the
cake too? Whose cake? Why does anyone have the right to eat *my*
cake, which is the product of *my* own work?
: [assertions about conflicting interests due to the existence of "money"]
What is money? The product of man's work. It is *created* by work.
Please prove that productive work leads to conflicting interests.
: [Utopy], where individuals regulate their own rights to
: match those of all other individuals, and of the community at large
: (which include the rights of those individuals yet to come).
You mean that human beings who do not exist have rights?
There is no justification for sacrificing the actual to the potential.
Your statement is a negation of the essential characteristic of
rights: a right is a freedom to some kind of *action*. Things
that do not exist do not have rights. They cannot act.
: This is your interpretation. Maybe you should refrain from using too
: much of "there is no such", "for whatever reason", "no moral rights",
: "the only possible", "use force", "infrige rights", "property", and
: so on. Maybe you could consider that a society is the combination of
: the individuals, not simply the justaposition of individual interests.
: Maybe you could consider that if individuals have rights, they have
: as well responsabilities - a fact you consistently *never* mentioned.
[sarcasm]
You're right, there are no absolutes, causes have no importance,
morality does not exist, the impossible is possible, force
is a virtue, rights are modifiable, property is a tyranny,
we have rights in exchange for responsibilities, et caetera.
[end of sarcams]
I don't recognize any such concept as "duty". I live for my
own sake, and I expect every other man to live for his own
sake, for the love of his own life. I will trade values with
anyone who deserves it, not with looters.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
(please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
Bruno Poterie
> Creating a free-market in Europe is a first step towards the
> recognition of the rights of man. Man has the right to his life.
> This means that he has the right to use the product of his work,
> i.e. the right to property. Some other rights are: the freedom of
> speech, the freedom of trade, and the freedom of association.
> The common mark of all these rights is that they ban the initiation
> of the usage of force in *all* relationships between men.
>
> The proper role of government is to protect each individual against
> the initiation of the usage of force. This role does *not* entail that
> the government has the right to initiate the usage of force. The
> government is supposed to protect the rights of free men, not
> destroy them.
>
> The only possible balance between the community and the individual
> is: respect of each individual's rights, including property rights.
Your beliefs are seemingly those of "Liberal anarchy" (in the proper
meaning, no relations to bomb-terrorists there). As with other strong
ideologies, argumentation is almost impossible if you don't share the
basic tenets. I tend to prefer a mixing of Humanism and pragmatism,
which is vague enough to be a frame for a lot of possibilities.
It is too bad that i am just leaving for two weeks, as this promises
to be an interesting moment for eunet.politics. However, let me add
a few Ccomments to fuel the debate:
It is a consistent feature of most people who share your beliefs,
that when leaving the theory and going into the practical, it all
boils down to:
"The governement has no right to levy taxes on me"
Take this as a sweeping generalisation, and with a pinch of salt.
Now, this lets me perplex. Consider a practical example, health
insurance. If i understand it correctly, your position is that,
not only it should be run by private financial companies, but that
it should in no case be compulsary. So you could decide if and how
much you want to be insured. Alright, but that means that, if you
have an accident and are not or not enough insured, then you are
left on the side of the freeway, with your blood soaking the grass?
It means that, if you have no job, you have no insurance. Your
children, still dependant upon you, are not covered as well. Not
to mention the civil responsability insurance, if _you_ are responsible
for the accident, and have to pay hundreds of thousands of Kronors.
In the reality, no community can afford such a behavior, and in fact
set up laws who mandate that each individual be covered at least for
a minimum level, with a solidarity fund for those who cannot afford.
That the funds are managed by a purely private firm, or by an agency,
may modify the efficiency and the rates, but does not change anything
to the fact that it is mandatory. Even more, a private firm would
establish its rates on market/trade considerations, therefore (as is
the case in West-Germany for the private "Kassen") making risky people
pay more. So elderly people (lot of daily care) and very young people
(high traffic accident rate) would pay much more than middle-aged
people. So families would pay more than singles (children diseases and
more domestic risks). So women would pay more than men (time lost
while awaiting children, more genetic problems, breast-cancers, ...).
Obviously equality is not in the tenets' list. It is no wonder that
all -without any exception- "Liberal Anarchists" i met until know
were young-to-middle age, single, male, with a confortable revenue and
a job with future. I would be very pleased if you could break the
statistic. But honestly, i am very doubtful about the ultimate, even
if uncounscious, motivations of this political theory.
Now to the original problem: why is it evil for a government to spend
money on buildings? And why is it OK if a private company do it?
If you follow the financial flows, and the circulation of wealth,
i see very few practical reasons. Even a supposedly useless building
such as the Eiffel Tower (built by the sate with both public and
private funds) has on the long term a return payment worth the costs.
Of course this is not at the individual level, rather at the society's.
It would have been the same is built by private efforts, with the
difference that money would have been gathered by raising up the
price of the firm' products. Now if you are shareholder or owner of
the firm, this may well make a difference.
> As to your claim for a balance between money and mind, where do
> you see any problem? Money is the product of work, reason is the
> faculty that makes productive work possible. There is no
> dichotomy between money and mind.
Except that in the reality, money is becoming a aim by itself,
whose interests may -and do- oppose those of the community at large,
by creating the ways in which certain individuals and/or groups gain
so much importance that they may effectively step on other's rights,
and when those people in search of it cannot think of any different
reference. My paragraph was highly symbolic, as you probably noticed it.
> What is your definition of utopy? If it is mysticism, or whim-worship,
> I cannot see how you would "balance" between reality and "utopy":
> reality cannot be faked.
Absolutely! What i intend by "Utopy" is that of a society when all
people are equally reasonnable, and equally responsible, therefore
removing for the community the need to use constraint against any
individual. Not for tomorrow, if we let the market forces pollute
at their will, and dispose of worker's rights as of machines.
In other terms, where individuals regulate their own rights to
match those of all other individuals, and of the community at large
(which include the rights of those individuals yet to come).
> Your last claim to "balance" is a crude revelation of your belief
> in the following fallacy: that force is sometimes necessary, for
> the "common good". The initiation of the usage of force is a
> breach of man's rights. There is no such entity as the "common
> good". The community is made of individuals. The "common good"
> is a *sum* of the goods of each individual. There is no moral
> justification in sacrificing anyone's rights, for whatever reason
> might be invoked.
This is your interpretation. Maybe you should refrain from using too
much of "there is no such", "for whatever reason", "no moral rights",
"the only possible", "use force", "infrige rights", "property", and
so on. Maybe you could consider that a society is the combination of
the individuals, not simply the justaposition of individual interests.
Maybe you could consider that if individuals have rights, they have
as well responsabilities - a fact you consistently *never* mentioned.
Maybe the reality is composed of a miriad of complex behaviors and
reactions, and not simply a black & white picture with the evil vs.
the good, the monster state vs. the vertuous individual, the ideal
private firm vs. the haineous [sp?] public agency, the brute force
vs. the property rights.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
> (please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
Now, being a pragmatic as i said earlier, i would appreciate that my
taxes be reduced if there is a way to do so, especially here in Sweden
where they are very high. But from that to questioning the very notion
of taxes ... No thanks!
Bruno Poterie, Martian. email: br...@inmic.se
Vive l'Europe "Espace social" !
Richard Caley
>Creating a free-market in Europe is a first step towards the
>recognition of the rights of man.
Seems irrelevant to me. A slave is still a slave even in a free market.
>Man has the right to his life.
>This means that he has the right to use the product of his work,
I have no problems there but . . .
>i.e. the right to property.
Doesn't follow, at least for the very wide definition of property which
we have in the modern, western world.
I "own" many things which are neither the products of my work, nor were
exchanged for those results.
I have money obtained as interest on a savings account.
I have things given to me as gifts.
Also there is the problem of those things which _no_one_ produced. For
instance land, we let people "own" land, but certainly no one produced
it.
>Some other rights are: the freedom of
>speech, the freedom of trade, and the freedom of association.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Erm, very politically sound I am sure :-). I can't ever remember seeing
trade being put forward as a basic right.
Now it can probably be derived from a right to property and freedom of
association and some kind of assumption about what I can do with things I
"own".
>The common mark of all these rights is that they ban the initiation
>of the usage of force in *all* relationships between men.
To support trade we require an idea of a contract, try enforcing that
without force.
>This role does *not* entail that
>the government has the right to initiate the usage of force.
It can be very difficult to protect against the use of force without
using force. I'm not sure that the government is up to this challenge.
>The only possible balance between the community and the individual
>is: respect of each individual's rights, including property rights.
I agree up to the comma. After that, well I remain to be convinced that
the right to property is in any way fundimental ( which is not to say I
disaprove, just that I see it as an assumption made by our society,
which others could do without ).
>As to your claim for a balance between money and mind, where do
>you see any problem?
I don't know about money vs. mind, but certainly money can be used to
subvert many of the rights you stated earlier where fundimental. A free
market makes that easier.
>What is your definition of utopy?
Non existance? :-)
>There is no moral
>justification in sacrificing anyone's rights, for whatever reason
>might be invoked.
I agree, to a great extent. However what happens when two people's
rights come into conflict? That is when any course of action violates
someone's rights?
For instance, a newspaper editor has limited resources and can publish
only a given amount of text. When he has two articles and must select
between them, one of the authors is going to be denied freedom of
speech.
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.edai " Ruling the Empire is like cooking a small fish "
- Tao Te Ching
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>In article 802, Lars-Henrik Eriksson writes:
>: "Evil"? You do know what anarchy means in a political sense, do you?
>
>Yes, I do. It is gang-warfare.
"Anarchy" does not mean "gang-warfare". You might have the opinion
that anarchy inevitably leads to gang-warfare, but that is simply your
opinion. Many people's opinions differ. Actually, you seem to think
about your *opinions* as if they were hard facts or laws of nature.
They are not
>: [...] And if you can't pay? Perhaps because you have to choose
>: between food and insurance, or rent and insurance?
>
>Exactly. You have to *choose* your goals. You have to set your priorities.
>In other words, there is no free meal.
Now we are getting somewhere. So this person has very little money and
for some reason (illness, economic depression, you name it) can't get
more by working more. He has to choose. Right. Presumably he chooses
food because that is a constant immediate priority for human beings.
In other words, he has set his priorites. Now an accident happends and
the person has to go into hospital. Since he has no insurance, there
are two possibilities. The hospital takes him on anyway, i.e. someone
else pays for him, or the hospital throws him out.
You have already ruled out that society should pay for him, so charity
remains. What if people aren't feeling very charitable that day or if
charity is not in fashion, or if there are simply too many people
without insurance?
I hope you'll agree with me that this situation is unacceptable. (I
won't buy an argument that you can always get more money by working
harder or looking harder, that simply isn't true in many cases).
In other words, it is a no-win situation for this individual. I can
accept no-win situations for the society as a whole (because I do not
believe in divine intervention), but i CAN NOT accept no-win
situations for individuals.
>: [...] Very many Swedes have a comfortable revenue - I do
>: for instance ...
>:...
>You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Do you realize
>how much *more* people earn in Western countries, such as the USA,
>...
I know fully well what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact
that I have a comfortable revenue. Just what that means is for me to
decide, not you!
I am also fully aware that people earn more in many other *western*
countries, but there are other advantages to a society than your
personal revenue. Apparently you think so too, or you wouldn't be
staying in this awful country when you would earn more abroad, would
you?
>: >[...]. Finally, I have a nice future in my job, because
>: >I chose it, I paid for it, and I earned it -- I didn't get any
>: >stinking help from the state nor from the community.
>:
>: Sure you did! You went to school, didn't you? You almost certainly
>: went to senior high school and very likely to the university.
>
>Yes, I went to high school, for which my parents paid. I went to
>university, for which I paid. I *worked*, and chose where I wanted
>to get my education from. That was not in Sweden.
I see. Well good for you that your parents were well enough off to pay
for *your* high school education. There seems to be a free lunch
lurking here, or is in some way the lunches your parents give you not
free to you?
>: The ulitimate effects of Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the exploitation
>: of the weaker by the strong...
>
>What is your definition of exploitation? Laissez-Faire Capitalism
>is *not* a system where the state protects the strong, it is a system
>where the state protects every single individual against the
>initiation of force. PERIOD. If you are weak, and wish to survive
>without working, tough for you. Your weakness and wishes are not blank
>checks over other people's lives.
I didn't say anything about surviving without working, did I? I simply
said that a consequence of Laissez-Faire economy is that those that
have will have more. That is in the very nature of capitalism.
>: No man can exist in a vaccuum. No man's work is the product of his
>: time or labour alone.
>
>Yes, it is. My ideas are my own. What I choose to do with my hands is
>my own action. If men engage in trade, it is *not* because they
>couldn't live without it, it is because rational, free men have
>mutual benefits in a division-of-labor economy. Society cannot exist
>without men, but man exists without society.
I guess this is the underlying beliefs where we differ. I am of the
firm convition that this is completely false. Nothing you are, or do,
is independent of society. Society has formed what you are and
influences what you do. Our different opinions of economy aside,
denying THIS would be downright silly! If you are so convinced that
you can exist without society, try moving to a deserted island and see
how long you last!
>I don't ask of any man that he sacrifice himself to me, and I expect
>that no man ask me to sacrifice myself to him. That is because I love
>my life, and I expect every single man to love his own life.
I see you don't, but I would anyways, should the need arise. And I
would expect you to do the same for me.
I love people, and society.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Magnus Kempe
: [..] I like Europe for being able to maintain
: a balance between the community and the individual, the money and the
: mind, the reality and the utopy, the force and the ideal. [...]
Creating a free-market in Europe is a first step towards the
recognition of the rights of man. Man has the right to his life.
This means that he has the right to use the product of his work,
i.e. the right to property. Some other rights are: the freedom of
speech, the freedom of trade, and the freedom of association.
The common mark of all these rights is that they ban the initiation
of the usage of force in *all* relationships between men.
The proper role of government is to protect each individual against
the initiation of the usage of force. This role does *not* entail that
the government has the right to initiate the usage of force. The
government is supposed to protect the rights of free men, not
destroy them.
The only possible balance between the community and the individual
is: respect of each individual's rights, including property rights.
As to your claim for a balance between money and mind, where do
you see any problem? Money is the product of work, reason is the
faculty that makes productive work possible. There is no
dichotomy between money and mind.
What is your definition of utopy? If it is mysticism, or whim-worship,
I cannot see how you would "balance" between reality and "utopy":
reality cannot be faked.
Your last claim to "balance" is a crude revelation of your belief
in the following fallacy: that force is sometimes necessary, for
the "common good". The initiation of the usage of force is a
breach of man's rights. There is no such entity as the "common
good". The community is made of individuals. The "common good"
is a *sum* of the goods of each individual. There is no moral
justification in sacrificing anyone's rights, for whatever reason
might be invoked.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Magnus Kempe
: "Evil"? You do know what anarchy means in a political sense, do you?
Yes, I do. It is gang-warfare. A government is necessary, because
there is always a need for objective justice between men who
*honestly* disagree.
: [...] And if you can't pay? Perhaps because you have to choose
: between food and insurance, or rent and insurance?
Exactly. You have to *choose* your goals. You have to set your priorities.
In other words, there is no free meal.
: [...] Very many Swedes have a comfortable revenue - I do
: for instance - even with NO tax deductions exept for the loan on my home.
: [mumbling about comparing Sweden to Poland and India]
:
: I am more than a bit tired of this constant whimping about Swedish
: taxes. The problem with Swedish taxes is not the tax pressure but the
: tax distribution. (I.e. very high marginal taxes).
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Do you realize
how much *more* people earn in Western countries, such as the USA,
Canada, Switzerland, France, West Germany, England, compared to
what people earn in Sweden?
Sweden has a pretty strong industry, approx. on the same level of
productivity as industries in the above-named countries. But, for
example, a Swedish secretary earns only 1/2 of what a Swiss
secretary earns, a Swedish mechanic earns only 1/4 of what an
American mechanic earns, and, last, but not the least, a Swedish
software engineer earns only 1/3 of what a Swiss soft eng earns,
1/2 of what an American soft eng earns, and 1/2 of what an English
soft eng earns.
All these ratios compare what is left *after* the taxes, including
VAT. Don't say I can't possibly know those numbers, I have lived
in Switzerland, the USA, and Sweden. I have had a hard look at job
offers in England. Finally, before taxes, Swedish salaries are still
lower than in those countries.
And PLEASE don't tell me that life is more expensive in those countries.
That would be a lie. Food costs much more in Sweden than in any other
Western country, as do cars, and electronic equipment (this is not
an exhaustive list).
: >[...]. Finally, I have a nice future in my job, because
: >I chose it, I paid for it, and I earned it -- I didn't get any
: >stinking help from the state nor from the community.
:
: Sure you did! You went to school, didn't you? You almost certainly
: went to senior high school and very likely to the university.
Yes, I went to high school, for which my parents paid. I went to
university, for which I paid. I *worked*, and chose where I wanted
to get my education from. That was not in Sweden.
I'll repeat myself: I earned my education and my job, I didn't get
any stinking help from the state nor from the community.
: The ulitimate effects of Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the exploitation
: of the weaker by the strong. You may consider yourself on of the
: strong. Good for you.
What is your definition of exploitation? Laissez-Faire Capitalism
is *not* a system where the state protects the strong, it is a system
where the state protects every single individual against the
initiation of force. PERIOD. If you are weak, and wish to survive
without working, tough for you. Your weakness and wishes are not blank
checks over other people's lives.
: No man can exist in a vaccuum. No man's work is the product of his
: time or labour alone.
Yes, it is. My ideas are my own. What I choose to do with my hands is
my own action. If men engage in trade, it is *not* because they
couldn't live without it, it is because rational, free men have
mutual benefits in a division-of-labor economy. Society cannot exist
without men, but man exists without society.
: >I don't recognize any such concept as "duty". I live for my
: >own sake, and I expect every other man to live for his own
: >sake, for the love of his own life...
:
: I would feel sorry for you but I guess you wouldn't like that so I don't.
I don't ask of any man that he sacrifice himself to me, and I expect
that no man ask me to sacrifice myself to him. That is because I love
my life, and I expect every single man to love his own life.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>.... This has
>nothing to do with anarchy, which I consider to be evil.
>
>Not necessarily. You have no insurance if you don't pay for it,
>that's all.
Precisely! And if you can't pay? Perhaps because you have to choose
between food and insurance, or rent and insurance?
>in breaking your "statistics". I am young, not single, male. I don't
>have a comfortable revenue, as I live in a country where that is not
>possible [i.e. Sweden] -- as a matter of fact, I am proud to say
That is nonsense! Very many Swedes have a comfortable revenue - I do
for instance - even with NO tax deductions exept for the loan on my home.
Of course everything depends on what you mean by "comfortable". If you
ask someone from Poland or India or somesuch, you would find virtually ALL
Swedish revenues most comfortable.
I am more than a bit tired of this constant whimping about Swedish
taxes. The problem with Swedish taxes is not the tax pressure but the
tax distribution. (I.e. very high marginal taxes).
>that I am eligible to receive money from the state [this is called
>"social help". That wouldn't pay back what the state takes in monthly
>taxes, though]. Finally, I have a nice future in my job, because
>I chose it, I paid for it, and I earned it -- I didn't get any
>stinking help from the state nor from the community.
Sure you did! You went to school, didn't you? You almost certainly
went to senior high school and very likely to the university.
>The ultimate *conscious* motivation of Laissez-Faire Capitalism is:
>the recognition of man's nature, of his inalienable rights, and
>of the power of reason.
The ulitimate effects of Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the exploitation
of the weaker by the strong. You may consider yourself on of the
strong. Good for you.
>Whom does the product of a man's work belong to? To himself, or to
>...
>who is the ultimate minority? Should he have a piece of the
>cake too? Whose cake? Why does anyone have the right to eat *my*
>cake, which is the product of *my* own work?
No man can exist in a vaccuum. No man's work is the product of his
time or labour alone.
>I don't recognize any such concept as "duty". I live for my
>own sake, and I expect every other man to live for his own
>sake, for the love of his own life...
I would feel sorry for you but I guess you wouldn't like that so I don't.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>: You have already ruled out that society should pay for him, so charity
>: remains. What if people aren't feeling very charitable that day or if
>: charity is not in fashion, or if there are simply too many people
>: without insurance?
>
>
>: I hope you'll agree with me that this situation is unacceptable.
>
>No.
I don't think we have very much more to say to each other on this point.
>There is no such entity as "society". Society is a number of
>individuals. Each individual has to *earn* his living, because
>life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action.
Now you contradict yourself. Of course society is a number of
individuals. That is an entity, or what do you mean with an entity?
>
>: I see. Well good for you that your parents were well enough off to pay
>: for *your* high school education. There seems to be a free lunch
>: lurking here, or is in some way the lunches your parents give you not
>: free to you?
>
>They also paid taxes for other children's education. Unwillingly.
>What makes you think that the state manages better and more efficient
>education than private schools? Why isn't it possible to have
>private schools only? Why should the state decide on what is a
>proper education? Why should people who decide not to have children
>be coerced into paying for other people's children?
I have never said that the state manages better and more efficient
education. In fact, I have never mentioned the "state" at all. You
make incorrect assumptions about my opinions. People are not
stereotypes, so you can't assume that my opinions fall into those of a "state-loving" stereotype.
You haven't answered my question. Wasn't that education a free lunch
for you?
>: [..] I simply said that a consequence of Laissez-Faire economy is that
>: those that : have will have more. That is in the very nature of capitalism.
>
>Please *prove* your assertion.
I can't, and you can't prove the contrary. I can only look at times in
history when the economic situation has approached laissez-faire
capitalism. Then I find precisely these patterns.
>
>: >[...] My ideas are my own. What I choose to do with my hands is
>: >my own action. If men engage in trade, it is *not* because they
>: >couldn't live without it, it is because rational, free men have
>: >mutual benefits in a division-of-labor economy. Society cannot exist
>: >without men, but man exists without society.
>:
>: I guess this is the underlying beliefs where we differ. I am of the
>: firm convition that this is completely false. Nothing you are, or do,
>: is independent of society. Society has formed what you are and
>: influences what you do. Our different opinions of economy aside,
>: denying THIS would be downright silly! If you are so convinced that
>: you can exist without society, try moving to a deserted island and see
>: how long you last!
>
>Surely longer than in Red China, Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia.
>If there were only these three countries to choose from, I'd
>certainly move to a deserte island. Would I evaporate into
>nothingness, because I moved out of society?
No, no, nothing of the sort. But you would get a hard time finding a
doctor if you get ill (or an insurance company to pay him!). You would
have a hard time finding entertainment if you grew tired working with
whatever you do to stay alive or looking at birds and plants (or the
sea).
>...You substitute
>the primacy of Society to the primacy of Existence. You confess
>that you don't think you are responsible for your ideas and
>actions. ...
Of course I am responsible for my ideas and my actions, to an extent.
And so is society, to an extent. It is wery well established that
growing up in different environments effects children in different
ways. For example, in many parts of the world (i.e. South Africa,
Northern Ireland, Lebanon) there are children who have lived their
entire lives surronded by violence. Violence both directed at and
performed by the families and their friends families. It is
established that these children have a much greater tendency to use
violence is situations where things don't go as they please, or just
for fun. There are, in short, severely emotionally disturbed.
Do you *really* mean that this is *entirely* these individual
childrens own responsibility?
> ...That is your problem, brother, but that does not give
>you the right to enslave those who don't think so.
If by "enslaving" someone you mean, that I want to prevent individuals
from doing in each and every case exactly what comes to their mind,
they yes, I guess I want to "enslave" people. I guess your parents
"enslaved" you too when you were a kid, and I guess you would be
"enslaving" your kids, or your wife, or bussiness associates or
whatever. I definitely think you would want to "enslave" suicidal maniacs.
I might miss your point, because it seems to me that you are using the
word "enslave" in a particular philosophical meaning that differs from
the ordinary meaning of the word. I have tried to define what I think
you mean, but I might be wrong of course. Remember that, "brother",
YOU might be wrong TOO!
>: >I don't ask of any man that he sacrifice himself to me, and I expect
>: >that no man ask me to sacrifice myself to him. That is because I love
>: >my life, and I expect every single man to love his own life.
>:
>: I see you don't, but I would anyways, should the need arise. And I
>: would expect you to do the same for me.
>
>I wouldn't accept your sacrifice. But Mao, Hitler and Stalin would
>have welcomed you.
Are you running out of arguments now?
>
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
Unfortunately I will be away for a week so I can't continue this
interesting discussion for a while, possibly excepting positings that
are made today (friday).
Tej Koonar
>I don't recognize any such concept as "duty". I live for my
>own sake, and I expect every other man to live for his own
>sake, for the love of his own life.
Maybe your parents should have abandoned you when you were born : they did not
have a duty towards you.
>I will trade values with anyone who deserves it, not with looters.
>
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
But a looter will use his 'rights' to take your rights from you. He does not
have a duty to respect your rights. That is using your argument not mine.
Tej.
Tej Koonar
>: [..] I like Europe for being able to maintain
>: a balance between the community and the individual, the money and the
>: mind, the reality and the utopy, the force and the ideal. [...]
>
>Creating a free-market in Europe is a first step towards the
>recognition of the rights of man. Man has the right to his life.
>This means that he has the right to use the product of his work,
>i.e. the right to property. Some other rights are: the freedom of
What a load of bullshit. What about my rights to walk on the land that "your"
property stands on. One does not have to create a free market to recognise
the rights of man. Indeed the rigths of man are recognised even without a
free market in Europe. You got to remember that EUROPE does not constitute
a world. Your thinking is that of a total and complete racist : in fact the
rights of man will be recognised only when true and proper value is attached
to a human life irresepective of where that human lives.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
Tej.
Magnus Kempe
: You have already ruled out that society should pay for him, so charity
: remains. What if people aren't feeling very charitable that day or if
: charity is not in fashion, or if there are simply too many people
: without insurance?
Tough luck.
: I hope you'll agree with me that this situation is unacceptable.
No.
: In other words, it is a no-win situation for this individual. I can
: accept no-win situations for the society as a whole (because I do not
: believe in divine intervention), but i CAN NOT accept no-win
: situations for individuals.
There is no such entity as "society". Society is a number of
individuals. Each individual has to *earn* his living, because
life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action.
: I am also fully aware that people earn more in many other *western*
: countries, but there are other advantages to a society than your
: personal revenue. Apparently you think so too, or you wouldn't be
: staying in this awful country when you would earn more abroad, would
: you?
See above. What you call "advantages to a society" are unearned
advantages to some individuals, at the expense of other individuals.
Unfortunately, Sweden is not part of the European Community. But
you're right, I won't stay much longer in this country. I don't
intend to sacrifice my life to looters and moochers.
: I see. Well good for you that your parents were well enough off to pay
: for *your* high school education. There seems to be a free lunch
: lurking here, or is in some way the lunches your parents give you not
: free to you?
They also paid taxes for other children's education. Unwillingly.
What makes you think that the state manages better and more efficient
education than private schools? Why isn't it possible to have
private schools only? Why should the state decide on what is a
proper education? Why should people who decide not to have children
be coerced into paying for other people's children?
: [..] I simply said that a consequence of Laissez-Faire economy is that
: those that : have will have more. That is in the very nature of capitalism.
Please *prove* your assertion.
: >[...] My ideas are my own. What I choose to do with my hands is
: >my own action. If men engage in trade, it is *not* because they
: >couldn't live without it, it is because rational, free men have
: >mutual benefits in a division-of-labor economy. Society cannot exist
: >without men, but man exists without society.
:
: I guess this is the underlying beliefs where we differ. I am of the
: firm convition that this is completely false. Nothing you are, or do,
: is independent of society. Society has formed what you are and
: influences what you do. Our different opinions of economy aside,
: denying THIS would be downright silly! If you are so convinced that
: you can exist without society, try moving to a deserted island and see
: how long you last!
Surely longer than in Red China, Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia.
If there were only these three countries to choose from, I'd
certainly move to a deserte island. Would I evaporate into
nothingness, because I moved out of society? You substitute
the primacy of Society to the primacy of Existence. You confess
that you don't think you are responsible for your ideas and
actions. That is your problem, brother, but that does not give
you the right to enslave those who don't think so.
: >I don't ask of any man that he sacrifice himself to me, and I expect
: >that no man ask me to sacrifice myself to him. That is because I love
: >my life, and I expect every single man to love his own life.
:
: I see you don't, but I would anyways, should the need arise. And I
: would expect you to do the same for me.
I wouldn't accept your sacrifice. But Mao, Hitler and Stalin would
have welcomed you.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Richard Caley
which are far too simple to cope with real world situations ]
In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>In article <4...@edai.ed.ac.uk> rjc@edai (Richard Caley) writes:
>: [ things owned but not produced ]
>Money obtained as interests is a payment for your lending money to
>a bank.
>Gifts were *given* to you by someone who *owned* them. That makes them
>your property.
That was my point. In order to get property rights to work we need a
whole basket of other assumptions. "ownership" is not simply the right
to "use", but the right to transfer "ownership", the right to allow
others "use", the right to deny others "use", the right to "destroy".
The last here is the killer. If I own a chunk of Amazon rainforrest
then do I have the right to destroy it? Even if in doing so I cause the
deaths of millions of people?
Basically, property is such a problematic concept that I hesitate to
include it as fundimental. It is like including imcome tax rules in a
definition of quantum mechanics, it may be consistant and even
explanatoty, but it is a little top heavy.
>Your example of land is a good example: the right to own a piece of
>land is a consequence of an action, the work spent on that piece of
>land. A farmer owns his piece of land for the reason that he works
>on it, and no one else. If he doesn't work on it, he won't be able
>to keep it, and will have to sell it. What he gets from his piece
>of land is the product of his own work.
Then if you own a car which you are unable to drive ( let us say, god
forbid, that you have a terrible accident ) and I come along and polish
it every sunday for ten years then it is mine?
Or if you die?
Or what if it is your garden I work on, do you loose it?
Do I have to have worked on it since time began? remember any land we
own was probably taken by right of conquest at some point in the past
and so any chain of "gifts" you may come up with to support your claim
to some land is probably invalid since it starts with someone who didn't
own the land by your definition.
Who owns land which les fallow? Which has never been worked?
>The example of land is easily extended to airways: nobody produces
>airways, but it is possible to *use* them, productively. It is
>therefore proper that frequencies should be owned by radio stations.
Is it? Why does someone have the right to send radio waves into my house
( well actually I don't own a house, assume I did for the sake of
argument ).
What if I object to their programming?
Why should I not be allowed to do anything I want to _my_ electrons in
_my_ radio set in _my_ house?
>: To support trade we require an idea of a contract, try enforcing that
>: without force.
>The right to trade defines and sanctions the following actions:
>productive work, and freewilling exchange of products to each traders'
>mutual advantage. Nobody is ever forced into trading.
But they can be tricked and without a contract have no comeback, that
was my point.
1. man walks into restaurant.
2. eats meal.
3. walks out without paying.
or
1. man walks into restaurant.
2. pays in advance.
3. is not served meal.
A varient of the prisoner's dilema.
>I said "the initiation of force", not just "force". There is another
>right, which is self-defense: the use of force in retaliation to
>the initiation of force. A breach of contract, a fraud, is an act
>of force: the forceful appropriation of some object or service,
>without paying for it.
"He shot me, unfortunatly it was too late to shoot him back."
"He was just about to pull the trigger, so I shot him"
"He was going to shoot me, so I shot him".
"He was thinking of shooting me, so I shot him."
"He had a gun, so I shot him".
"He was thinking of buying a gun, so I shot him."
Or, if you prefer.
"He hit me with a cream pie, so I shot him."
>See above, and remember: it is evil to *initiate* the use of force,
>but it is *right* to use force in self-defense, i.e. against the
>initiator of force. One consequence of the right to self-defense,
>is that men should have the right to bear arms, in order to
>protect themselves. Why is it so? Because the police is neither
>omniscient, nor omnipresent, and it is necessary to be able to
>defend oneself in a situation of emergency. But it is *not*
>right to shoot at your agressor once the police has arrested him,
>of course.
Is punishment self-defence? If not we must throw out the police anyway
since they can not be there when every crime is commited.
>No rights are possible without property rights.
I can have freedom of speech without property, I can heve the right to
life without property. Now, you may argue that it is easer to defend
right with property, but that is a different argument.
>Property rights are a consequence of
>the right to life, because you need the product of your own work in
>order to sustain your own life.
I am a student; for several years my life has been sustained by a grant
which is provided by the taxpayers of the UK who, very kindly, decided
to chip in and support me.
My work provides _nothing_ which supports anyone's life.
>: [...] certainly money can be used to
>: subvert many of the rights you stated earlier were fundimental. A free
>: market makes that easier.
>Please show how money can be used to subvert rights, without
>infringing upon anybody's rights -- otherwise it would be illegal.
What has illegal got to do with anything. Many things are illegal and
are also basic rights.
Money allows one to take someone's life by buying up a required
commodity. If someone needs a medicine to survive and I buy up all of
that medcine and the factories which produce it, I am indirectly killing
that person.
If you stand on your property and start talking, I buy a _large_
amplification system and sit next door in my property playing 5000 watts
of white noise to drown you out. You can no longer, in any real sense,
exercise your right to free speech.
I buy all the property surrounding yours, I now build _HUGE_ fences. I
do not let anyone cross my land. Freedom of association?
>: I agree, to a great extent. However what happens when two people's
>: rights come into conflict? That is when any course of action violates
>: someone's rights?
>: [ newspaper example ]
>No rights ever come into conflict.
Gasp, choke, ... attempt to rearange world view. Nope we have a pretty
basic disagreement somewhere.
>Your
>example demonstrates a misunderstanding of what rights stand for:
>rights are a moral concept, defining and sanctioning the freedom
>to some kinds of *action*.
The right to life is not about action, it is about existance. Freedom of
speech is not about action, but effect ( see example above with the
amplifier - I can let you speak and still deny you "freedom of speech",
since the right involved is the right to convey your beliefs to others
).
>Your example is just another version of the fallacy of the
>"consumer's rights".
This may be a problem with translation. "Consumer Rights" to me mean the
rights a person gets as a partner in a transaction. In a transaction I
have a right not to be cheeted. "Consumer Rights" are about fraud. Does
the phrase mean something different in Sweden? The basis of consumer
rights law in Britain is a phrase "merchantable quality", if someone
offers something for sale then it should be suitable for the purposes
which he states it is to be used for. For instance I can't sell a car,
no matter how good, and claim that it is good for washing clothes.
>There is no right to consume. There is
>only the right to produce. If nobody produces champagne, or
>shoes, you are free to produce these. Only a producer can
>engage in consumption, which is the trade of a product against
>another product.
Do I get a whif of dried grass here? I have seen no one claim a right to
consume. However the right to life confers a right to obtain certain
necessities which can not be produced. Water, air. If you deprive
someone of air, you are killing them.
>Someone's rights cannot violate another person's rights. Such
>a violation would be a contradiction of the concept "rights",
>and contradictions cannot exist.
Two people in conflict for a comodity necessary for life are in conflict
over the right to life. If I have control of that comodity I am in a
dilema -- either choice will deny life to someone.
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.aipna I love to sing of my forest,
The trees that block the sun.
And when I cut them down,
I don't answer to anyone.
- 10,000 maniacs "A Campfire Song"
r...@uk.ac.ed.aipna
"Politics! You can wrap it up in fancy ribbons, but you can't hide the smell"
- Jack Barron
Irek Defee
>No rights ever come into conflict. That is a marxian fallacy. Your
>example demonstrates a misunderstanding of what rights stand for:
>rights are a moral concept, defining and sanctioning the freedom
>to some kinds of *action*.
But how about monopoly then? If property rights are unlimited then
there is a right of having monopoly in some kind of activity since
certainly it is completely unrightful to limit the amount of ownership.
Are the antimonopoly, antitrust, etc. laws a violation of rights or
is this a conflict of rights between a (monopolist) owner and rights
of others? Or maybe "economic rights" are only invented as rules of
a market economy game and can be adjusted according to the situation?
Their moral justification has then something of a status of religious
beliefs and what really counts is economic productivity.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Irek -- de...@tut.fi
Magnus Kempe
What are your definitions for "slave" and "free market"?
: >Man has the right to his life.
: >This means that he has the right to use the product of his work,
:
: I have no problems there but . . .
:
: >i.e. the right to property.
:
: Doesn't follow, at least for the very wide definition of property which
: we have in the modern, western world.
:
: I "own" many things which are neither the products of my work, nor were
: exchanged for those results.
:
: I have money obtained as interest on a savings account.
: I have things given to me as gifts.
:
: Also there is the problem of those things which _no_one_ produced. For
: instance land, we let people "own" land, but certainly no one produced
: it.
Money obtained as interests is a payment for your lending money to
a bank. Your money is your property, it is proper that you should
be paid when you let someone use it -- in the same way that it is proper
that the owner of a house should be paid when he lets someone use his
house, or part of it.
Gifts were *given* to you by someone who *owned* them. That makes them
your property.
Your example of land is a good example: the right to own a piece of
land is a consequence of an action, the work spent on that piece of
land. A farmer owns his piece of land for the reason that he works
on it, and no one else. If he doesn't work on it, he won't be able
to keep it, and will have to sell it. What he gets from his piece
of land is the product of his own work.
In response to the marxists who will stand up and say:
"Aha, but what if this farmer -- an ugly "capitalist" -- pays other
people to work on that piece of land? their work makes *them* the
owners of that piece of land, because the recolt is the product of
*their* work."
I shall answer that they receive a salary, which is another form
of the product of their own work. If they want a piece of land, they
may buy it, just the way the "ugly capitalist" did it. The fact that
he owns that piece of land is the consequence of his previous years
of work. The fact that he *freewillingly* agrees with *freewilling*
workers to pay them for their working in his fields does not change
the reason why he owns land, and does not switch ownership from one
to the others.
The example of land is easily extended to airways: nobody produces
airways, but it is possible to *use* them, productively. It is
therefore proper that frequencies should be owned by radio stations.
: >Some other rights are: the freedom of
: >speech, the freedom of trade, and the freedom of association.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: [..] I can't ever remember seeing trade being put forward as a basic right.
: [..]
:
: >The common mark of all these rights is that they ban the initiation
: >of the usage of force in *all* relationships between men.
:
: To support trade we require an idea of a contract, try enforcing that
: without force.
The right to trade defines and sanctions the following actions:
productive work, and freewilling exchange of products to each traders'
mutual advantage. Nobody is ever forced into trading.
I said "the initiation of force", not just "force". There is another
right, which is self-defense: the use of force in retaliation to
the initiation of force. A breach of contract, a fraud, is an act
of force: the forceful appropriation of some object or service,
without paying for it.
Men in a free society delegate their right of self-defense to the
government, in order to secure objective justice through objective
laws. That is the source of the government's monopole on the legal
use of force.
: >This role does *not* entail that
: >the government has the right to initiate the usage of force.
:
: It can be very difficult to protect against the use of force without
: using force. I'm not sure that the government is up to this challenge.
See above, and remember: it is evil to *initiate* the use of force,
but it is *right* to use force in self-defense, i.e. against the
initiator of force. One consequence of the right to self-defense,
is that men should have the right to bear arms, in order to
protect themselves. Why is it so? Because the police is neither
omniscient, nor omnipresent, and it is necessary to be able to
defend oneself in a situation of emergency. But it is *not*
right to shoot at your agressor once the police has arrested him,
of course.
: >The only possible balance between the community and the individual
: >is: respect of each individual's rights, including property rights.
:
: I agree up to the comma. After that, well I remain to be convinced that
: the right to property is in any way fundimental ( which is not to say I
: disaprove, just that I see it as an assumption made by our society,
: which others could do without ).
No rights are possible without property rights. Witness communist China,
nazi Germany, and soviet Russia. Property rights are a consequence of
the right to life, because you need the product of your own work in
order to sustain your own life. Property rights recognize the fact
that the product of your own work *is* the product of your own work
-- i.e. that you freewillingly chose to work in order to sustain your
own life, and that the product of your work is the manifestation of
your choice to sustain your own life.
: [...] certainly money can be used to
: subvert many of the rights you stated earlier where fundimental. A free
: market makes that easier.
Please show how money can be used to subvert rights, without
infringing upon anybody's rights -- otherwise it would be illegal.
: >There is no moral
: >justification in sacrificing anyone's rights, for whatever reason
: >might be invoked.
:
: I agree, to a great extent. However what happens when two people's
: rights come into conflict? That is when any course of action violates
: someone's rights?
:
: For instance, a newspaper editor has limited resources and can publish
: only a given amount of text. When he has two articles and must select
: between them, one of the authors is going to be denied freedom of
: speech.
No rights ever come into conflict. That is a marxian fallacy. Your
example demonstrates a misunderstanding of what rights stand for:
rights are a moral concept, defining and sanctioning the freedom
to some kinds of *action*.
Specifically, a right allows *you* to some kind of action, but it
does not mean that *others* should provide you with some facility
in order to act.
Freedom of speech allows you to speak your mind in your own property.
Nobody will prevent you from that. But freedom of speech does *not*
mean that you have the right to use anyone else's property to
propagate your ideas: the owner of a newspaper is free to choose
what he publishes. If he doesn't publish your text, you are free
to buy a newspaper of your own. That is all. And that is not
censorship. Censorship is an act of force, which only the state
can perform, because only the state may try to *prevent* you
from voicing your ideas in your own property.
Your example is just another version of the fallacy of the
"consumer's rights". There is no right to consume. There is
only the right to produce. If nobody produces champagne, or
shoes, you are free to produce these. Only a producer can
engage in consumption, which is the trade of a product against
another product.
Someone's rights cannot violate another person's rights. Such
a violation would be a contradiction of the concept "rights",
and contradictions cannot exist.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Nick Taylor
[All sorts of inconsistent gibberish on matters that are rather trivial but
then goes on to generate some very dangerous ideas which I cannot just laugh
away]
>No rights are possible without property rights.
This is not so much a statement of historical fact as a proposal for
limiting the rights of people who do not own property since he goes on to
say :
>Freedom of speech allows you to speak your mind in your own property.
This is not the case in any democracy that I am aware of. I notice that you
don't practice what you preach, however.
>No rights ever come into conflict. That is a marxian fallacy.
Bullshit! Have you not heard about the controversy surrounding The Satanic
Verses? No, don't bother to tell us all whose rights are bogus in this
particular case - some of us have thought a bit about these things which
you obviously haven't.
>Someone's rights cannot violate another person's rights. Such
>a violation would be a contradiction of the concept "rights",
>and contradictions cannot exist.
You're beginning to sound just like one of those daft computers in sci fi
stories - "that does not compute, illogical, illogical, illogical, ..."
(See Karn Evil 9 on Brain Salad Surgery by Emerson, Lake and Palmer!)
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
I wouldn't know, but if your premises are good then your inference system
must be full of bugs since your conclusions are both unsound and incomplete.
Whatever happened to the guy who decided not to go to hospital in your earlier
posting - is he running around giving us all smallpox at the moment?
Nick Taylor "Life? ... Don't talk to me about life!" - Marvin BSP, PA, PD(LHS)
Department of Computer Science JANET : NI...@UK.AC.HW.CS
Heriot-Watt University ARPANET : NI...@CS.HW.AC.UK
79 Grassmarket /\ / o __ /_ UUCP : ...!UKC!CS.HW.AC.UK!NICK
Edinburgh EH1 2HJ / \ / / / /__) Tel : +44 31 225 6465 Ext. 532
United Kingdom / \/ (_ (___ / \ Fax : +44 31 220 4277
mel...@peun32.uucp
Magnus's continualy makes absolute assertions about concepts
which are not clearly defined, & which are understood differently
by different cultures, & by people with different political beliefs.
Magnus perhaps would assert his right to an individual understanding
of these concepts :-).
1) What is property ? What is & what is not capable of
being owned ?
2) What is "justice" ? Magnus believes the government
should enforce this.
3) What is force ? Most actions involve force.
4) What constitutes an "initiation" of force ?
5) What is "Free" Trade ? Is Magnus refering to 18th, 19th,
or 20th century variants ?
6) What is the origin of the basic rights which Magnus
postulates ?
In answer to some of these questions an 18th century Slave
Trader would have said that it is possible to own people. Bringing
people into ownership (outside Europe), was not force but analogous
to picking a wild apple. He was entitled to trade this property
without interference. He was entitled to assert his rights in the
Courts - this was "justice". He obtained these rights by being a
subject of the sovereign country of xxxxland.
Magnus may reply that of course he doesnt attach these
meanings to these concepts. That would not make it clear what he does
mean.
mel...@peun32.uucp
A great deal has been written on this topic, including
theory on property rights, state/individual rights & so on.
It strikes me however that the difference between Magnus & all the
other contributors is that the rest of think we should be nice to each
other, & Magnus doesnt.
Magnus thinks he has nice premises. They may be interesting,
but they are not nice, and could be summarised as "I am not my brothers
keeper". Now who else said that ?
Dr. Sanio
Subject: Re: The Rights of Man
Summary:
Expires:
References: <20...@erix.ericsson.se> <4...@edai.ed.ac.uk> <21...@erix.ericsson.se> <81...@etana.tut.fi>
Sender:
Reply-To: e...@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio)
Followup-To:
Distribution: eunet
Organization: Siemens AG, K D ST SP4, Munich
Keywords:
Newsgroups: eunet.politics
Subject: Re: The Rights of Man
Summary:
Expires:
References: <20...@erix.ericsson.se> <4...@edai.ed.ac.uk> <21...@erix.ericsson.se> <81...@etana.tut.fi>
Sender:Erhard Sanio, Munich
Reply-To: e...@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio)
Followup-To:
Distribution: eunet
Organization: Siemens AG, K D ST SP4, Munich
Keywords:
In article <81...@etana.tut.fi> de...@joutsen.UUCP (Irek Defee) writes:
>In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>> ..lots of stuff omitted...
>>No rights ever come into conflict. That is a marxian fallacy. Your
>>example demonstrates a misunderstanding of what rights stand for:
>>rights are a moral concept, defining and sanctioning the freedom
>>to some kinds of *action*.
>> ...
>
I'm seriously concerned about the low level of discussion and the naivety
statements as above encounter. And I'm tired to repeat the arguments of
a discussion started more than 200 years ago.
As I regard it, Magnus Kempe falsifies the concept of the rights of man/woman
to something which suits exclusively into the political thought of a minority
of privileged ultra-liberals (and some fascists, too, btw.).
I think, that the basic concept of human rights is the respect against the
integrity of human life and dignity, nothing else. Any special instances of
that may vary between countries/societies and in different historical situa-
tions. Guarantees of private property may be (should be) given under several
conditions, but may be suspended under various others (especially cases of
emergency), without restricting human rights at all.
At least myself, I wouldn't feel myself violated in my human rights at all,
if, for instance, my house would be confiscated in a disaster area to serve
as a hospital (even if I would never get it back by any sensible reason).
To the statement cited above: Sorry, but it's completely nonsense. Since
thousands of years, philosophers (and other reasonable people) know that
any liberty finds its limits in the liberty of others to do the same.
Conflicts are the normal way to find the balance between them and if there
is any progress, then that this can normally found out in a non-violent way
at some places on this crazy planet (I guess Sweden is one of those).
And please, leave morale at home when you're complaining about your
income tax - simply use your rights (free speech, elections ..) to try
to change it.
good luck
e. sanio
Irek Defee
>There is no such entity as "society". Society is a number of
>individuals. Each individual has to *earn* his living, because
>life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action.
And the rules of such defined life are governed by quantum chemistry,
physics and the whole stuff unedrlying them. We can thus provide an
ultimate foundation for the above statement using sociobiology theory.
First observe that in an animal kingdom it is quite opposite -
each individual is only consuming and does not care about
producing anything (or it is producing itself for some other teeth).
This is because of the genetic program which is built-in and
controlling the animal behavior. So what is really behind are complex
chemical structures (genes) which try to proliferate in such an unusual
way. In the man case, the genes became supersmart (perhaps they want to
proliferate to outer space). They acquired a mechanism for making a new
"conscious" rule of the game, completely opposite to the one for
animals - an individual does have a right to consume only what
(directly or indirectly) is producing. What we see above has thus
an ultimate sociobiological cosequence - by the rule of "production
right" supersmart genes also may be become even smarter since
all not enough productive individuals will be eliminated or
eliminate themselves very quickly. Again, as in the animal case,
individuals are only hardware envelope for some complex chemistry.
Society is software - it is thus not necessary, even harming, since
it prevents fast elimination of not very productive individuums.
Ultimately the most important goal are better genes.
Sounds as heard once before, eh? Yes, you are right but at that time it
was just simpler proliferation of better race and extermination of
subpeople...
Irek
Bruno Poterie
In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10c.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
> There is no such entity as "society". Society is a number of
> individuals.
At least, we agree on something! To be more precise, my favorite definition
of society is:
"Society _is_ the very existence of several individuals living
together, thus is equivalent to the sum of their inter-relations"
Now saying that an individual can exist without a society is saying that
an individual living alone and not interacting in any way with anybody else
can live without taking into account the needs and actions of others. This
is a truism, but in that case there is very few trade and money left indeed.
The notion of human's rights and property becomes very fuzzy as well.
On the other side, living and interacting with others _defines_ a society.
So saying that several individuals can do without a society is a contradiction
in terms. But wait! Contradictions do not exist, don't they? So either your
definition, or your conclusion, does not exist. (Now this is your logic, not
mine. Manicheism is not really my cup of tea)
> Unfortunately, Sweden is not part of the European Community. But
> you're right, I won't stay much longer in this country. I don't
> intend to sacrifice my life to looters and moochers.
You have obviously very few knowledge of what the "European Community" is,
from an internal point of view. Having spend time in Switzerland does not
help either. Therefore i do not clearly understand this "Unfortunately".
Unless you think that the EC is going to be a big "free-trade-zone", and
only that, in which case you are plainly WRONG. No way. The EC is the very
place to introduce environment and other long-term policies, which obviously
will run against the will of immediate-profit thougth-luck do-not-touch-my-
money-bag Laissez-faire-Capitalists. Bad luck for you!
I have the impression that your beliefs are so entrenched, so religious in
nature, that you cannot simply accept it when reality contradicts them.
In another posting, you claimed that property rights were undissociable
from the other humans' rights, giving Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and
Communist China, as negative-examples.
First, you cannot simply state an absolute law by providing a few examples
where the contraposition does not hold. Second, you contradicted yourself,
and that, twice out of three examples. Not bad!
* China: Property rights and Trade Rights have been reintroduced
by Deng Ziao Ping since almost 10 years now, and slogans
such as: "Enrich yourself is a good thing" were around.
Yet what the students wanted was political rights, right
of free speech, right of free movement, they stopped short
of the right to free vote. After the repression, the main
efforts of the dictators in power has been to convince the
West that it was "Business as usual".
* Germany: Here you simply fooled yourself. The german economy, even
in the middle of the war, was basically a Capitalist one.
Property rights and trade rights were respected, and it was
only in the last year that factories and businesses were
forced to concentrate their production on the military.
During the whole time, companies producing under american
licenses kept paying the fees to the USA through mainly
the neutral Swiss banks, and share benefits were payed
as if nothing were going one. That is, except if the
owner was a Jew. Thougth luck.
There are a lot of other cases. They all throw into your face the same message:
"Laisez-faire Capitalism can and do survive without political rights"
> They also paid taxes for other children's education. Unwillingly.
> What makes you think that the state manages better and more efficient
> education than private schools? Why isn't it possible to have
> private schools only? Why should the state decide on what is a
> proper education? Why should people who decide not to have children
> be coerced into paying for other people's children?
To go on in the same vein:
Why should poor people' chidren be allowed a free basic schooling? Why should
people with physical or mental problems be provided the extra things needed
for them to communicate with the rest of the society? Why should the farmers
and cattle-owners in Amazonia care that their freedom of trade actually means
the deat of untold numbers of animal and vegetal species, not to mention the
fact that destroying their environment will kill the indians as surely as guns,
not to mention the fact that the future of all the inhabitants of this planet,
us and the coming generations, are and will be deeply affected? Thougth luck!
The amount of egoism and contempt you show to your fellow humans is incredible.
Despite your repeated use of the word "Freedom" what you constantly say always
comes back to the same thing:
"i want the freedom to say and think whatever i want,
and i want the freedom to gain money without interference,
and i want the right to shoot at anyone who does not agree,
and the others can die and rot if they cannot manage it"
Pouah.
> : [..] I simply said that a consequence of Laissez-Faire economy is that
> : those that : have will have more. That is in the very nature of capitalism.
>
> Please *prove* your assertion.
Take a poor. No money except for eating bread. An accident. Cannot pay
the hospital. Charitable veterinary student cuts the legs and one arm,
before infection gets the whole body. The guy has no education, so can do
only manual work. No legs. One hand. How long would he survive?
Take a young couple without much ressource and intelligence. Survive on
a remote farm. No money to send the small kid to the school in far away
town. Not even for the bus. Not even for the books and the teacher. Well,
that small kid can stay all his life on the farm, no need to write,
no need to read, no need to know about a concept named:
"all men are born and live free and equal in rights"
The bank has just launched this very interesting obligation bond, based
on this juicy South-East-Asian market. 15 % rendering. 5 years. A good
chance for everybody to gain money? Not quite, the thing is sold by units
of SEK 5000, with a reservation rights of 1 extra every 10. Very easy,
people without extra available money won't be able to buy any, people
with an average ressource will be able to buy one or two, people with
already a lot of money -or the property of xx acres of wood or land,
or a real estate, or a business, so they can get a 10 % loan from the
same bank- will buy 10 or 20 or 100, and be given 2 or 4 or 10 extra
at a favorable price. The poor will end up relatively poorer, while
the rich will end up relatively richer. And the only effort and work
needed is there to sign a few papers at your bank office. So much for
the concept that money is the result of hard work and efforts.
Do you really want more?
One more question: Peasant in Columbia, Perou and others have the
right to cultivate on their soil what they want, right? Businessmen
have the right to buy that product, transport it to the USA and
Europe, and sell it to local distributors, right? Those distributors
have the right to repackage it, and sell it to costumers who want
that product, and are freely ready to pay the price, right? Those
customers have the right to take this product in their home and
consume it, right?
Even if the product is called: "OPIUM"?
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.
Bruno Poterie, Martian.
Vive l'Europe - des peuples, pas des marchands.
Magnus Kempe
discussions of political principles.
Bruno Poterie writes:
: At least, we agree on something! To be more precise, my favorite definition
: of society is:
:
: "Society _is_ the very existence of several individuals living
: together, thus is equivalent to the sum of their inter-relations"
Nope. It is a group of individuals, who might, or might not, engage
in various kinds of relationships. In other words, first it is a
group of individuals, then it is *additionally* their relationships.
The notion of rights is meaningful in a social context only, but that
does not mean that rights are granted by society: rights are the means
to subordinate society to a moral code, the moral code that fits man's
nature.
: So saying that several individuals can do without a society is a contradiction
: in terms. But wait! Contradictions do not exist, don't they? So either your
: definition, or your conclusion, does not exist.
Your definition is wrong, you substituted it for mine -- that is why
you don't reach the correct conclusion.
: > Unfortunately, Sweden is not part of the European Community.
:
: You have obviously very few knowledge of what the "European Community" is,
: from an internal point of view.
I don't think so. I have lived in both France and England, and I have
followed what the EC is becoming -- don't assume that you know my life.
: Unless you think that the EC is going to be a big "free-trade-zone", and
: only that, in which case you are plainly WRONG. No way.
That is your wish. Currently, only the free-market has been agreed upon.
This is a *fact*.
: I have the impression that your beliefs are so entrenched, so religious in
: nature, that you cannot simply accept it when reality contradicts them.
That is your impression. I don't go by feelings, I judge in accordance
with reality, and I expect everybody to do the same. Is that religion?
: In another posting, you claimed that property rights were undissociable
: from the other humans' rights, giving Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and
: Communist China, as negative-examples.
: First, you cannot simply state an absolute law by providing a few examples
: where the contraposition does not hold. Second, you contradicted yourself,
: and that, twice out of three examples. Not bad!
Property rights are a consequence of the right to life. No other rights
are possible without property rights: e.g. freedom of speech applies on
your property, or on somebody else's, but only with that person's *voluntary*
consent.
: * China: Property rights and Trade Rights have been reintroduced
: by Deng Ziao Ping since almost 10 years now, and slogans
: such as: "Enrich yourself is a good thing" were around.
Property rights do not exist if one is not allowed to do what he wants
with his property. For example, a woman owns her own body. That means
she is sole responsible for deciding whether she will abort, or not.
This property right does not exist in Red China. This is just an example.
The right to life does not exist in Red China. Period.
: * Germany: Here you simply fooled yourself. The german economy, even
: in the middle of the war, was basically a Capitalist one.
: Property rights and trade rights were respected [...]
False. The government decided on the prices of goods and the wages of
the workers. Ownership without the right to use is *not* the implementation
of property rights. If you are intellectually honest, read the party
platform of the National-Socialist party of Germany, from 1933 and onward:
you'll find out what socialism and the welfare-state is about.
Contrary to what many socialist statists claim, nazism and fascism are
*not* implementations of capitalism, but are, in fact, variants of statism,
i.e. of collectivism.
: "Laisez-faire Capitalism can and do survive without political rights"
No. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is about political rights. All other systems
negate one or the other of those rights.
: Why should poor people' chidren be allowed a free basic schooling?
Why should I pay for them? I didn't coerce them into having children.
Education is not free, just like food.
: Why should people with physical or mental problems be provided the
: extra things needed for them to communicate with the rest of the
: society?
Aha. "the rest of society"? What's that? Why should I have to pay for
their needs? Is their handicap a blank check on my life?
: Why should the farmers and cattle-owners in Amazonia care that their
: freedom of trade actually means the death of untold numbers of animal
: and vegetal species [..]?
Yes, why? They will be the first to die, if they exhaust their land.
That is why they should rationnally use their own land. Not because
some neurotic European shouts that his supply of oxygen is shrinking.
: The amount of egoism and contempt you show to your fellow humans is
: incredible.
Egoism. You're right. I live for my own sake. And contempt, that is
what irrational men deserve. Fortunately, there are some rational,
egoist men.
: Despite your repeated use of the word "Freedom" what you
: constantly say always comes back to the same thing:
: "i want the freedom to say and think whatever i want,
Yes
: and i want the freedom to gain money without interference,
To *make* money, not to loot
: and i want the right to shoot at anyone who does not agree,
Never said that. That is immoral. I'll shoot at anyone who tries to
rob me or kill me, that's for sure.
: and the others can die and rot if they cannot manage it"
No. The others should live and celebrate their own life, to the
extent of their ability. That is what I wish to all human beings.
: Pouah.
Is that your metaphysical view of the universe?
: Take a poor. No money except for eating bread. An accident.
Should we live according to ethics of emrgency, or according to reason?
Besides, why is he poor? I will give money to a man, provided that he
is *not* responsible for his own handicap.
: [describes the production of drugs in South America, and how it
: could freely be sold in the USA and Europe.]
Correct. Under Laissez-Faire Capitalism, such an activity would
not be illegal. It is certainly immoral, but not illegal. The
principle is: I am not by brother's keeper; if he wants to smoke a
cigaret, to drink whisky, to smoke crack, to jump from the Eiffel
tower, I am not going to forbid him to do it. I might tell him that
it is irrational, but I don't care if he destroys his own life.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
(please use the above address: my mailer gives unreliable information)
Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D
> [...] In other words, first it is a
> group of individuals, then it is *additionally* their relationships.
>
their original rights to the community, call it a "welfare state" and begin
growing kids. And, two decades later, the kids don't agree to the system
they live in, especially don't want to give away the above mentioned rights.
I think, they have three choices: 1) (unwillingly) accept the system,
2) become a majority and change it or 3) leave. But not emitting theo-
retical blubber about 'human rights'.
> : I have the impression that your beliefs are so entrenched, so religious in
> : nature, that you cannot simply accept it when reality contradicts them.
>
> That is your impression. I don't go by feelings, I judge in accordance
> with reality, and I expect everybody to do the same. Is that religion?
Yes! Whose reality ? Yours, obviously. Reality is _not_ absolute. It is a
construction of your brain and may well differ from realities construed by
other brains. However, most reasonable people assume that there is a real
world outside their mind, and that there are relations between their
reality and the world outside. But look: for religious people, the existence
of god is undoubtable, god is part of their reality. For Atheists not.
Similar things apply to communists or any other kind of fanatics.
Lunatics live in their reality. Your reality seems obviosly to be different
from that of the other subscribers. But if we others all agree on very
similar realities, and you don't, guess who is the Lunatic then?
> Property rights are a consequence of the right to life. [...]
No!
> [...] For example, a woman owns her own body. That means
> she is sole responsible for deciding whether she will abort, or not.
At least this time, I agree completely. If this decision is free, uninfluenced
by economic needs and other people's will (esp. of the child's father).
>: Why should poor people' chidren be allowed a free basic schooling?
Poorness is not their fault. Equality of chance, for all men, is essen-
tial.
>Why should I pay for them? I didn't coerce them into having children.
>Education is not free, just like food.
> ...
> Egoism. You're right. I live for my own sake. And contempt, that is
> what irrational men deserve. Fortunately, there are some rational,
> egoist men.
Groups of non-egoist cooperating individuals tend to be stronger than Groups
of egoists. Your only chance to survive as an egoist is to prohibit
cooperation as being against human nature. Besides, free education from
basic school to university is essential for the relative wealth of
Germany, for instance. This applies to Sweden as well: both countries
can't live on their resources, so must live on their intelligence.
>: "i want the freedom to say and think whatever i want,
>
>Yes
Agreed.
> To *make* money, not to loot
The difference is a matter of definition.
>[...] I'll shoot at anyone who tries to
>rob me or kill me, that's for sure.
Shooting at robbers is no self-defense and thus immoral. Get a theft
insurance, instead.
> [...] The
> principle is: I am not by brother's keeper; if he wants to smoke a
> cigaret, to drink whisky, to smoke crack, to jump from the Eiffel
> tower, I am not going to forbid him to do it. I might tell him that
> it is irrational, but I don't care if he destroys his own life.
Agreed.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
> (please use the above address: my mailer gives unreliable information)
Oliver Bonten.
Use F...@DACTH51.BITNET to send directly, and write: 'to Oliver Bonten' on
the subject line. It's a shared mailbox.
Tapani Tarvainen
> I will give money to a man, provided that he
>is *not* responsible for his own handicap.
Why? How does this fit in your philosophy - why is his bad luck
a concern of yours?
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarv...@jyu.fi, tarv...@finjyu.bitnet)
Dr. Sanio
.FLAME ON
If my children were starving, I would regard their right to survive
superior to your right to wipe your ass with silk and I w o u l d
steal something of your holy fucking property. And if you feel entitled
to shoot at people who feel this way, then you are a bloody killer,
nothing else.
Close your eyes, what you see then, that's your property!
Nobody of us owns any part of this planet, we simply inherited some things
and some skill by the work of our ancients, who reached this level only
by s o c i a l cooperation. If they had argued: "What do you give me if
I save you from this crazy mammoot", you wouldn't be anything than probably
a lousy, stinking monkey on a tree, shouting:
" t h i s i s M Y b a n a n a ! ! !"
.FLAME OFF
Think about.
Hopefully, I was not too offensive.
regards , es
Keith Dancey
>how much *more* people earn in Western countries, such as the USA,
>Canada, Switzerland, France, West Germany, England, compared to
>
>All these ratios compare what is left *after* the taxes, including
>
>And PLEASE don't tell me that life is more expensive in those countries...
>
>I'll repeat myself: I earned my education and my job, I didn't get
>
Just another self-centred, selfish, middle-class bore whinging and whining
about taxes...
S'funny how you never seem to get *working class* libertarians.
Kristoffer Eriksson
in a reasonable manner?
Could you please start explaining your views in stead of just stating them
as obvious facts? How else would you ever convince anyone that you have a
valid case? It may very well be that your reasoning is internally consistent,
but for me, and most others here, there are big gaps in the statements you
make, where I by myself can't see how A follows from B. It also seems that
most of us have to substitute your definitions of a lot of things for our
owns, to reach the "correct" conclusions. You have to explain more.
Maybe you don't care if anyone understands you, but why then did you enter
this debate at all?
I'll list a few of your statements (although out of context), that I don't
understand or where I don't see any reasons stated at all. I'm not supporting
any particular view or person in this article; I just would like to be able
to follow your reasoning.
In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>Bruno Poterie writes:
>: At least, we agree on something! To be more precise, my favorite definition
>: of society is: [...]
> Nope. It is a group of individuals, who might, or might not, engage
> in various kinds of relationships. In other words, first it is a
> group of individuals, then it is *additionally* their relationships.
You don't say why. Is it a fact given by "nature" that this is the meaning of
the word "society"? Or is there a reason why your definition is the correct
one? Isn't this just a quarrell about semantics? I could e.g. accept it if
you said "With this (hypothetical) definition, we can reach at such and such
conclusion, which is desirable", or "This is a convinient definition because
...", or "This is based on the following empirical evidence ...", or "I just
feel comfortable with this definition", or "This is an axiom in my (private)
belief system; the others are ..." or possibly "X said that's the way it is,
and he should now". This of course also applies to a most of your other
statements.
>... rights are the means
> to subordinate society to a moral code, the moral code that fits man's
> nature.
This doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me, if the first "the" is changed
to an "a", but I still do not see any hint of a reason. Would you say that
"rights" are the ONLY "means" in this case, i.e. equate rights and moral?
If so, i don't understand that either.
I am led to believe that you regard "Laissez-Faire Capitalism" as the only
"moral code that fits man's nature". What is that based on? Some definition
of man's nature? In that case, how do you know that is the right one?
Come to think of it, you haven't even presented the complete list of rights
that you refer to. You have just picked out some examples. Maybe now is the
right time to list them all, along with your special interpretation of them,
so we can see the whole picture.
> ... I don't go by feelings, I judge in accordance
> with reality, and I expect everybody to do the same. Is that religion?
The reality is a good base to stand on! If that is what you base your
other statements on, please let it show! Show how they follow from
observations of the reality, that I can relate to. If you think you
are already doing that, your perception of the reality must be on a
way higher abstraction level than mine. Please reach down to my level
and teach me.
If there really is nothing more to explain, I think "religion" actually
would be the correct label for what you're advocating. (B.T.W, isn't all
politics similar to religion?)
1 > Property rights are a consequence of the right to life.
2 > No other rights are possible without property rights: e.g.
3 > freedom of speech applies on your property, or on somebody else's,
> but only with that person's *voluntary* consent.
What is the reason for 1? (If 2 and 3 are the reasons, explain them, and
explain how they connect to "right of life".)
What is the reason for 2? (I can't see how 3 can be an example of 2. To me
it just demonstrates that "property rights" have priority over "freedom of
speech", i.e. an example of "property rights" RESTRICTING another right.)
I think 1 and 2 is what cause most of us the greatest trouble of all your
statements.
3 maybe I can accept, but not as a fact, just as a "sensible (possibly
desireble) rule".
>: [describes the production of drugs in South America, and how it
>: could freely be sold in the USA and Europe.]
> Correct. Under Laissez-Faire Capitalism, such an activity would
> not be illegal. It is certainly immoral, but not illegal.
That might be another reason a lot of people have a problem with
Laissez-Faire Capitalism. The consequences are too frightening...
But of course, you have already stated that you don't care about what
such loosers think. But then, why would they, or anyone, care what you
think, especially about the desireabilty of Laissezz-Faire Capitalism?
<21...@erix.ericsson.se>:
> Lars-Henrik Eriksson writes:
>: In contrast to you, I am aware of, and I do not try to hide, that my
>: opinions are just that - opinions based on my observation of
>: contemporary society and of history - not laws of nature.
> An opinion has no value. A judgment has, because of the power of
> man's faculty of reason. Use it, and drop your unsubstantiated opinions.
This was a very strange answer. I think Lars-Henrik agrees on what you write
here, which really strikes back at yourself. He simply means that most of your
statements are opinions, not what you call "judgment". Thus, the meaning of
your answer is just to confirm that your articles have no value...
<21...@erix.ericsson.se>:
> Most of the messages of this past week were merely concrete-bound
> rationalisations of anti-capitalist slogans.
Not hardly surprising, considering that all your statements sound utterly
concrete-bound...
> "The right to life is not about action, it is about existance."
> Nope. Life is not static. It is a matter of process, more precisely of
> self-generated and self-sustaining actions.
Why is your interpretation the right one, and Richard Caley's the wrong one?
I would expect it to be quite easy to come up with some reason to that one,
but you didn't.
> Further, he asserts that "there is always interference". That is
> definitely not a necessity. The fact that there is interference
> everywhere you're looking, does not imply that a different kind
> of economy is not possible: the metaphysical is given, but *not* the man-made.
Then the big question is, how would your free market work out in reality?
'Cause it's in reality that we have to live. Beautiful theories don't
by me food to keep me alive. Theories of such complex things as markets,
people's behavior and life frequently don't work out as expected. All
factors are not known. It's natural to be sceptical of a theory has no
positive evidence to support it. And the potential possibilities for some
people to abuse this theory, if realized, are frightening to a lot of people.
Can you guarantee that it would not transform itself into something horrible?
Are some negative examples of communism and nazism all you have in favour
of it?
I would say that the most reliable way of evaluating the merits of
Laissez-Faire Capitalism would be to move a bunch of people to a new
planet, at test it. Wouldn't you agree, aside from that it can't be
done presently? Judging from your articles, you already KNOW that
Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the only legitimate way to build society.
If I have used any premises that you do not agree on, I will be glad to
change the level of the discussion and explain the reasons, and the reasons
for the reasons and so on, until either we know where the disagreement stems
from, or one of us begins to understand the other and we can return to a
previous level. That is how I think a discussion should be conducted.
--
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60 ! e-mail: s...@pkmab.se
Fax: +46 19-11 51 03 ! or ...!{uunet,mcvax}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!ske
Keith Dancey
> After this, I'll stick to short discussions of political principles.
Ha! You've never begun.
>Bruno Poterie writes:
>:
>: "Society _is_ the very existence of several individuals living
>: together, thus is equivalent to the sum of their inter-relations"
>
>Nope. It is a group of individuals, who might, or might not, engage
>in various kinds of relationships. In other words, first it is a
>group of individuals, then it is *additionally* their relationships.
Twerp. You cannot have interacting individuals without relationships.
Duncan C White
I would like to ask Magnus a few searching questions on aspects of his
moral philosophy as revealed in his recent postings:
(so I'll switch to "you" rather than "him")..
In Message <21...@erix.ericsson.se> Magnus Kempe writes:
>I don't recognize any such concept as "duty". I live for my
>own sake, and I expect every other man to live for his own
>sake, for the love of his own life.
A couple of introductory points to simplify the discussion:
I hope your philosophy does not accord you a priveleged position: specifically,
if you believe that a rule applies to you, you are also ready to accept that
it should apply to everyone else.
Part of the quote above, "and I expect every other man [to do the same]"
seems to imply that you are willing to do this.
Next, I hope you weren't deliberately being sexist, but I prefer the term
"human" to "man"..
Now, then, preliminaries aside: You appear to be saying that you believe
that all humans have rights, but do not have duties/responsibilities - to
other humans, or to anything else for that matter.
[By contrast, I see responsibilities as the other side of the coin labelled
"rights" - where there are rights, there are usually responsibilities as well]
Please explain, in your philosophy:
a). Why should a human respect another's rights? [Your basic concept]
I would argue that each human has a DUTY to respect the rights of all
other humans : but since you do not believe in duty (y.d.n.b.i.d) you
can't argue that consistently.
b). Why your parents paid (thru taxes or privately, it is not relevent)
for your education/healthcare? Why did they devote years of their
lives to bringing you up? Have you reimbursed them (plus interest of
course) for your upbringing?
I would argue that when two humans decide to have children, they take
onboard a set of responsibilities towards those children, but ydnbid.
If you ever have children (or do have them; I think you said you were
"not single"), will you accept any financial, legal or moral
responsibility for them?
And will you be happy to live in a society where, should you be unable
to pay for their education/healthcare/whatever, they will suffer?
In the same message, you also say:
>[Can] human beings who do not exist have rights?
>There is no justification for sacrificing the actual to the potential.
>Your statement is a negation of the essential characteristic of
>rights: a right is a freedom to some kind of *action*. Things
>that do not exist do not have rights. They cannot act.
You appear to be saying that future humans have no rights, and that we have no
responsibilities towards them. Well, yes and no:
I would agree with you that INDIVIDUAL future humans don't have rights - since
they don't exist yet. But, collectively, surely they have some rights?
One in particular, in fact: a right to a world which supports human life
(theirs).
[I would argue that this is the same as saying that we have a responsibility
to ensure that the world we leave for our descendants is capable of supporting
life... But guess what, ydnbid..]
Similarly, I think we have a responsibility to preserve as much as
possible of the variety of life that has evolved on this planet for future
generations. You presumably see no such responsibility:
I assume, then, that you couldn't care less if species of animals and
plants become extinct ?
Or if CFCs burn a hole in the ozone layer, causing skin cancer in people in
about 40 years time?
Or if the Amazonian rain forests are burned down, which may seriously affect
the stability of the world's ecosystem.
Or if we burn all the world's oil and natural gas reserves in the next 200
years?
Next, your attitude on money: I second the following question:
In article <9...@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> m...@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
asked:
>In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> Magnus Kempe writes:
>>Your example of land is a good example: the right to own a piece of
>>land is a consequence of an action, the work spent on that piece of
>>land. A farmer owns his piece of land for the reason that he works
>>on it, and no one else.
>
>Not at all true. There are plenty of examples of people who have owned
>land, left it unused for years, and sold it at vast profit. In London
>there are still sites which were bombed in the war and have been empty
>ever since - they are now worth many times what they were worth in the
>war.
....
>Much of land value is determined not by what is done to the land itself but
>by the actions of the community. The classic example is public investment
>in new roads or railways which make an area much more accessible than it
>was previously and thus much more desirable for living or business. The
>landowner makes a profit without having contributed to the investment which
>caused his land value to rise.
You have not responded to this: both examples break your "money comes
from hard work" argument, which you even applied to earning interest.
By leaving it idle, you are not lending it to a bank to make use of,
which was your excuse for getting interest.
Then, in article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> you write:
[about The guy who is knocked over w/o insurance in a "Magnus utopia"]
>
>l...@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) writes:
>: You have already ruled out that society should pay for him, so charity
>: remains. What if people aren't feeling very charitable that day or if
>: charity is not in fashion, or if there are simply too many people
>: without insurance?
>
>Tough luck.
>
>: I hope you'll agree with me that this situation is unacceptable.
>
>No.
Just to get this absolutely clear, Magnus: you are advocating that such
a person, having failed to provide insurance for himself, and not having
sufficient money to pay for surgery, should be left to die?
(Ignoring charity; since you don't believe a human has duties to others, you
clearly wouldn't donate your money to them, so why should anyone else).
As others have commented, at about this point I begin to grind to a halt,
wondering how to argue against a person who clearly shares no common ground
with about 99.9% of humanity who must surely find this deeply repugnant.
Later in that same message, you replied to Lars-Henrik Eriksson saying:
>: ... Nothing you are, or do,
>: is independent of society. Society has formed what you are and
>: influences what you do. Our different opinions of economy aside,
>: denying THIS would be downright silly! If you are so convinced that
>: you can exist without society, try moving to a deserted island and see
>: how long you last!
>
>Surely longer than in Red China, Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia.
>If there were only these three countries to choose from, I'd
>certainly move to a deserte island. Would I evaporate into
>nothingness, because I moved out of society?
a). To establish how wonderful a "Magnus utopia" would be, you compare it
against 3 of the most repressive societies ever?
How representative; since you have spent so much of your time slagging
off Sweden, why didn't you compare a "Magnus utopia" against Sweden at
present? Did you think that wouldn't be sufficiently terrifying?
This is a ludicrous use of scare tactics instead of reasoned argument.
b). The probability is that you would die the first time you caught some
tropical disease which you have no inbuilt resistance to (eg. malaria)
if you moved to a desert island, cutting yourself off entirely from
society (especially healthcare). Don't let me dissuade you from going,
though :-)
I look forward to your response:
Duncan
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
Hmmm... I'm not sure what to make of someone whose signature is a quote
said by THEMSELF complimenting their own premises... I can only assume you
couldn't find anyone else who shared your belief in their goodness?
PS: I seriously wonder if this is all a joke, and it will turn out that you
have been playing "devil's advocate" all along...
[ Reply to: d...@doc.ic.ac.uk or ...!ukc!icdoc!dcw ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan White, | "In the case of Mr. Lawson, I can't say
Dept. Of Computing, | his years as Chancellor have given him
Imperial College, | an understanding of the economy, but he can
London SW7 | probably find his way around the building"
England. | Ian Aitken, Question Time
Magnus Kempe
arguments, skip it.
Kristoffer Eriksson writes:
: [...] You have to explain more.
: I'll list a few of your statements (although out of context), that I don't
: understand or where I don't see any reasons stated at all.
:
: > [society] is a group of individuals, who might, or might not, engage
: > in various kinds of relationships. In other words, first it is a
: > group of individuals, then it is *additionally* their relationships.
:
: You don't say why. Is it a fact given by "nature" that this is the meaning of
: the word "society"? Or is there a reason why your definition is the correct
: one? [suggests gaps in semantics]
Well, if you disagree with my definition, you'll have to explain what
is wrong in mine. I consider the essential characteristics of society
to be: i) a group of individuals, and, additionally, ii) their
relationships. But these relationships are implicit in the fact
that the group of individuals is made of individuals who deal with
each other. In other words, the relationships between individuals
are consequences of the presence of these individuals, not the other
way around. That is why the individual has to be considered before
you go on to consider society.
: >... rights are the means
: > to subordinate society to a moral code, the moral code that fits man's
: > nature.
:
: This doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me, if the first "the" is changed
: to an "a", but I still do not see any hint of a reason. Would you say that
: "rights" are the ONLY "means" in this case, i.e. equate rights and moral?
: If so, i don't understand that either.
What it means is that the (moral) concept of man's rights allows men
to extend morality to their relationships, to extend morality to the
interactions in the group. The obvious goal is to prevent any individual
to claim that the group is more important than the individuals, that he
is the voice of the group, and to proceed to any action he wishes, under
the cover that the group, and the voice of the group, is not subject
to morality.
: Come to think of it, you haven't even presented the complete list of rights
: that you refer to. You have just picked out some examples. Maybe now is the
: right time to list them all, along with your special interpretation of them,
: so we can see the whole picture.
No. I don't intend to teach everything. I only have time to give
some of the basic principles, such as the right to life, which leads
to the concept of property rights. If you want to know more, you'll
have to think about it by yourself (I can give you references, in
order to point at some guidelines, but still, you would have to
understand it by yourself.)
: > ... I don't go by feelings, I judge in accordance
: > with reality, and I expect everybody to do the same. Is that religion?
:
: The reality is a good base to stand on! If that is what you base your
: other statements on, please let it show! Show how they follow from
: observations of the reality, that I can relate to. If you think you
: are already doing that, your perception of the reality must be on a
: way higher abstraction level than mine. Please reach down to my level
: and teach me.
As I said above, I don't have the time to explain everything, but if
you are interested in learning more, *by yourself*, I can give you
some pointers (this offer is valid for anyone who cares to reach his
own conclusions, with his own mind -- my e-mail address is at the
end of the message.)
: 1 > Property rights are a consequence of the right to life.
: 2 > No other rights are possible without property rights: e.g.
: 3 > freedom of speech applies on your property, or on somebody else's,
: > but only with that person's *voluntary* consent.
:
: What is the reason for 1? (If 2 and 3 are the reasons, explain them, and
: explain how they connect to "right of life".)
The right to life means that man has the right to act according to
his reason, and that he has the right to decide of the goal for
his own actions. Property rights are intended to protect material
as well as intellectual products of man's efforts.
: What is the reason for 2? (I can't see how 3 can be an example of 2. To me
: it just demonstrates that "property rights" have priority over "freedom of
: speech", i.e. an example of "property rights" RESTRICTING another right.)
You almost got it. Freedom of speech is not possible if you don't have
property rights. You will easily see that all rights depend on the
existence of property rights, which depends on the right to life.
Note that it is not a restriction of right, but a consequence of
property rights.
: [...] another reason a lot of people have a problem with
: Laissez-Faire Capitalism. The consequences are too frightening...
:
: But of course, you have already stated that you don't care about what
: such loosers think. But then, why would they, or anyone, care what you
: think, especially about the desireabilty of Laissezz-Faire Capitalism?
If someone wants to take drugs, am I to forbid him, or to let him
be fully responsible for his actions? If someone eats potatoes, am
I to tell him he is right or wrong? If someone reads Kant, am I
to take his book away? If a group of people *voluntarily*
join in an association of "welfare insurance", am I to prevent them, or
not? Are they to coerce me into joining their association? The same
principle is at work in all four examples: each man is responsible
for his own actions, by virtue of his possessing the faculty of reason.
That is what Laissez-Faire Capitalism is based on: man's nature,
which entails that man is responsible for his own actions.
: > An opinion has no value. A judgment has, because of the power of
: > man's faculty of reason. Use it, and drop your unsubstantiated opinions.
:
: This was a very strange answer. I think Lars-Henrik agrees on what you write
: here, which really strikes back at yourself. He simply means that most of your
: statements are opinions, not what you call "judgment". Thus, the meaning of
: your answer is just to confirm that your articles have no value...
Nope. A judgment is substantiated -- i.e. it is objective. An opinion is
just that: an opinion -- i.e. it is no claimed to be objective.
: > "The right to life is not about action, it is about existance."
: > Nope. Life is not static. It is a matter of process, more precisely of
: > self-generated and self-sustaining actions.
:
: Why is your interpretation the right one, and Richard Caley's the wrong one?
My definition is in terms of essentials. Not his. That is the difference.
: Then the big question is, how would your free market work out in reality?
Laissez-Faire Capitalism is not essentially about a free-market. It is
about individual rights. The free-market is a consequence of the respect
for individual rights.
: I would say that the most reliable way of evaluating the merits of
: Laissez-Faire Capitalism would be to move a bunch of people to a new
: planet, at test it.
Compare West-Berlin to East-Berlin (I know, I know, that is only
semi-capitalism, but that should be sufficiently convincing..)
Another thing you ought to look at, is: what gave rise to the
Renaissance, to the industrial revolution? you will have to dig
quite a lot, because history books are surprisingly silent about
this, but the facts are there, however. It was the re-discovery
of Aristotle and of the power of man's reason that paved the
way (first hint.)
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar
to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Irek Defee
|>In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
|>>This is my last long message.
|>
|>Good
No. At least we found some real opponent here, and former discussions
about cabbages&something are gone. So Magnus, please return back to
looong messages at least until you send them for free which I admit is
against your principles :-).
|>
|>> After this, I'll stick to short discussions of political principles.
|>
|>Ha! You've never begun.
C'mon people, don't be too stick to your principles. Full speed
ahead, and fire your principal strategic political warfare :-).
Get the net wires red.. oh sorry, make them really hot :-).
>Twerp. You cannot have interacting individuals without relationships.
Bumps. You can. I mean eunet.politics - pure interaction without
relationships. You don't even now really if you deal with
real volitional consciousness or beta-testing of a VI-th generation
AI expert system. Some opinions are so rule-based... :-).
Irek Defee
de...@tut.fi
Henrik Holmstr|m
>... rights are the means
> to subordinate society to a moral code, the moral code that fits man's
> nature.
I finally got it!!!
Theory: Magnus is a modern version of "Eliza" from some AI lab at Ericsson.
Proof: In the words of "Eliza" (free interpretation): "You should prove
you are right, and you can't do that!"
Sorry, couldn't resist. Oh, add a smiley (if you wish).
BTW, I tried to count articles disagreeing with M.K but I lost count.
However, I managed to find all those supporting him. Here is the
complete list (in alphabetic order):
Oh, sorry again. I shouldn't waste net space with this article.
---
Henrik Holmstr|m
Richard Tobin
>his reason
Why is that? Is "life" being used in some special technical sense in
this context?
-- Richard
--
Richard Tobin, JANET: R.T...@uk.ac.ed
AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.a...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
Magnus Kempe
: [I wrote]
: >As I said above, I don't have the time to explain everything, but if
: >you are interested in learning more, *by yourself*, I can give you
: >some pointers (this offer is valid for anyone who cares to reach his
: >own conclusions, with his own mind -- my e-mail address is at the
: >end of the message.)
:
No. Obviously, some :-) people in this newsgroup do not want to
know anything about rational authors and objectivists references,
so I'll let those who are interested send me mail. I'll reply to
all requests, with a list of books. As I have suggested to various
people to check their history books, I'll include some references
to historians too [i.e. there are *also* non-objectivists in this
list, in case you wondered...]
You might note that there is/will be a discussion of the philosophy
of Objectivism on sci.philosophy.tech during the next days/weeks.
Those of you who don't want to invest money in books, or who are
afraid to give "support" to some unknown "cause", will be happy to
read the relevant messages in that newsgroup.
Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se