Relationship between crime and ethics

[useless]

Does anyone else find it disturbing that the right to not starve to death is somehow superceded by the right to get compensation back, even when the reasoning behind such theft is the lack of money in the first place?

Hey Dommy money isn't the be all and end all; these are people we're talking about, people who may very well die due to a lack of food, and although they should be "happy" that you've deigned it "ethical" to steal food, it's still incredibly disturbing to see you more concerned about the owner of said food getting money back, rather than say doing anything to combat hunger (Oh wait, that might require government intervention and such, which you're against, oh well.)

 

[Flying Pig]

I should point out that not all anarchists, libertarians and the like are against the hungry being fed for free in times of crisis, they just believe that it's better for a private agency like a charity to do it based on voluntary donations, rather than the state doing it - the logic is that there's not very much stopping a state which can take your property against your will for a good reason doing the same for a bad reason later on.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I should point out that not all anarchists, libertarians and the like are against the hungry being fed for free in times of crisis, they just believe that it's better for a private agency like a charity to do it based on voluntary donations, rather than the state doing it - the logic is that there's not very much stopping a state which can take your property against your will for a good reason doing the same for a bad reason later on.

I don't think there are ANY libertarians who have any problem with the hungry being fed for free, what we have a problem with is the FORCIBLE transfer of property.

 

[useless]

I tend to believe that the FORCIBLE transfer of property is a lesser "evil" in comparison to people starving and possibly dying.

I'd hope others do as well.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I tend to believe that the FORCIBLE transfer of property is a lesser "evil" in comparison to people starving and possibly dying.

I'd hope others do as well.

The logical conclusion is a near 100% tax rate on everyone in the west to feed starving children in Africa... Would you go for that?

I am willing to allow that the kind of social democratic redistributionism that many of you guys advocate would work in the short run, but in the long run, it would seriously reduce production and would make everyone poorer. Capitalism may make the rich richer than everyone else, but it makes virtually everyone, and society as a whole, richer.

I do believe that there are nonviolent ways to make sure that everyone gets fed, but I suppose you wouldn't have a whole lot of interest in that...

Oh, and a wrong thing done for a right reason is still wrong. Utilitarianism is such a fluffy crap morality that justifies doing virtually anything that seems like it would be a good idea no matter who you are screwing over in the process. It reduces people to numbers.

 

[Borachio]

The logical conclusion is a near 100% tax rate on everyone in the west to feed starving children in Africa... Would you go for that?

I am willing to allow that the kind of social democratic redistributionism that many of you guys advocate would work in the short run, but in the long run, it would seriously reduce production and would make everyone poorer. Capitalism may make the rich richer than everyone else, but it makes virtually everyone, and society as a whole, richer.

I do believe that there are nonviolent ways to make sure that everyone gets fed, but I suppose you wouldn't have a whole lot of interest in that...

Oh, and a wrong thing done for a right reason is still wrong. Utilitarianism is such a fluffy crap morality that justifies doing virtually anything that seems like it would be a good idea no matter who you are screwing over in the process. It reduces people to numbers.

Good grief! I am amazed. Truly I am. I know you're ignoring me GW, but are you quite well? I'm honestly a bit worried.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Good grief! I am amazed. Truly I am. I know you're ignoring me GW, but are you quite well? I'm honestly a bit worried.

I'm somewhat ill at the moment, and being surrounded by people with the flu (I've probably got it too, but not too hard since I've been in school all week) but I don't think that's why I'm making the comments I'm making

 

[useless]

Capitalism may make the rich richer than everyone else, but it makes virtually everyone, and society as a whole, richer.

[Citation Needed]

Which is why there isn't so many poor people struggling to live off those "socialist", gubbermint programmes, right?

Oh.

Also, I would love to know when you started to consider people as being people, compared to say numbers, is this a recent development? Does this apply to women? To foreign people? To Black people? To homosexuals? To transgendered people?

 

[GhostWriter16]

[Citation Needed]

Which is why there isn't so many poor people struggling to live off those "socialist", gubbermint programmes, right?

I choose my words carefully, and I did not use the word "Socialist". I used the word "Social demoratic." Which is a much broader term. "Social capitalist" may have been more strictly what I was going for, but you still would have read "Socialist" so what did it matter

To answer your question, corporate welfare is part of the problem (Which makes it harder to compete) and paying farmers not to plant is part of the problem (Which raises prices.) I suspect subsidies are also counterproductive and make things worse, but I won't make this intuitive claim before researching it.

However, that won't entirely alleviate the problem. That would require people to stop being conditioned to statism and realize that they, not the state, are responsible for helping the poor. If and when people make this realization, everyone will have food.

Do I think this will happen, even in a Libertarian society? No, probably not. I don't believe in utopianism. I don't believe a libertarian society will happen anyway, far too many people conditioned to the state solving all their problems, and far too much authoritarian sadists in the government that will not ever let us be free, even if most of us wanted to be. Even if it did, I don't think utopianism will follow. But to claim that only the state can stop starvation is absurd.

Also, I would love to know when you started to consider people as being people, compared to say numbers, is this a recent development?

Fairly recent, like when I quit being a conservative and started supporting liberty.

Does this apply to women?

Yes. And their children as well (Seriously, everyone knows you were making a pointless connection to abortion here, why not just ask me whether or not it applies to fetuses? Makes the point far quicker and is far less annoying.)

To foreign people?

Yes, which is why, unlike you, I am opposed to bombing and killing them. You, on the other hand, have favored the bombing and killing of foreigners (Libya, Syria, Rwanda). To you, imperialism is only wrong if the guy doing it has an "R" next to his name. If its a "D", or anyone not from the United States, its humanitarianism. At least I'm consistent in my views.




EDIT: As for "Reasons for starvation" the minimum wage should also be listed. People who are only worth less than the minimum wage to a company won't get hired, or the costs will be passed to customers, creating inflation. Either way, more people dying is the result.

 

[useless]

Yes, which is why, unlike you, I am opposed to bombing and killing them. You, on the other hand, have favored the bombing and killing of foreigners (Libya, Syria, Rwanda). To you, imperialism is only wrong if the guy doing it has an "R" next to his name. If its a "D", or anyone not from the United States, its humanitarianism. At least I'm consistent in my views.

Do you actually understand or even know what happened in Rwanda? How many died, from lack of intervention?

Come back to me when you do, and we'll see who is more of a "humanitarian"; me, someone who would have intervened and potentially saved 500,000–1,000,000 lives, or you, who would have stood back like Clinton did and allowed the genocide to continue, because anything more is clearly "imperalism".

You might be "consistent" in your views, but when they're terrible it's not really a positive thing to claim.

Oh and on a side note: There were (and are in the case of Syria) elements who wanted western intervention, especially in Libya, where there concerns that mass-killings by Pro-gadaffi forces might occur if just left to the rebels.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Do you actually understand or even know what happened in Rwanda? How many died, from lack of intervention?

Come back to me when you do, and we'll see who is more of a "humanitarian"; me, someone who would have intervened and potentially saved 500,000–1,000,000 lives, or you, who would have stood back like Clinton did and allowed the genocide to continue, because anything more is clearly "imperalism".

You might be "consistent" in your views, but when they're terrible it's not really a positive thing to claim.

Interventionism would have just led to more people dying, more of a deficit problem in America, more people believing that the United States are the rightful, glorious police of the world (tm) and the more nations around the world would have hated us, which would increase the likelihood of even more things like 9/11, leading for even more of our freedoms being curtailed, and leading to even more Bush/Obama like leaders pushing through more and more tyrannical legislation that they get away with because the public is frozen in fear.

War is the Health of the State. As such, the state should NEVER EVER get involved in it when they don't have to.

There was a time when chickenhawks were despised with the kind of loathing hatred they deserved. There was a time when "Standing by and doing nothing while other countries killed each other" was considered good statesmanship.

We've lost it.

As for Clinton, I'm not a massive fan, but the more I learn about him, the more I like him. Clinton did the right thing here as well.

 

[useless]

Clinton did the right thing here as well.

And this is where I end my participation in this thread.

You are beyond the pale, Clinton has said in statements about Rwanda that he regrets his lack of action, which allowed the genocide to continue and here you are heaping praise upon him for his folly.

A goddamn genocide was allowed to occur and you praise that fact.

 

[lovett]

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned this entire line of reasoning is just justifying a system of institutional theft.

I don't think you understand me. I know what you think Ghostwriter. I am asking you to justify this position. Re-asserting it, as you have so far done three times in this thread, is not the same as justification.

Let me be explicit. I am asking you to justify the proposition:

"...the reality is if people can tell you what you can and can't do with your property, you don't really own it at all".

You have so far singularly failed to do so.

So, I guess this is a:

"No, I won't justify the premise on which my entire position depends. Don't be silly, I just want to espouse my opinions, I don't want to have to substantiate them!"

 

[GhostWriter16]

And this is where I end my participation in this thread.

You are beyond the pale, Clinton has said in statements about Rwanda that he regrets his lack of action, which allowed the genocide to continue and here you are heaping praise upon him for his folly.

A goddamn genocide was allowed to occur and you praise that fact.

And Clinton is wrong. It seems he drank the same Kool-Aid as everyone else...

Bush certainly didn't "Stand by and do nothing" when people were being killed in Iraq, and look what happened because of him.

Feel free to leave the thread if you don't actually want to argue against my positions rather than using emotional rhetoric.

So, I guess this is a:

"No, I won't justify the premise on which my entire position depends. Don't be silly, I just want to espouse my opinions, I don't want to have to substantiate them!"

Property rights aren't arbitrary, they are based on creation. Regarding land, they are based on being the first person to use said land to create (ie, homesteading.) The first person to mix his labor with the land gives it value, and therefore becomes its owner. Obviously, anything created on said land is also owned by the creator. Its also fairly obvious (At least in cases where something can be physically transferred, there are reasonable arguments as to why you can't sell yoursel) that if you own something, you can trade it to someone else in exchange for a voluntarily agreed upon price.

Once we establish this point, proving that it not ethical to take someone's property should not require much effort. The command "Do not steal" is naturally engrained in the human mind. Its inherent in your conscience.

What state-based taxation does is it decides that I am not actually the owner of everything I produce, but merely a fraction of it. While this is sometimes inevitable, such as in order to protect property in the first place, to use it as a wealth transfer is theft. The only difference between an individual doing it and the government doing it is that government doing it institutionalizes the practice. An individual steals, he is punished for it. A government steals, and they get away with it.

I also find your restriction to "Ones polity" to be awfully convenient, in order to defend a western lifestyle while justifying punishment of the "Rich" minority. If your position were truly consistent, I think you would apply it to the west across the board and forcefully redistribute large amounts of wealth from everyone for the benefit of the third world. Yet you don't seem to advocate this. Why not?

 

[lovett]

I explicitly ask you to justify your claim:

"...the reality is if people can tell you what you can and can't do with your property, you don't really own it at all".​

You respond by telling me about the homesteading theory of property rights, saying that this theory obviously proves property rights are fundamental, claiming theft is (always) wrong and calling taxation theft. These are all pretty silly claims, but that's by-the-by. The important point is that they do nothing to substantiate the claim I have asked you to defend. All these things could be true, but that doesn't mean any limitation of property rights is a destruction of property rights.

Take, for instance, one (possible) aspect of property rights; income rights. This is the right not only to determine how it is that one's property is used, but gain income from the use of that property. We restrict this right quite regularly. Restrictions on profiteering is a restriction on income rights. Price controls are restrictions on income rights. So on and so forth. But these limitations, as far as I can tell, don't mean one 'doesn't really [have the limited right] at all'. Petrol stations in 1974 still owned their petrol, despite the price controls. You need to give some reason -any reason- why it is you think that any limitation on property rights is the same as their total abrogation.

You need to do this because it is on what your entire position depends. You think that, because any limitation of property rights is equivalent to their complete abrogate and we ought not completely abrogate property rights, we ought not limit property rights at all. We ought not have any restrictions on how people can use their property. But, obviously, if your first premise is wrong -any limitation of property rights is equivalent to their complete abrogation- your position collapses. We can limit property rights without completely abrogating them and so we are permitted to limit property rights. You have still fialed to substantiate your premise.

 

[GhostWriter16]

My point is that rights aren't really RIGHTS if they aren't absolute, they are made into privledges granted and taken away by the state.

Think about what the word "Right" means.

I'm not a big fan of price-controls and what have you either. They distort the market and ensure shortages.

 

[Souron]

I don't think there are ANY libertarians who have any problem with the hungry being fed for free, what we have a problem with is the FORCIBLE transfer of property.

By that logic it should still be right and proper to have progressive programs like unemployment insurance, progressive taxes, and government run soup kitchens, and citizens have a moral imperative to pay taxes for such things. But putting people in jail for tax evasion would be improper.

I don't want anyone to go in jail for tax evasion either, but it's the only practical penalty.

 

[Souron]

The logical conclusion is a near 100% tax rate on everyone in the west to feed starving children in Africa... Would you go for that?

Sounds like a bad idea in that extreme, but raising taxes to fight world hunger seems like it should be within the authority of the state.

Property rights aren't arbitrary, they are based on creation. Regarding land, they are based on being the first person to use said land to create (ie, homesteading.) The first person to mix his labor with the land gives it value, and therefore becomes its owner. Obviously, anything created on said land is also owned by the creator. Its also fairly obvious (At least in cases where something can be physically transferred, there are reasonable arguments as to why you can't sell yoursel) that if you own something, you can trade it to someone else in exchange for a voluntarily agreed upon price.

I agree with this with the following caveat.

This is a weaker justification for property rights than actual stuff you make. So your right to land is a weaker claim. This means that there can be more reasonable for the state to take land away or regulate how you use it. Even though you make something from the land, by using the land you're denying a natural resource to other people.

Once we establish this point, proving that it not ethical to take someone's property should not require much effort. The command "Do not steal" is naturally engrained in the human mind. Its inherent in your conscience.

What state-based taxation does is it decides that I am not actually the owner of everything I produce, but merely a fraction of it. While this is sometimes inevitable, such as in order to protect property in the first place, to use it as a wealth transfer is theft. The only difference between an individual doing it and the government doing it is that government doing it institutionalizes the practice. An individual steals, he is punished for it. A government steals, and they get away with it.

The government is exercising the state's moral imperative to provide for the common welfare. Such a mechanism is just and necessary. And unlike Robin Hood, the government is authorized by the people to perform that function.

 

[Truronian]

The logical conclusion is a near 100% tax rate on everyone in the west to feed starving children in Africa... Would you go for that?

'Near 100%' would be counterproductive, but I certainly think raising taxes to fund increased foreign aid is a good and moral idea.

 

[lovett]

My point is that rights aren't really RIGHTS if they aren't absolute, they are made into privledges granted and taken away by the state.

Think about what the word "Right" means.

Again, I know that you think this.

But capitalising the word 'rights' and telling me to think about its meaning doesn't do anything substantive to support what you think. You are, again, just re-iterating your position. You are not justifying it.

I have given examples of where one type of right -property rights- can be limited without destroying such rights. This is, roughly, because property rights are a collection of a number of different rights. This is prima facie evidence that you are wrong. I have shown that, if you are wrong, that has serious implications for your broader stance.

You can't refute this merely by re-iterating the premise I am asking you to justify, and have given evidence against.