Reply to: Just beat Jury Service!! Yayyy!!!

[BrilloPad]

Guys guys, is this the thread where we all pretend to be super grown up, intelligent and deep philosophical thinkers?

Try tpd.

This is general. You are talking bollux, you racist odious chunt. Now f**k off and die. (*)

* = for those not used to general this is being nice.

[Dactylion]

Guys guys, is this the thread where we all pretend to be super grown up, intelligent and deep philosophical thinkers?

... or just one where a couple of winkers talk b0llocks?

[original PM]

Guys guys, is this the thread where we all pretend to be super grown up, intelligent and deep philosophical thinkers?

whaddyoumean

that describes every thread in general

surely?

[SpontaneousOrder]

But in your world, slavery can exist, can it not?

No, I don't think so. As i mentioned before it's somewhat paradoxical.

Here, Murray Rothbard outlines why using much the same line of reasoning I did in the earlier post (where I contrasted 'ownership' of a man with ownership of an animal):

But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable, i.e., they cannot in fact be alienated, even voluntarily. Specifically, a person cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own will and person, and he is, if you wish, “stuck” with that inherent and inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person are inalienable, then so also are his rights to control that person and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration of Independence that man’s natural rights are inalienable; that is, they cannot be surrendered, even if the person wishes to do so.

Or, as Williamson Evers points out, the philosophical defenses of human rights

are founded upon the natural fact that each human is the proprietor of his own will. To take rights like those of property and contractual freedom that are based on a foundation of the absolute self-ownership of the will and then to use those derived rights to destroy their own foundation is philosophically invalid.2

Hence, the unenforceability, in libertarian theory, of voluntary slave contracts. Suppose that Smith makes the following agreement with the Jones Corporation: Smith, for the rest of his life, will obey all orders, under whatever conditions, that the Jones Corporation wishes to lay down. Now, in libertarian theory there is nothing to prevent Smith from making this agreement, and from serving the Jones Corporation and from obeying the latter’s orders indefinitely. The problem comes when, at some later date, Smith changes his mind and decides to leave. Shall he be held to his former voluntary promise? Our contention—and one that is fortunately upheld under present law—is that Smith’s promise was not a valid (i.e., not an enforceable) contract. There is no transfer of title in Smith’s agreement, because Smith’s control over his own body and will are inalienable. Since that control cannot be alienated, the agreement was not a valid contract, and therefore should not be enforceable. Smith’s agreement was a mere promise, which it might be held he is morally obligated to keep, but which should not be legally obligatory.

[mudskipper]

Guys guys, is this the thread where we all pretend to be super grown up, intelligent and deep philosophical thinkers?

They're having a mass debate.

[vwdan]

Guys guys, is this the thread where we all pretend to be super grown up, intelligent and deep philosophical thinkers?

[d000hg]

In my world you can't, because slavery is such an odious condition that I believe that the state should intervene in all cases to liberate slaves.

You lefties and your nanny state

[speling bee]

Your argument is kindof self-detonating. If he's sold himself into slavery then he must have owned himself first. Otherwise he'd just be taken.

I am deliberately just taking one bit of this at a time.

Assuming your model world in which you own yourself, presumably you can sell yourself into perpetual slavery.

In my world you can't, because slavery is such an odious condition that I believe that the state should intervene in all cases to liberate slaves.

But in your world, slavery can exist, can it not?

[SpontaneousOrder]

So you are wrong about the rich man. Ownership of sufficient capital means labour is unnecessary. It is that simple. You obfuscate by talking about his property being stolen, but my point (and yours) was about the necessity of labour (or lack of necessity).

No. You ignored the bit about money magically turning into food & materialising in his belly.

You are wrong about the slave. It may be that the slave has sold himself into slavery (or placed his ownership as a bond on a loan that he cannot repay)

Your argument is kindof self-detonating. If he's sold himself into slavery then he must have owned himself first. Otherwise he'd just be taken.

If you think people naturally own themselves, then this must be OK.

It sounds to me more like a contract whereby the would-be slave forfeits certain rights for a period of time (perhaps forever). But the slave would consciously have to choose to adhere to the agreement at all times; Unlike an unthinking animal driven by instinct alone, a man is capable of changing his mind regarding the agreement. If he was then in violation of his contractual obligations (lets suppose he escaped) then it would fall upon the judiciary to judge both sides of the case, where the escaped slave would have the opportunity to defend himself. That doesn't sound very much like property going missing, does it?

There really is no need to own yourself in order to own anything else (or you certainly have not demonstrated it).

It's self-evident. To suppose otherwise causes irreconcilable logical paradoxes.

You are wrong about land which does not have to be privately or collectively owned. It can simply be not owned. It is it's natural state before the advent of human society, and some human societies had no concept of it. Is the ocean bed collectively owned, privately owned or not owned?

So answer me the question about the cabbage patch then. We can suppose that the cabbage patch is on the bottom of the ocean if it helps.

It appears that you are in fact wrong about all of the things you supposed I was wrong about.

[speling bee]

So now we're talking about a man, rather than man qua man... fine - if we must. That rich man still has to labour to survive. His money won't magically turn into food and water, and that food & water won't magically appear in his belly. If you take the food he has heating in the oven before he gets a chance to consume it, then you would naturally expect him to be angry that you took his food. It's also worth noting that it would be impossible for him to be in his privileged position in the first place were it not for the fact that men must labour to create wealth in order to survive - otherwise his money wouldn't be worth much.



They do have property, if only themselves. The most fundamental property right - that of one's self ownership - is intrinsic in all men, and in this case the slave has had his property right's violated. It's no different than someone who's car has been stolen - the car is still their property - it's just now stolen property.
All men must own themselves, otherwise your hypothetical slave owner couldn't theoretically (but impossibly) own any slaves in the first place. You cannot own property if you don't first own yourself. If all men initially own themselves then they must always own themselves - whether someone has violated their right to self-determination or not.



That's another straw man. Privately owned, or collectively owned - it's still property.
But let me ask you this... Take your non-private land society, and a hypothetical cabbage patch on that land grown by Farmer A. Now lets suppose farmer B digs up all of the cabbages in that patch in order to plant flowers. Presumably in your example there would be no cause for argument?



Now you're just poisoning the well. I've never suggested such a thing (especially considering that collective ownership is still ownership), and whether it makes me happy or not has little to do with it; like I've already said - truth is not dependant on my personal tastes.



It's interesting that you choose a hypothetical situation where at best there might be a dispute, and use it as an argument against property rights; When it's your statist preferences for violence over reason that gives us the likes of 'eminent domain' where people really are forced (violently if necessary) off of land they supposedly own!

So you are wrong about the rich man. Ownership of sufficient capital means labour is unnecessary. It is that simple. You obfuscate by talking about his property being stolen, but my point (and yours) was about the necessity of labour (or lack of necessity).

You are wrong about the slave. It may be that the slave has sold himself into slavery (or placed his ownership as a bond on a loan that he cannot repay). If you think people naturally own themselves, then this must be OK. Common law system reject this and do not accept that people can or bodies or parts of bodies can be property. There really is no need to own yourself in order to own anything else (or you certainly have not demonstrated it).

You are wrong about land which does not have to be privately or collectively owned. It can simply be not owned. It is it's natural state before the advent of human society, and some human societies had no concept of it. Is the ocean bed collectively owned, privately owned or not owned?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Presumably she had been the victim of some sort of crime? Should I find your post disturbing?

That's what I thought! With any luck he'll get called up again to look at pictures of Rolf Harris on the job

[SpontaneousOrder]

But not all men need to labour in order to create value. Some men inherit capital and use the labour of others to survive.

So now we're talking about a man, rather than man qua man... fine - if we must. That rich man still has to labour to survive. His money won't magically turn into food and water, and that food & water won't magically appear in his belly. If you take the food he has heating in the oven before he gets a chance to consume it, then you would naturally expect him to be angry that you took his food. It's also worth noting that it would be impossible for him to be in his privileged position in the first place were it not for the fact that men must labour to create wealth in order to survive - otherwise his money wouldn't be worth much.

On the other hand, some men are enslaved and have no property, but they still exist, as odious as the state of slavery is.

They do have property, if only themselves. The most fundamental property right - that of one's self ownership - is intrinsic in all men, and in this case the slave has had his property right's violated. It's no different than someone who's car has been stolen - the car is still their property - it's just now stolen property.
All men must own themselves, otherwise your hypothetical slave owner couldn't theoretically (but impossibly) own any slaves in the first place. You cannot own property if you don't first own yourself. If all men initially own themselves then they must always own themselves - whether someone has violated their right to self-determination or not.

Some societies have happily existed without the concept of private ownership of land.

That's another straw man. Privately owned, or collectively owned - it's still property.
But let me ask you this... Take your non-private land society, and a hypothetical cabbage patch on that land grown by Farmer A. Now lets suppose farmer B digs up all of the cabbages in that patch in order to plant flowers. Presumably in your example there would be no cause for argument?

But you are happy to see that land expropriated by incomers and for that expropriation to create a property right that excludes members of those societies from using the land to support themselves

Now you're just poisoning the well. I've never suggested such a thing (especially considering that collective ownership is still ownership), and whether it makes me happy or not has little to do with it; like I've already said - truth is not dependant on my personal tastes.

and if they do attempt to do so, the new 'owner' may use violence against them because their property rights are violated.

It's interesting that you choose a hypothetical situation where at best there might be a dispute, and use it as an argument against property rights; When it's your statist preferences for violence over reason that gives us the likes of 'eminent domain' where people really are forced (violently if necessary) off of land they supposedly own!

[BrilloPad]

I did jury service many years ago and made a profit, got paid my salary plus claimed for it. Also got to see pictures of naked women as well on one of the cases, so a win win situation therefore stop looking on the negative side

Presumably she had been the victim of some sort of crime? Should I find your post disturbing?

[speling bee]

I suppose it depends. Humans qua man? certainly not. Humans being one step up from the missing link? It's arguable, although even a dog knows what is his food and what belongs to another - which territory is his pack's and which would be considered trespass.

A man must labour in order to create value in order to survive - if he didn't he would die and cease to be a man. In order to do so he must have some confidence that when he has finished labouring, the wealth he has created - the food he has harvested - will be available for him to make use of at some future time. For this reason the concept of property is instinctive. It is intrinsic to human nature, as much as some groups of people may try to obfuscate the concept.

But not all men need to labour in order to create value. Some men inherit capital and use the labour of others to survive.

On the other hand, some men are enslaved and have no property, but they still exist, as odious as the state of slavery is.

Some societies have happily existed without the concept of private ownership of land. But you are happy to see that land expropriated by incomers and for that expropriation to create a property right that excludes members of those societies from using the land to support themselves, and if they do attempt to do so, the new 'owner' may use violence against them because their property rights are violated.

[original PM]

I'm pretty sure you'd change your mind when there's not enough food to go around and someone comes to take what's in your pocket.



That sounds like the views of a particularly primitive human being to me. A modern & enlightened human being would understand that different people have different desires. And a modern & enlightened human being wouldn't be so self-absorbed & bigoted as to suppose that he has the right to force his own system of values upon other men who would prefer to mind their own business.

:sigh:

You views are this way because you have been brainwashed into thinking that goods and chattels have value - and the people who have brainwashed you are the people who profit from you buying the goods and chattels

I do understand by the way that the world works in this manner - in that it is built on capitalism and this in turn creates a desire by the citizens to increase their own personal wealth.

I live my life this way - of course I do who wants to go through bins to eat? however I also laugh at the ultimate futility of it all.