Are Restrictions Necessary?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

I'm still not seeing that you coming into my house, which is part of the state, and saying that you're taking over my house (and not the state) is the same thing as my state taking over your whole state.

What makes something "the state"? Property is property, whether it's owned by you, or communally, or by a bureaucratic system.

However, if Canada the nation were to be invaded, and I choose to simply stand by and surrender, and allow the invaders to take over, and take control, instead of fighting, I'm giving tacit approval to their power.

What if you're a pacifist? Or a paraplegic?

If I didn't approve I could/should fight until I get to a point where I've chosen to balance what cost is worth maintaining the status quo.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that morality is embedded in actuality.

Once again, we come back to your insistance that non-action is in no way an action, and that by selecting non-action out of all possible responses, you bear no responsibility for the consequences of that action, and thus can still claim to be the wronged victim when you didn't choose to act. Since we didn't resolve that particular debate, I somehow fail to see how we'll solve this one.

That's barely relevant. I'm beginning to think you incapable of the critical method. What about people who are incapable of acting? The most vulnerable, children, women, the disabled? You give no account for them. What's all this posing? You feel the part of a noble man of action no doubt. What do you fight for? Do you fight at all?

I think you're becoming incapable of debate, because you've learned the most effective way to protect your beliefs; to never bother formulating them in the first place. Right now, you're engaging in victim blaming, equivocation, and general unsubstantive blather. Socrates would be ashamed to see someone behaving as you are, especially given your claim to be a philosopher.

[devonin]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

What makes something "the state"? Property is property, whether it's owned by you, or communally, or by a bureaucratic system.

What makes something "the state" to me in this example is something that is not explicitly part of a larger system. The nation is the larger whole that my house and I are a part of. States exist independantly as states.

What if you're a pacifist? Or a paraplegic?

If you're a pacifist, you've basically stated "I will, in all cases, make the choice to submit instead of oppose, if the only manner of opposition left to me is violent." Ghandi however, would disagree that you can't oppose and still be a pacifist. As for paraplegics, well if the opposition you want to assume is the only available method requires physically whole people, I guess they pose a bit of a problem, however, just as people under the voting age have their rights subsumed by a legal guardian or caretaker, so too would the comatose etc. I'm not sure how a paraplegic is somehow not capable of making their feelings known however, as there's nothing saying a paraplegic is necessarily deficient in all possible ways to oppose such a change.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that morality is embedded in actuality.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here. You said this in response to my statement that if I disapprove of a change, I should oppose that change, until such time as I consider the costs of opposing the change to outweigh the benefits of having the change reversed...

The most vulnerable, children, women, the disabled? You give no account for them.

I'm sure there are many women who might take offense to you describing them as the most vulnerable. As for children and the disabled, they generally have caretakers and guardians whose purpose is to act on their behalf for their percieved best benefit. Such caretakers are already acting on their behalf, so how are they suddenly unable to continue to act on their behalf?

What's all this posing? You feel the part of a noble man of action no doubt. What do you fight for? Do you fight at all?

I'm not sure what you feel gives you the right to make such an absurd implication. You have no idea what I would or would not fight for. My values are quite important to me, and it is remarkably rude and presumptuous even for you, to try and imply that I'm a coward who would not or could not fight for what I believe in.

I think you're becoming incapable of debate, because you've learned the most effective way to protect your beliefs; to never bother formulating them in the first place.

I think you'll find in general that I've formulated my beliefs quite well, and am more than capable of explaining them, and debating them. You do, however, seem to be under the mistaken conclusion that the only things I ever post in these threads are precisely and completely my own views on everything.

I'd say a reasonably large percentage of my posts in this forum have been in apparant support of things I don't actually believe myself, or in apparant opposition to things I personally support. I do this because the debate is more important than some ill-concieved need of mine to "win" the debate.

Someone could post something I am in almost complete agreement with, and I would still point out any percived flaws in their reasoning, question how they came to those conclusions, and basically to all visible effects, show myself to be quite strongly against their position.

I do this both because as a philosopher, critical analysis is just as important to me to be for those I'm interacting with as for myself, and as a moderator, I owe it to this forum to try and keep debate flourishing and proceeding in a reasonable manner.

I don't give myself the luxery of only arguing the point I support. My purpose in this forum isn't for -me- to debate -my- beliefs with other users. My purpose in this forum is for -me- to encourage lively and active debate and discussion as much as possible between all users of the forum.

At any time, any user of this forum who is confused by my apparant support of a position is perfectly able to send me a private message and ask for a clarification of what my actual position is.

Even when I agree with you, Kilroy, I'll still get into these drawn out back and forths of trying to point out where I have issues with your conclusions and how you drew them, as well as trying to point out what some at least reasonably valid objections might be. Seeing how -you- handle objections to something I already agree with teaches me as much as waiting until we wholly disagree on something and then debating you directly on it does, and is a lot more instructive to other readers than "Yup, I agree" would be.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

What makes something "the state" to me in this example is something that is not explicitly part of a larger system. The nation is the larger whole that my house and I are a part of. States exist independantly as states.

I'm having trouble understanding the distinction you're trying to make. Spell it out for me.

If you're a pacifist, you've basically stated "I will, in all cases, make the choice to submit instead of oppose, if the only manner of opposition left to me is violent." Ghandi however, would disagree that you can't oppose and still be a pacifist.

I don't understand. You said that a person's choice of actions make them responsible for outcome. Surely pacifistic resistance is less effective than the violent sort? In this case it stands to reason that pacifists bring destruction upon themselves.

As for paraplegics, well if the opposition you want to assume is the only available method requires physically whole people, I guess they pose a bit of a problem, however, just as people under the voting age have their rights subsumed by a legal guardian or caretaker, so too would the comatose etc. I'm not sure how a paraplegic is somehow not capable of making their feelings known however, as there's nothing saying a paraplegic is necessarily deficient in all possible ways to oppose such a change.

They are deficient in all possible effective ways under most scenarios. Stop moving the goalposts.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here. You said this in response to my statement that if I disapprove of a change, I should oppose that change, until such time as I consider the costs of opposing the change to outweigh the benefits of having the change reversed...

The issue of what a person's beliefs obligate them to do is different from the issue of whether a government is legitimate. You're trying to argue that a government is legitimate to the extent people fail to act, effectively, on their beliefs in order to prevent it from assuming power.

Since the antecedent here is not just action, but effective action, the statement boils down to one that might makes right. The bit about belief is superfluous junk. It isn't relevant to the argument. It's also very poorly thought out.

I'm sure there are many women who might take offense to you describing them as the most vulnerable.

Right. And how many of them could beat me in a one on one unarmed fight?

As for children and the disabled, they generally have caretakers and guardians whose purpose is to act on their behalf for their percieved best benefit. Such caretakers are already acting on their behalf, so how are they suddenly unable to continue to act on their behalf?

What does this have to do with the actions of a group which claims legitimacy over a territory? Sure, caretakers will continue to act in the perceived best interest of such people. Due to the infinite possibility for change in social arrangements though, it is quite possible they will choose poorly. Your argument was that choice legitimizes government. Does this include indirect choice? That is all you are offering for these people, and to be honest it seems even more conceited and patronizing than your previous statements.

I'm not sure what you feel gives you the right to make such an absurd implication. You have no idea what I would or would not fight for. My values are quite important to me, and it is remarkably rude and presumptuous even for you, to try and imply that I'm a coward who would not or could not fight for what I believe in.

You believe that inaction is a form of action, which makes one the owner at least in part of what follows. From this alone, one or more of the following things must be true of you:

*You don't find anything in the world objectionable
*You don't have any problem with taking partial responsibility for the state of the world
*You are a hypocrite
*You are a coward
*You think your current actions are optimal

None of those reflect particularly well on you, except for the last one, which conveniently enough requires a rather severe amount of elaboration. So then, can you explain to me why you think moderating a forum on FFR is superior for the world to, say, signing up with the peace corp? Or the Canadian armed forces for that matter? Or even to just dedicating your time to a career with which to earn money to donate to needy children in third world countries?

I think you'll find in general that I've formulated my beliefs quite well, and am more than capable of explaining them, and debating them.

Sometimes that's true. Right now I don't think it is.

You do, however, seem to be under the mistaken conclusion that the only things I ever post in these threads are precisely and completely my own views on everything.

I'm not sure what difference it makes. I intend to treat your arguments with the same level of seriousness regardless of whether they are genuine or not.

I do this because the debate is more important than some ill-concieved need of mine to "win" the debate.

A debate shouldn't be important to you if it isn't substantive. Hopefully by the time you know a position well enough to argue with it, you can tell whether or not it is substantive.

Someone could post something I am in almost complete agreement with, and I would still point out any percived flaws in their reasoning, question how they came to those conclusions, and basically to all visible effects, show myself to be quite strongly against their position.

You should do that to the extent you have legitimate criticism to levy. There are contradictions between any number of positions, but if the position is defunct, there's no purpose to bring it into play. At least there's no purpose to bring irrelevent portions of it into play.

Seeing how -you- handle objections to something I already agree with teaches me as much as waiting until we wholly disagree on something and then debating you directly on it does, and is a lot more instructive to other readers than "Yup, I agree" would be.

Point taken. I will PM you in the future if something like this pops up again. I would appreciate it if you chose contradictory positions which were valid, however. Not to say all of the ones given weren't, but you would have to bite something resembling a howitzer shell in order to actually hold them.

[devonin]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

I'm having trouble understanding the distinction you're trying to make. Spell it out for me.

The basic intention of the distinction was in response to your specific example of canadians taking land from native north americans. My point was that unless you are willing to grant that a nation directly displacing another nation and setting up on their land as a seperate and distinct state can have legitimacy if they have the consent of the peoples living in that seperate and distinct state (Without also requiring the consent of the displaced people) then you are basically stating that -no- state can -every- be legitimate since virtually every state in existance has formed via displacing or absorbing other people. At which point, the whole discussion becomes a moot waste, because your stance is "no state authority can ever be legitimate."

I don't understand. You said that a person's choice of actions make them responsible for outcome. Surely pacifistic resistance is less effective than the violent sort? In this case it stands to reason that pacifists bring destruction upon themselves.

If your only two choices are "fight or die" and you are a dedicated pacifist, you would choose to die wouldn't you? I'd say that since you have the choice to abandon your pacifistic ways, and elected to stick with them, that yes, you are responsible for your death.

They are deficient in all possible effective ways under most scenarios. Stop moving the goalposts.

If we're talking about states and their legitimacy, unless you have an entire state composed only of people who are deficient in all possible effective ways, "the state" contains plenty of people who -are- effective.

The issue of what a person's beliefs obligate them to do is different from the issue of whether a government is legitimate. You're trying to argue that a government is legitimate to the extent people fail to act, effectively, on their beliefs in order to prevent it from assuming power.

Since the antecedent here is not just action, but effective action, the statement boils down to one that might makes right.

Once again, you've taken my specific response to the singular case of Canada displacing native populations and establishing their own new and independant state on land that happened to belong to other people previously, and extended it where I never said it belonged, namely, to a universal case that applied in all instances.

Right. And how many of them could beat me in a one on one unarmed fight?

In general? A number that isn't insignificant. Under certain circumstances, such as one wherein you were directly threatening the safety of their children, probably more. The main answer is: A non-zero amount, so they ought not be generalised into the margin.

What does this have to do with the actions of a group which claims legitimacy over a territory? Sure, caretakers will continue to act in the perceived best interest of such people. Due to the infinite possibility for change in social arrangements though, it is quite possible they will choose poorly. Your argument was that choice legitimizes government. Does this include indirect choice? That is all you are offering for these people, and to be honest it seems even more conceited and patronizing than your previous statements.

Well, from a very cynical standpoint (that I don't share) such people (The disabled, the comatose etc) are only alive on the sufferance and largesse of the state, because while they are draining resources, they aren't contributing back into the system. Children as the exception, are expected to -eventually- contribute to the system to justify their drain on resources. But with respect to how those such as children interact with the "choice = legitimacy" standpoint of legitimate government, children are considered to be functionally the same as their parents from that standpoint, or rather, parents are treated as a unit including their children until such time as their children have developed sufficiently to be entrusted with making their choices.

You believe that inaction is a form of action, which makes one the owner at least in part of what follows. From this alone, one or more of the following things must be true of you:

I'm not positive that one or more -MUST- be true of me, but since the statement proves itself to be true, I'll grant for the sake of argument that it might also be correct.

*You don't find anything in the world objectionable
*You don't have any problem with taking partial responsibility for the state of the world
*You are a hypocrite
*You are a coward
*You think your current actions are optimal

None of those reflect particularly well on you, except for the last one, which conveniently enough requires a rather severe amount of elaboration.

I disagree that only the last one reflects well on me. I have no problem taking partial responsibility for the state of the world. "Partial" can be any amount that is non-zero. I'm willing to cop to at least a 1 six billionth share of the responsibility for the state of the world, as should everybody. I think that understanding that as someone in the world, I can and do have effects on the state of the world is quite a positive viewpoint to have. It certainly seems more useful than thinking that absolutely nothing I ever do or don't do will ever have any effect on anything.

So then, can you explain to me why you think moderating a forum on FFR is superior for the world to, say, signing up with the peace corp? Or the Canadian armed forces for that matter? Or even to just dedicating your time to a career with which to earn money to donate to needy children in third world countries?

One: I never said it was, that's ridiculous, don't demand that I "prove" a viewpoint about myself that I never once espoused. Two: The Canadian Armed forces wouldn't want me, I have neither the skills nor the temperament for military service, and while a -qualified- member of the canadian armed forces does dramatically more to improve the quality of the world than an FFR forum moderator, a dramatically unqualified and ill-suited solider tends to just get people killed. Just because there are theoretically optimal ways to effect change in the world doesn't mean every person is suited to perform those tasks. As for the last, what makes you think that once I'm done my degree, and have a career job that I -won't- be donating money to help the needy of the world? All I have right now is a big fat debt. Just because I'm -currently- in no position to offer that type of help doesn't mean I wouldn't, or won't.

I'm not sure what difference it makes. I intend to treat your arguments with the same level of seriousness regardless of whether they are genuine or not.

The difference it makes is your tendency to use the arguments to make disrespectful and rude personal attacks, and implications about what type of person I am. Judging me as a person on the grounds of what I argue without having established that what I'm arguing is actually what I believe is just rude.

A debate shouldn't be important to you if it isn't substantive. Hopefully by the time you know a position well enough to argue with it, you can tell whether or not it is substantive.

Well, in this case, as often seems to happen to us, I provide an argument that I'm applying to a specific case, and then you assume that I'm saying it is universally the case in all circumstances, and I'm left trying to defend my point in an arena it was never meant to fight in.

You should do that to the extent you have legitimate criticism to levy. There are contradictions between any number of positions, but if the position is defunct, there's no purpose to bring it into play. At least there's no purpose to bring irrelevent portions of it into play.

In its original context, I don't believe the objection that I raised was entirely illegitimate. Dragging it out into the realm of universal truth, there are plenty of problems, but it was never pretending to be universal truth.

But again, keeping a thread open and moving, as long as new things are being discussed in it, and new concepts are being brought up and debated, the thread retains value as both a debate on the subject at hand, and as a lesson about debating in general.

Believe me, I'm well aware when I make some of my posts that I'm taking a very difficult stance to defend, occasionally one that I personally think is total hogwash, though I know many people who support it.

Again, setting up a bad argument (that is commonly held in the world) for you to knock down is a valuable tool for other readers of the thread. In teh same way that in batting practice you get nice easy pitches to learn the right way to swing, I'm willing to look a little stupid to -you- in order to present commonly held beliefs in order for them to get knocked out of the park.

Like I keep trying to say: If I were here to win debates, or prove my personal opinions correct, my body of posting would look quite different. My purpose here is to encourage everyone to think more critically about things in the world.

Point taken. I will PM you in the future if something like this pops up again. I would appreciate it if you chose contradictory positions which were valid, however. Not to say all of the ones given weren't, but you would have to bite something resembling a howitzer shell in order to actually hold them.

As I mentioned above, the problem is many people -do- hold them. Hopefully after reading this thread, maybe they'll think twice about it.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

The basic intention of the distinction was in response to your specific example of canadians taking land from native north americans. My point was that unless you are willing to grant that a nation directly displacing another nation and setting up on their land as a seperate and distinct state can have legitimacy if they have the consent of the peoples living in that seperate and distinct state (Without also requiring the consent of the displaced people) then you are basically stating that -no- state can -every- be legitimate since virtually every state in existance has formed via displacing or absorbing other people. At which point, the whole discussion becomes a moot waste, because your stance is "no state authority can ever be legitimate."

You seem to have a rather peculiar understanding of the relationship between habitation and governance. Suppose I move to LA, but in this hypothetical scenario everything in LA is the same except that it lacks government. Am I displacing the citizens of LA? Cohabitation is not only possible, but actual. Displacement typically happens only when people go somewhere with the specific idea of conquering in their mind.

My rules start and end at my doorstep. What's wrong with this? There's even a word or ten for informal social rules. What does displacement have to do with anything.

If your only two choices are "fight or die" and you are a dedicated pacifist, you would choose to die wouldn't you? I'd say that since you have the choice to abandon your pacifistic ways, and elected to stick with them, that yes, you are responsible for your death.

And you accept that this is victim blaming? Do you absolve the killer of any moral responsibility?

If we're talking about states and their legitimacy, unless you have an entire state composed only of people who are deficient in all possible effective ways, "the state" contains plenty of people who -are- effective.

What does this have to do with anything? You phrased your statement as what the moral responsibilities/legitimizing actions (*guh*) are for every individual.

Once again, you've taken my specific response to the singular case of Canada displacing native populations and establishing their own new and independant state on land that happened to belong to other people previously, and extended it where I never said it belonged, namely, to a universal case that applied in all instances.

Yes, I did, because you offered no principle distinction to make the reasons given for Canada's legitimacy inapplicable anywhere else.

In general? A number that isn't insignificant.

For me it probably is.

The main answer is: A non-zero amount, so they ought not be generalised into the margin.

There are an infinite number of marginal non-zero amounts.

Well, from a very cynical standpoint (that I don't share) such people (The disabled, the comatose etc) are only alive on the sufferance and largesse of the state, because while they are draining resources, they aren't contributing back into the system.

Rothbard actually addressed this in the last chapter of "Power and Market", when discussing the "Ward of the State" argument. The basic answer is "so what"? Just because the state has taken upon itself these functions, does not mean they couldn't be done in an alternate fashion. More importantly, there is no coherent reasons to tie together the provision of health care services and a claim on a person's life.

Children as the exception, are expected to -eventually- contribute to the system to justify their drain on resources. But with respect to how those such as children interact with the "choice = legitimacy" standpoint of legitimate government, children are considered to be functionally the same as their parents from that standpoint, or rather, parents are treated as a unit including their children until such time as their children have developed sufficiently to be entrusted with making their choices.

That might be what does happen, but is that what should happen? What's this business about "drain on resources"? People spend money on things they like. If they spend money on children, they must like children. Even if people spend money on children with the notion that they're making some sort of investment in human capital, there still aren't guarantee's for a return on most forms of investment. In fact, the only way to guarantee a child "contributes" shares identical properties with slavery.

I disagree that only the last one reflects well on me. I have no problem taking partial responsibility for the state of the world. "Partial" can be any amount that is non-zero.

It's actually more like any amount that is non-zero that includes some non-zero amount from every set of currently actual worldly properties. So you couldn't claim full responsibility for this post and absolve yourself of any responsibility for genocide in Darfur, you would have to take partial responsibility for the latter as well; in addition to everything else.

I'm willing to cop to at least a 1 six billionth share of the responsibility for the state of the world, as should everybody. I think that understanding that as someone in the world, I can and do have effects on the state of the world is quite a positive viewpoint to have. It certainly seems more useful than thinking that absolutely nothing I ever do or don't do will ever have any effect on anything.

Where on earth did that dichotomy come from?

Look, if it is the case that:

1. You hold some level of responsibility for something in the world
2. That something is bad

Then you should be actively doing something about it.

One: I never said it was, that's ridiculous, don't demand that I "prove" a viewpoint about myself that I never once espoused.

What are you talking about?

Just because there are theoretically optimal ways to effect change in the world doesn't mean every person is suited to perform those tasks.

There probably isn't such a thing as a universally optimal course of action, but as a specific individual with a specific set of skills and attributes, are you really telling me your behavior currently is optimal?

As for the last, what makes you think that once I'm done my degree, and have a career job that I -won't- be donating money to help the needy of the world? All I have right now is a big fat debt. Just because I'm -currently- in no position to offer that type of help doesn't mean I wouldn't, or won't.

Right, and that has to be your justification. Your current actions have to be the best way you know to make a difference.

The difference it makes is your tendency to use the arguments to make disrespectful and rude personal attacks, and implications about what type of person I am. Judging me as a person on the grounds of what I argue without having established that what I'm arguing is actually what I believe is just rude.

Of course it is. It would be rude even if you did believe it. That's the point. Your arguments aren't necessarily invalid, but they are both distasteful and dangerous. Therefore rhetoric takes a bigger part of my responses.

Well, in this case, as often seems to happen to us, I provide an argument that I'm applying to a specific case, and then you assume that I'm saying it is universally the case in all circumstances, and I'm left trying to defend my point in an arena it was never meant to fight in.

Well, I think the irony here is that I'm trying to tell you not to use arguments which lack substance, but you don't see why they lack substance because you have a habit of not bothering to make critical distinctions. If you want to say that something is inapplicable, unrelated, or different from something else, you need to explain why. Otherwise it's implicit that it applies everywhere.

In its original context, I don't believe the objection that I raised was entirely illegitimate. Dragging it out into the realm of universal truth, there are plenty of problems, but it was never pretending to be universal truth.

Existential, subjective, or relative forms of truth still need to make sound distinctions to explain why they are so. A statement which improperly makes distinctions defaults to a universal statement.

[devonin]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

And you accept that this is victim blaming? Do you absolve the killer of any moral responsibility?

The killer is responsible for killing the pacifist. The pacifist is responsible for choosing to stand there and be killed.

It's actually more like any amount that is non-zero that includes some non-zero amount from every set of currently actual worldly properties. So you couldn't claim full responsibility for this post and absolve yourself of any responsibility for genocide in Darfur, you would have to take partial responsibility for the latter as well; in addition to everything else.

That doesn't imply that I have to take an equal amount of responsibility for each thing though. I have more responsibility for the content of this post than I do for the genocide in Darfur, and unless there was a reasonable way for me to know in advance that the genocide in darfur was coming, while I could say that I bear some responsibility for the ongoing consequences (Because I could, in fact, take steps to affect them) I would definately say I bear -less- responsibility for the act itself.

Look, if it is the case that:

1. You hold some level of responsibility for something in the world
2. That something is bad

Then you should be actively doing something about it.

Sure should. I'm well aware of the consequences of my position.

What are you talking about?

You said "So then, can you explain to me why you think moderating a forum on FFR is superior for the world to, say, signing up with the peace corp?" And my response was "Of course not, that's a ridiculous claim to try and back up, and I never once made such a claim, so saying 'explain why I think X' when I never said "I think 'X'"

There probably isn't such a thing as a universally optimal course of action, but as a specific individual with a specific set of skills and attributes, are you really telling me your behavior currently is optimal?

I'm not telling you that at all. It seems to me that for a person to know precisely the full extent of their skills and attributes, know the best way they ought to be applied, and then spend their entire life doing nothing but applying those skills in the best way possible, they'd have to be pretty close to being without flaw, and entirely self-sacrificing.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are more optimal ways I could be living from a "make the world a better place" standpoint, but as I'm just as flawed as everyone else, no, my actions are not entirely optimal.

Right, and that has to be your justification. Your current actions have to be the best way you know to make a difference.

That only has to be true if I intend to actively take the moral high ground and accuse other people of failing to live their lives properly. I can suggest that I consider a system optimal, and not currently be following that system. We do that all the time. We know what an optimal diet would be, and we still eat junk food. Doesn't make the diet less optimal.

Your arguments aren't necessarily invalid, but they are both distasteful and dangerous. Therefore rhetoric takes a bigger part of my responses.

The whole point, as I mentioned above, is that while distasteful and potentially dangerous, it is still a view held by a fairly large number of people. So whether it is or isn't valid, it is still worth being described, and objected to, and reasoned against, for the same reason that while we may never convince a racist that their view is absurd, it is still worth it to spell out publically all the obvious objections to the practice.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

The killer is responsible for killing the pacifist. The pacifist is responsible for choosing to stand there and be killed.

OK. But from that, how does the statement "Anything the killer does with the pacifist's former property is legitimate" follow?

That doesn't imply that I have to take an equal amount of responsibility for each thing though. I have more responsibility for the content of this post than I do for the genocide in Darfur, and unless there was a reasonable way for me to know in advance that the genocide in darfur was coming, while I could say that I bear some responsibility for the ongoing consequences (Because I could, in fact, take steps to affect them) I would definately say I bear -less- responsibility for the act itself.

Why is this relevant? Posting here has no moral character. Taking action to prevent genocide in Darfur or, according to you, enabling it by not taking action, both have moral character.

Sure should. I'm well aware of the consequences of my position.

Then what are you doing about it, and how is it optimal?

You said "So then, can you explain to me why you think moderating a forum on FFR is superior for the world to, say, signing up with the peace corp?" And my response was "Of course not, that's a ridiculous claim to try and back up, and I never once made such a claim, so saying 'explain why I think X' when I never said "I think 'X'"

Wow, you don't understand how examples work. The point is that you need to provide a justification for your actions given all possible actions which shows that no possible actions would be superior to take. All that matters for the example to work is for the first piece of the comparison to be some action which you do take, and the second part to be some action you don't.

I'm not telling you that at all. It seems to me that for a person to know precisely the full extent of their skills and attributes, know the best way they ought to be applied, and then spend their entire life doing nothing but applying those skills in the best way possible, they'd have to be pretty close to being without flaw, and entirely self-sacrificing.

Where does -precisely- come in? Part of your skills and attributes is your ability to gauge your own skills and attributes. So the question is, knowing yourself to the best of your ability, knowing the details of the world to the best of your ability, and possessing the moral intuition that you do, can you tell me that you think what you are doing now is the best thing you can imagine doing?

I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are more optimal ways I could be living from a "make the world a better place" standpoint, but as I'm just as flawed as everyone else, no, my actions are not entirely optimal.

Imperfection is beside the point. If there are ways which you know of that you could better be of service to the world and you aren't doing them, you are a hypocrite. There's always the unknown. Your commitment to a superior state of ontology ends at the limits of your epistemology, but it is still actual.

That only has to be true if I intend to actively take the moral high ground and accuse other people of failing to live their lives properly.

... I'm amazed by the proximity of this and the next sentence, because they're very revealing taken together. Yes, hypocrisy tends to prevent a person from taking the moral high ground. Generally hypocrisy is undesired by itself though.

I can suggest that I consider a system optimal, and not currently be following that system. We do that all the time. We know what an optimal diet would be, and we still eat junk food. Doesn't make the diet less optimal.

If a person has made a commitment to an optimal diet and fails to meet it, they are internally inconsistent- i.e., hypocrites. The issue isn't just that you consider something optimal, it's that you consider inaction action, so you take partial responsibility for everything suboptimal.

Maybe the plain vanilla terms are preventing this from sinking in. You are saying that you consider yourself personally responsible, in some measure, for every preventable death, rape, and theft in the world. You are saying that you know of a way that would result in some finite amount less of these things, but choose not to follow this way. You are saying that whatever is not prevented by you, can be blamed on you.

So, how on earth do you claim to have a clean moral slate?

The whole point, as I mentioned above, is that while distasteful and potentially dangerous, it is still a view held by a fairly large number of people. So whether it is or isn't valid, it is still worth being described, and objected to, and reasoned against, for the same reason that while we may never convince a racist that their view is absurd, it is still worth it to spell out publically all the obvious objections to the practice.

I would rather argue with a real racist. The possibility that a real racist might be watching me argue with a fake one is neither particularly tangible nor unproblematic.

[Cavernio]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Going back a few posts to the Native American discussion about being conquered, there is a point I'd like to make, which is sorta an aside the what the main discussion is. The people who were conquered in the past are no longer alive. At some point over generations, familial and cultural claims to property shouldn't be valid. (Just look at Israel and Palestine; if people would stop laying claim to land they personally never owned, and would quit identifiying with 'their people' of the past, it seems that the conflict could be all but over.)
So, whether the way a current government was formed was ethical or not should have very little bearing on how ethical it currently is, and as such, the current discussion is moot from a 'here and now' standpoint. (Although I see that the 'here and now' is not what's being discussed, at least not anymore.)

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

At some point over generations, familial and cultural claims to property shouldn't be valid.

At what point? Even if this were so, the issue is over whether current claims to property are valid on the part of, specifically, government. It's certainly possible for land to be unowned.

So, whether the way a current government was formed was ethical or not should have very little bearing on how ethical it currently is, and as such, the current discussion is moot from a 'here and now' standpoint.

It has plenty of bearing. A legitimate claim to property is a requisite for any justification for many actions taken routinely by the government, ranging from taxation to the death penalty.

This is a minor break I have from Rothbard by the way.

[Cavernio]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

"At what point? Even if this were so, the issue is over whether current claims to property are valid on the part of, specifically, government. It's certainly possible for land to be unowned."

If such a point were easily identifiable, then there wouldn't ever be any problems, now would there be.
It is possible for land to be unowned, however, if this is the case, then there's no problem with a government taking it.

"It has plenty of bearing. A legitimate claim to property is a requisite for any justification for many actions taken routinely by the government, ranging from taxation to the death penalty."

If you want to get picky, I believe originally, aboriginals didn't claim any land. In their opinion, land was not to be owned. So technically, they had no legitimate claim to property, under, what I guess we can consider standard western law, that they did not agree with.
However, re-iterating my point, even if they did, it still does not mean that 4 generations or something of the like, down the line, 'us' who're now people who never took the land, should not have to give back land to 'them', whose land was never actually taken.

Furthermore, a question of nationality is not just a question of land.
As far as aboriginal rights to land are concerned, it's totally up to whether or not you consider them canadian or not. That aboriginals were treated terribly at one point, that land was immorally taken away from them, is generations past, and really isn't the issue. Currently, aboriginals follow canadian law and benefit from canada's tax dollars through countless public programs, while not having to pay taxes. Also, does it make sense that someone should be able to have access to resources that other canadians don't have access to, considering that that someone follows other canadian regulations, simply because of their ancestry? Not to me. Should there be special government intervention for these essentially fully canadian people where help is desperately needed? Yes. (well, as long as it's actually helpful.) Keep in mind this would all be different if all aboriginals stood up and made some sort of formal, unified claim that they're officially independent.


"This is a minor break I have from Rothbard by the way."

Uh oh, hope your relationship with Rothbard's still OK...if not just say you were wrong and have makeup sex.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

If such a point were easily identifiable, then there wouldn't ever be any problems, now would there be.

The reason it isn't readily identifiable is because there is no non-arbitrary basis for it.

It is possible for land to be unowned, however, if this is the case, then there's no problem with a government taking it.

Yes there is. Government traditionally takes things by decree. For instance, they decree everything west of the Mississippi to be within their territory. The traditional idea of what makes property ownership valid is that when labor is in some way mixed with something unowned, it creates ownership.

If you want to get picky, I believe originally, aboriginals didn't claim any land. In their opinion, land was not to be owned. So technically, they had no legitimate claim to property, under, what I guess we can consider standard western law, that they did not agree with.

I've heard this about virtually every indigenous group ever to exist. I'm not even sure if it's true. Land is frequently communally owned. It is rarely considered completely unowned. Even so, they would have a claim to land, based on their combination of labor and natural resources. They would just be rescinding that claim by stating otherwise.

However, re-iterating my point, even if they did, it still does not mean that 4 generations or something of the like, down the line, 'us' who're now people who never took the land, should not have to give back land to 'them', whose land was never actually taken.

In some cases I think we do. In cases where land was considered the communal property of a specific tribe, for instance, any claim of blood heritage seems like a valid basis for a claim to land.

As far as aboriginal rights to land are concerned, it's totally up to whether or not you consider them canadian or not.

Um, ok.

That aboriginals were treated terribly at one point, that land was immorally taken away from them, is generations past, and really isn't the issue.

...why?

Currently, aboriginals follow canadian law and benefit from canada's tax dollars through countless public programs, while not having to pay taxes.

Why is this relevant. Suppose I benefit indirectly from the murder of neighbor B, who neighbor A kills. Neighbor A then gives me neighbor B's car, under the condition I come play poker with him every Tuesday. Other neighbors have to play poker every Tuesday and Wednesday.

Why is this arrangement anything less than unacceptable?

Also, does it make sense that someone should be able to have access to resources that other canadians don't have access to, considering that that someone follows other canadian regulations, simply because of their ancestry?

Yes, because the ancestry gives a legitimate claim to those resources.

Should there be special government intervention for these essentially fully canadian people where help is desperately needed? Yes.

Why?

Keep in mind this would all be different if all aboriginals stood up and made some sort of formal, unified claim that they're officially independent.

Why?

[devonin]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Before I do a proper read-through of the Indian Acts etc, Kilroy, are those "why"s of the "You can't just make a claim like that" flavour or the "You may well be right but I don't know the situation in Canadian-Aboriginal relations" kind?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Yes, both. None of those were arguments, they were conclusions. They need arguments to back them up, one possible way to do that would be to invoke historical or legal facts. That isn't to say I would accept all presented arguments, but we'll cross that bridge when we find it.

[devonin]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

It is possible for land to be unowned, however, if this is the case, then there's no problem with a government taking it.

Yes there is. Government traditionally takes things by decree. For instance, they decree everything west of the Mississippi to be within their territory. The traditional idea of what makes property ownership valid is that when labor is in some way mixed with something unowned, it creates ownership.

If you read pretty much all of the documentation that accompanied European land claims in North America, you'll find that's actually exactly how they argued it. Because they had a clear idea in their mind what proper land use looked like, and that wasn't present here, it was concluded that the Natives had no ownership of the land (As evidenced by lack of demarcations of property lines, lack of appropriate resource exploitation, lack of obvious use of labour to gain resources from the land, and lack of comprehension when approached to sell the land) So it was basically the official decision of at least the British Government anyway (Quoting my recent 'British Empire and Commonwealth' class here) that all the land here except possibly that which actual native dewllings were located on, was un-owned and completely legally and ethically claimable.

If you want to get picky, I believe originally, aboriginals didn't claim any land. In their opinion, land was not to be owned. So technically, they had no legitimate claim to property, under, what I guess we can consider standard western law, that they did not agree with.

I've heard this about virtually every indigenous group ever to exist. I'm not even sure if it's true. Land is frequently communally owned. It is rarely considered completely unowned. Even so, they would have a claim to land, based on their combination of labor and natural resources. They would just be rescinding that claim by stating otherwise.

Also don't underestimate the extent to which native groups, especially north american native groups, would be happy to claim that they didn't own the land all along, if simply to further the romantic and sympathetic notion that all natives lived in wonderous and perfect harmony with the earth. The simple fact of the matter is, tribes absolutely claimed and held territory. They formed into political and economical aliiances with other tribes, made war on those who encroached onto their land, and always made sure to stay within quite clearly created bounderies. Even if Native A doesn't own "All the land from this river to that path to that tree" if, for example, the Six Nations Iraquois "control" all the land from that river to that forest to that lake, that is absolutely a property claim sufficient to satisfy Kilroy's requirement.

Now some explanation to the Canadian-specific statements that Cavernio was making.

As far as aboriginal rights to land are concerned, it's totally up to whether or not you consider them canadian or not.

Basically, Canadian law currently recognises four states of being for those of aboriginal descent.

Canadians (or Non-status Indians), Métis (Those of mixed aboriginal/european ancestry), the Inuit (Those tribes living in the arctic regions of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland) and Status Indians (of various tribes throughout the country)

The Inuit were granted the largest land claim in Canadian history just recently, which resulted in the creation of the territory of Nunavut in what was the eastern part of the Northwest Territory, and northern Quebec.

Other than that, there are no special rights for any of those groups except for 'Status Indians' who are protected (If you want to call it that) by the text of the Indian Act of 1876, giving them both some special rights and special disabilities unique to them. Under the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the rights exclusive to status indians under the terms of the Indian Act are beyond legal challenge.

How this effects land claims is that basically, unless you are provably a member of a tribe recognised by the Indian Act as being a valid tribe under the terms of the treaties, you are basically indistinguishable from a Canadian in the eyes of the law, and thus have no claim to ancestral lands etc.

Mind you, if you reject the validity of the Canadian government, its laws are also worth ignoring, but if for the sake of arguement you grant the validity of the Canadian government, that's how they interact with claimsto ancestral lands. Basically: If you're on this list of tribes that count, we can talk, otherwise sorry no.

That aboriginals were treated terribly at one point, that land was immorally taken away from them, is generations past, and really isn't the issue.

I'm with Kilroy on this one. Given the huge amount of recent and ongoing negotiation with Native Rights groups over land claims, I'd say that it most certainly is the point now. One of the things that cost Canada its number 1 ranked spot on the UN list of best places to live was our shoddy relationship with Native populations, and we're making lots of steps lately to remedy that.

Currently, aboriginals follow canadian law and benefit from canada's tax dollars through countless public programs, while not having to pay taxes.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 actually grants Natives a whole subset of rights that Canadians don't have under Canadian law. This includes logging, fishing and hunting rights on ancestral lands, the right to defend treaties signed between the Natives and Britain/France/Canada in Canadian courts, and though the Supreme Court of Canada hasn't ruled on it yet, the potential exists that section 35 actually protects Native rights of self-government.

While Status Indians benefit from an exemption from paying taxes on purchased goods (Also goods they sell are exempt from being taxed as well, thus many people buy their cigarettes on Reserves) and have their tuition to university/college subsidized as well, they are also limited in that they have to live on reserves to qualify for these benefits.

In fact, in 1985, the Canadian Government passed Bill C-31 as an amendment to the Indian Act to redress a number of discriminatory practices of the older versions of the act, and among other things, allowed under some circumstances, for natives to live off reserves and still be protected under the act, which has caused a mess of legal issues, because many of the programs in place for natives specified that you must be living on reserve to qualify, and they are getting bogged down in deciding just what and to what extent these benefits should extend to natives living off reserve.

Also, does it make sense that someone should be able to have access to resources that other canadians don't have access to, considering that that someone follows other canadian regulations, simply because of their ancestry?

They are required to live on reserves, you aren't. There is such a more complex interaction between Canadian Law and being a Status Indian than you seem to think. There've been hundreds of legal cases surrounding exactly which rights do and don't transfer around.

(Mind you I -am- personally opposed to a very certain type of native I've come across a lot recently [Barely qualifies by ancestry, doesn't know what tribe they're from, doesn't know the history, doesn't follow any of the practices and traditions, lives off reserves, etc etc] who nevertheless -insist- that they derive every benefit from their status, and get incredibly offended and indignant if you even so much as suggest that they shouldn't)

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Sorry, I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment. I'll give a more thorough response later.

If you read pretty much all of the documentation that accompanied European land claims in North America, you'll find that's actually exactly how they argued it. Because they had a clear idea in their mind what proper land use looked like, and that wasn't present here, it was concluded that the Natives had no ownership of the land (As evidenced by lack of demarcations of property lines, lack of appropriate resource exploitation, lack of obvious use of labour to gain resources from the land, and lack of comprehension when approached to sell the land)

None of those things are requirements for land ownership.

Even if Native A doesn't own "All the land from this river to that path to that tree" if, for example, the Six Nations Iraquois "control" all the land from that river to that forest to that lake, that is absolutely a property claim sufficient to satisfy Kilroy's requirement.

No it isn't. Land doesn't have to be formally demarcated to be owned. Any land which is demonstrated to be used, in any capacity, is owned.

Basically, Canadian law currently recognises four states of being for those of aboriginal descent.

Using Canadian law to justify the practices of Canadian government is just a tad bit circular.