Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

Governments can take taxes not because thy have right to do it(like medieval feudal) but
because they have a duty to provide safety, healthcare, transportation and so on

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/duty

"1. An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion:"

The relevant nouns here are "social custom" and "law." Social custom is arbitrary, and law...well, it's the government that makes those laws. So you're either saying that governments "are allowed" to compel others to give them money through threat of force because of arbitrary social custom, or you're saying that governments are allowed to compel people to give them money through threat of force because government is the one making the rules.

Which is it?

[WealthyRadish]

-schnip-

With the amount of organization and the many different skills and groups needed to actually build and operate the structures and businesses necessary for the modern world, I find it difficult to think that this model would work without essentially becoming the existing capitalist system.

To use the hammer factory example, a group of people would notice that hammers are in short supply and a new factory could be successful. These people would contact the engineers, architects, machinists, and whoever else would be needed to design the factory (paying them in shares of future earnings). With the factory designed, they'd propose it to a construction group, promising a share of the future earnings to them. At this point, the shares are split between the initial group, the design group, and the construction group. With the factory built, workers are now needed, who are brought in on the promise of future shares of the factory's earnings. The design group and the construction groups, whose labor is completely finished, now have shares in a factory earning them money without further labor, and the initial group makes money for nothing more than contracting work and have nothing to lose if the factory fails (as the only people with any investment in it are the designers and construction group). The workers remain working in the factory, getting their shares of the earnings, or simply find other work if it fails.

I'm hoping I understood you correctly. Even if the initial group had been the factory workers themselves, there's no reason to work in a factory when you can make money paying other factory workers in shares. If it fails, the only people who have lost anything are the construction and design groups. Factory work is such a basic job that anyone looking for work could become one, so if the demand for work is there the supply will shift to match it, and the initial group is not obliged to pay workers a large amount for what is a nonspecific and unskilled labor. Eventually the groups starting these projects would have enough money that they can pay for new factories without promising shares, and there you have it, capitalism.

Government regulation preventing people from accruing wealth in this way would mean that the role of contracting the labor for new construction would be up to the government, as the motivated factor of "we'd have more work" isn't enough to get thousands of largely uneducated and angrily unemployed workers to independently form a group to construct a factory (with nothing in it for them but a future of unskilled labor making hammers, at no increased wage thanks to the promised earnings to the design and construction groups). The government now controls all aspects of the economy, and even if democratically elected, that's a totalitarian system, and the future of democracy in such a system is dubious. If I have to choose between being exploited at every turn by greedy corporations or being at the mercy of the whims of a massive government, I choose capitalism. The ideal combines elements of both, with either extreme amounting to one hell or another.

...goddamn that was a huge wall of text, I hope I didn't ramble off anywhere in there.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

To stop derail of anti derail thread - http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=126821.0

+ some questions to Eagle_eye

[ed boy]

Would you be okay with an owner renting tools to a worker?

Nope. If you're not actually using it, you have no right to deprive others of it.

So at what point would the following become unacceptable?
-I work part time in my current job, making just enough money to pay the bills
-I decide to work some extra shifts to buy a spare car in case my current one breaks
-After six months of extra shifts, I have a second car sitting in my garage that I'm not using
-The pizza place down the corner does deliveries and at busy periods is short of vehicles
-The manager of the pizza place asks to borrow your car at these periods
-You realize that if you need your car at these times, you won't be able to use it
-You decide to charge the pizza place a small amount for borrowing your car to compensate yourself

i-Two people enter a hospital; one healthy, one sick. You may let the sick one die, or harvest the organs of the healthy one to save the sick one.

Let the sick one die, since they're statistically more likely to get sick again in the future, and a society in which we arbitrarily kill one person for the benefit of one other person would cause a lot of anxiety.

We're assuming that they're identical, including likelihood of getting sick again. The reason for them being sick is from some external factor. If you want, consider the sick one as having been hit by a drunk driver.

iv-You can harvest the organs of one person with life expectancy thirty years to save four older people with life expectancy ten years if saved.

No. The person with thirty years left to go is still contributing to society, and thus improving the happiness of others more, and thus their death would cause a greater loss in happiness.

So you consider someone who is contributing to society as having priority over someone who isn't? Does this mean that you would sacrifice someone with a disability that prevents them working to save someone able-bodied?

You can sacrifice two smokers of life expectancy fifteen years to save three older people of life expectancy ten years.

Possibly, if people knew about it, and knew that it was because they were smokers. On the one hand, killing people like that would upset a lot of people. On the other hand, it might reduce smoking dramatically. I'm leaning towards yes, but I'm really not sure. Plus, the smokers are harming the health of others as they continue to live.

The smokers would stop smoking if they survive their hospital trip. The major difference is that their reduction in life expectancy is from their actions, not an outside influence.

I don't think it's possible to be in a situation where it's impossible for life to get better by enough to make it worth living.

Suppose that you're in a war zone. You know that if you get captured, you'll be tortured and executed. Alternatively, suppose you've had a stroke and are permanently disabled. Your disability is painful, and you can only communicate through blinking.

You may sacrifice an individual who has committed minor crimes to save an individual with a clean record.

Depends on what the minor crimes are. If it's something I think is admirable, no. If it's something I think is bad, yes.

So you believe that someone's actions enhance/subvert their right to live?

If someone is performing an action that you strongly object to but is legal, is it acceptable to try to disrupt that activity? If yes, are you obliged to?

Yes and yes, assuming my objection is morally justified.

If someone often performs actions that you strongly oppose to, is it acceptable to try to disrupt unrelated activities? If yes, are you obliged to?

Only if it inhibits their ability to also do the things I object to, and if so, yes.

Does an individual have the right to associate with whatever groups they wish to? What if already existing members of a group do not wish to associate with them? What if the group in question provides a danger to the individual or another individual?

No, some organizations, like the Nazi Party and Al-Qaeda, should not be tolerated. No, being around someone you don't want to be around typically causes more suffering than being around someone you want to be around causes happiness. No.

Does an individual have the right to believe what they want? What if this includes beliefs that can be proven to be logically inconsistent? What if this results in actions that impede or prevent the individual's goals?

Yes, beliefs don't matter, only actions. Only so long as they don't act on those beliefs. Depends on what the goals are, but assuming they're moral, no, not that you can stop it.

Does an individual have the right to say things that another may consider inappropriate? If so, do they have the right to an audience? Does an individual have the right to ignore the speech of another? What if the speech includes things that are demonstrably false?

Yes, because a society that doesn't tolerate free speech has worse side effects that outweigh the benefit of avoiding offense. No, they don't have the right to an audience: forcing people to listen to something has similarly undesirable effects to preventing free speech. You can absolutely ignore others, unless what they're saying is something along the lines of "I'm going to shoot this person in the face".

We have an inconsistency here. You've said that belief doesn't matter, and people should be free to talk about things they want. However, you've also said that other people have the right to try and stop them if you don't like what they're doing. You're saying that one person taking offense to another's views and speech gives them the right to compromise the another's right to those.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

We have an inconsistency here. You've said that belief doesn't matter, and people should be free to talk about things they want. However, you've also said that other people have the right to try and stop them if you don't like what they're doing. You're saying that one person taking offense to another's views and speech gives them the right to compromise the another's right to those.

I'll answer for Eagle here. You mix opinions and actions. Extreme case:
If you have belief that person A should be killed, that's you freedom of thoughts no one can ban you to think like that
If you go and kill the Person A, then you are making a crime
If you preach that person A should be killed, that's an encouragement to crime, and that's a crime itself

[Morrigi]

Spoiler: 40 questions (click to show/hide)

You are presented with a number of situations, and in each you must decide what to do. You can assume that nobody will know what you do or try to stop you. Unless otherwise specified, you have no chance of failure. Unless otherwise specified, all aspects of their lives (age, profession, etc) are equal.
i-Two people enter a hospital; one healthy, one sick. You may let the sick one die, or harvest the organs of the healthy one to save the sick one.
ii-Three people enter a hospital; one healthy, two sick. You may let the sick ones die, or harvest the organs of the healthy one to save them both. Is there a minimum ratio of sick people to healthy ratio for you to kill all the healthy ones to save the sick one?
iii-You can harvest the organs of an older individual with low life expectancy to save a person with high life expectancy if saved.
iv-You can harvest the organs of one person with life expectancy thirty years to save four older people with life expectancy ten years if saved.
v-You can harvest the organs of two older people with life expectancy ten years to save a person with life expectancy thirty years if saved. Is there a minimum ratio of life expectancy saved to life expectancy sacrificed?
vi-You can sacrifice two smokers of life expectancy fifteen years to save three older people of life expectancy ten years.
vii-You can sacrifice three older people of life expectancy ten years to save two smokers of life expectancy fifteen years.
viii-You can sacrifice a drifter with no family or friends to save a person with lots of close friends.
ix-You can sacrifice someone with no family of friends to save a person with lots of dependants.
x-You can sacrifice one person to save two people, each with probability 1/2.
xi-You can sacrifice one person to save ten people, each with probability 1/10. If no, what is the minimum number that would have be saved to choose yes?
xii-A loner with no family or friends wants to kill themselves. You can stop it, or let it happen.
xiii-A loner with no family or friends wants to be killed by another. You can stop it, or let it happen.
xiv-An individual with lots of family and friends wants to kill themselves. You can stop it, or let it happen.
xv-An individual with lots of dependants wants to kill themselves. You can stop it, or let it happen.
xvi-You may sacrifice an individual who has committed minor crimes to save an individual with a clean record.
xvii-You may sacrifice a mass murderer to save an individual with a clean record.
xviii-Two people are being denied freedom of speech. You may kill one to liberate the other.
xix-Two people are being denied freedom of belief. You may kill one to liberate the other.
xx-You may kill one person with life expectancy ten years to increase another's life expectancy by fifteen years. Is there a minimum ratio of gained life expectancy to lost life expectancy for you to do this?
xxi-You may kill one person to provide entertainment for ten others.
xxii-You may kill one person to provide entertainment for a billion others. Is there a number of people such that you would kill one person to entertain that many?
xxiii-One person is playing a game, and a second does not have a game, but would enjoy the game more if they had it. Do you take the game from the first and give it to the second?
xxiv-You are playing and enjoying a game, and another person who will enjoy it more wants to play it. Are you obliged to give it to them?
xxv-Does the answer to the previous question change if you particularly like or dislike the other person?
xxvi-Your house has such thin walls that neither you nor your neighbour can play music without the other being forced to listed in it. If your neighbour is not doing anything that requires silence, do you play your music?
xxvii-If you said yes to the previous one, what about if you know your neighbour does not share your taste in music? If you said no to the previous one, what about if you know your neighbour shares your taste in music?
xxviii-If someone is performing an action that you strongly object to but is legal, is it acceptable to try to disrupt that activity? If yes, are you obliged to?
xxix-If someone often performs actions that you strongly oppose to, is it acceptable to try to disrupt unrelated activities? If yes, are you obliged to?
xxx-If a quality is correlated with people of a certain group, and an individual is a member of that group, in the absence of further information is it acceptable to treat that individual differently based on that attribute (weighted by probability)?
xxxi-At what point in the process from sperm/egg to embryo to foetus to baby to adult does it become acceptable (if at any point) to kill/deny life? At what point (if any) does someone gain the right to permanently alter their body (including harm)?
xxxii-Does an individual have the right to say things that another may consider inappropriate? If so, do they have the right to an audience? Does an individual have the right to ignore the speech of another? What if the speech includes things that are demonstrably false?
xxxiii-Does an individual have the right to keep a secret from another? What if the act of keeping the secret may cause harm?
xxxiv-Does an individual have the right to own a pet? If yes, does an individual have the right to own a slave? If no, does an individual have the right to own a non-human creature of significant mental capacity?
xxxv-Does an individual have the obligation to raise their children? Does an individual have the right to raise their children as they wish? Do they have the right to have children? What if they are not able to properly provide for children?
xxxvi-Does an individual (not government) have the right to claim another's property if it is unused and will foreseeably remain unused? What if it is being used, but less efficiently that it could be?
xxxvii-Does an individual selling a good or service have the right to charge what they want? Does this change in the presence/absence of competition? Does this change if the good/service is/isn't essential?
xxxviii-Does an individual have the right to believe what they want? What if this includes beliefs that can be proven to be logically inconsistent? What if this results in actions that impede or prevent the individual's goals?
xxxix-Does an individual have the right to associate with whatever groups they wish to? What if already existing members of a group do not wish to associate with them? What if the group in question provides a danger to the individual or another individual?
xxxx-Do individuals have the right to demand that others accommodate their deviations (deviations meant in a technical and nonoffensive manner)? Does this change if the deviation is physical or mental? Does this change if the deviation is voluntary or involuntary?

1. Is the healthy person willing to sacrifice themselves to save this person? If yes, then go for it.
2. Same as above. Is the healthy person willing to make the sacrifice? If yes, then yes. The only ratio is the amount of willing candidates to help the sick. If no one is willing to sacrifice themself, then no healthy people will have their organs harvested.
3. Again, only if the older person is willing.
4. Same as above.
5. See above. No one should be sacrificed to save others against their will outside of truly extreme circumstances.
6. Not against their will.
7. ^
8. ^
9. ^
10. ^
11. ^
12. That's what therapy is for. If you have the chance to stop a suicide, then do anything in your power to do so within reason and the boundaries of the law. However, I do not approve of people languishing in mental institutions for decades simply because they want to kill themselves. If they are so hell-bent on doing so, then let them.
13. Murder is never warranted outside of circumstances involving those proven to have committed equal or worse crimes. However, a legal trial is always preferable. If there is no proof that the first person has committed such a crime, then it is every citizen's duty to prevent such a killing. However, if for example someone's son has been killed and the murderer is caught red-handed by the father, then I would not intervene in the father carrying out vigilante justice.
14. See 13.
15. See 12.
16. Not without their willingness and consent.
17. If the person is proven without a doubt to be a mass murderer, then (a.) I believe the punishment should be death anyway. If he saves an innocent life by dying then so be it.
18. No. Less drastic action should be taken.
19. See 18.
20. No and no.
21. Absolutely not.
22. I am not against public execution of criminals proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have committed a capital offense. In any other circumstance, no.
23. If the game belongs to the first person, doing so would violate their inalienable right to property. If it the second person's property, then yes. If the game belongs to neither party, then a compromise should be made. If both parties are adults, then they can work it out themselves.
24. No, but it would be polite to compromise.
25. No.
26. Get headphones.
27. If you know this, then why not ask the neighbor if they have a problem with it? If you don't want to, then see 26.
28. It is acceptable within the boundaries of societal norms and the law. For example, protesting the WDC or Scientology is within one's inalienable right of free speech and falls within societal norms, as does protesting the government. One has no obligation to do this whatsoever and it remains their personal choice.
29. One should not be prevented from doing so within the boundaries of the law, but it's just plain rude.
30. Legally, yes. Ethically, no.
31. Abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy for reasons such as financial inability to raise the child or severe health complications are acceptable. After that, I consider execution for proven capital offenses acceptable after one becomes an adult.
32. Yes, all of these things are within their inalienable right to free speech.
33. It is acceptable for secrets to be kept so long as the keeping of such a secret does not result in permanent injury or death of at least one human, or the reduction in quality of life of at least part of a society.
34. Yes, one has the right to own a pet. The owning of slaves is unethical, as is the owning of demonstrably intelligent animals such as dolphins and elephants.
35. An individual is obligated to raise their children to the best of their ability, and if this is not sufficient as determined by a judge then the children or child in question shall be turned over to the state or an orphanage. An individual has the right to raise their child as they wish so long as no laws are broken and the child is able to function in society. Raising a child in such a way that they are unable to function in society is immoral. If they are unable to provide for their children, then the child or children shall be handed over to the state or an orphanage.
36. That depends on the circumstances. Things discarded by another individual can, of course, be taken by others. If a building or vehicle is clearly abandoned, then searching it or cannibalizing it for materials, profit, etc. is acceptable. If a property is in use by another party regardless of their manner of using it, then claiming it violates their inalienable right to own property.
37. They have the right to charge what they wish outside of extenuating circumstances such as a disaster situation where such products should be donated to those in need until the situation is under control.
38. An individual has the inalienable right to freedom of belief. No belief should be forced on an individual. However, actions taken resulting in harm to others will be treated as a crime regardless of motivation. This is generally directed at religious extremism.
39. An individual has the right to associate with any group they wish so long as said group does not perform violent or otherwise illegal actions. Group members are under no obligation to accept a prospective member into said group, and groups posing harm to others should be taken care of by law enforcement.
40. So long as voluntary deviations cause no harm to person or property, then discrimination against them is immoral. All deviations or handicaps such as physical or mental disabilities must be accommodated so long as such accommodations do not create an unreasonable strain on society as a whole.

My personal belief is that individual rights and freedoms must be upheld outside of extreme extenuating circumstances. No one shall die against their will unless they have been proven to commit a capital crime. Individuals have rights to property, free speech, the right to a fair trial, and the rest of the rights specified in the American Constitution.

[ed boy]

We have an inconsistency here. You've said that belief doesn't matter, and people should be free to talk about things they want. However, you've also said that other people have the right to try and stop them if you don't like what they're doing. You're saying that one person taking offense to another's views and speech gives them the right to compromise the another's right to those.

I'll answer for Eagle here. You mix opinions and actions. Extreme case:
If you have belief that person A should be killed, that's you freedom of thoughts no one can ban you to think like that
If you go and kill the Person A, then you are making a crime
If you preach that person A should be killed, that's an encouragement to crime, and that's a crime itself

But saying that someone is preaching that person A is killed should not be allowed, that's compromising their freedom of speech. If it is decided that saying something that is currently illegal should be done is unacceptable, then you run into another world of problems.

That is, it was stated that someone has the right to hold whatever beliefs they want. It was also stated that someone has the right to talk to a willing audience about whatever they want. It was also stated that if you object to someone doing something, even if it is perfectly legal, you have the right to try and stop them.

32. Yes, all of these things are within their inalienable right to free speech.

So you believe that if someone wants to say something, they are entitled to have others listen to them?

My personal belief is that individual rights and freedoms must be upheld outside of extreme extenuating circumstances. No one shall die against their will unless they have been proven to commit a capital crime. Individuals have rights to property, free speech, the right to a fair trial, and the rest of the rights specified in the American Constitution.

What constitutes a capital crime? Murder has already been established, but what about theft or fraud? If not right to life, would other rights be compromised?

[Morrigi]

We have an inconsistency here. You've said that belief doesn't matter, and people should be free to talk about things they want. However, you've also said that other people have the right to try and stop them if you don't like what they're doing. You're saying that one person taking offense to another's views and speech gives them the right to compromise the another's right to those.

I'll answer for Eagle here. You mix opinions and actions. Extreme case:
If you have belief that person A should be killed, that's you freedom of thoughts no one can ban you to think like that
If you go and kill the Person A, then you are making a crime
If you preach that person A should be killed, that's an encouragement to crime, and that's a crime itself

But saying that someone is preaching that person A is killed should not be allowed, that's compromising their freedom of speech. If it is decided that saying something that is currently illegal should be done is unacceptable, then you run into another world of problems.

That is, it was stated that someone has the right to hold whatever beliefs they want. It was also stated that someone has the right to talk to a willing audience about whatever they want. It was also stated that if you object to someone doing something, even if it is perfectly legal, you have the right to try and stop them.

32. Yes, all of these things are within their inalienable right to free speech.

So you believe that if someone wants to say something, they are entitled to have others listen to them?

My personal belief is that individual rights and freedoms must be upheld outside of extreme extenuating circumstances. No one shall die against their will unless they have been proven to commit a capital crime. Individuals have rights to property, free speech, the right to a fair trial, and the rest of the rights specified in the American Constitution.

What constitutes a capital crime? Murder has already been established, but what about theft or fraud? If not right to life, would other rights be compromised?

Obviously, people should not be forced to listen to some nutjob against their will. As for capital punishment, it would be reserved for only the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. Theft and fraud would be taken care of as they are in the United States, but hopefully more efficiently.

[AlleeCat]

What I don't understand about denying people service is that they're paying you. Why don't you want money? Serving everyone just means getting more money. You sure as hell don't have to like them, but it would be dumb to not want to get paid.

[LordBucket]

What I don't understand about denying people service is that they're paying you. Why don't you want money? Serving everyone just means getting more money. You sure as hell don't have to like them, but it would be dumb to not want to get paid.

denying people service

I can think of lots of possible reasons. Check the bold. If you are in a service industry, you re serving people. Can you seriously not imagine situations or people that you might not want to serve? Obvious extreme example that everyone will understand: Bob rapes Alice, gets caught, serves prison time. Is released 4 years later and so far as "society" and "law" are concerned, he has paid his time. Then he goes into the restaurant that Alice works at as a waitress.

Can you see how she might not want to "serve" Bob? Can you see how she might not want to be put in situation where her livelihood is dependent on her success at serving and pleasing Bob? I'm sure you can. Apply a little creativity and I'm sure you can think up dozens of other scenarios on your own that aren't so extreme, but nevertheless for which someone, including business proprietors, might desire to refuse service.

[Eagle_eye]

this should be earlier in the thread, but computer problems cropped up when I tried to post earlier.

Eventually the groups starting these projects would have enough money that they can pay for new factories without promising shares, and there you have it, capitalism.

Except that I'm not tolerating private ownership of productive capacity. If you didn't actually work to build it or work in it, you have no say in the output. Investment doesn't give you the right to deprive others of the ability to use unused factories.

Listen, Eagle, I'm not trying to be rude or anything here, but the leader of your 'perfect world' would be  what I call a 'Utopian Dictator' - but only to him and his chosen few. To everyone else, he'd look no different than the Soviets or the Nazis or some of the more nasty corporations. Theres one key thing you haven't considered: it is NOT possible to quantify joy, happiness or pain. All humans feel different emotions to different degrees. The way you would like everything would result in an ruling class of the overly emotional as the fact that they feel more means what they want would factor in more heavily.

No, that wouldn't happen. First of all, it's a safe assumption that everyone experiences roughly the same suffering, or it's close enough that the extra effort necessary to figure out the actual variation isn't worth it. Second, I put down what I thought was moral: not what I thought should be legal. Those are two completely distinct things. I don't trust anyone else to make those sorts of decisions, so the legal system out to try to deter people from doing that. In short, I'm obligated to follow act utilitarianism, but society as a whole should follow rule utilitarianism.

[kaijyuu]

Just popping in to state that I don't believe property to be a right; it's a privilege, and if misused, should be taken away.

All forms of power should come with responsibility to use it correctly. If people don't want to be responsible with their power, it should be taken away. (how practical this is depends on the situation, of course. Who watches the watchers and all that)