Total Posts:147|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Corporations & Social Contract

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:32:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Accepting that "governing" is a significant influence on the lives and well-being of many....

Social Contract Theory occurs in a consensual arrangement of power between the state and the people. Corporations qualify as neither, but still have the distinctive power to influence the law and the harm or benefit of the populace.

Laissez Faire and anything similar to it is therefore, I believe, a disruption of this theory. What gives the government the right to govern us is that we consent for our own benefit, but corporations have the status of what I consider a pseudo-government...they are private and thus have absolute control, yet still have the influential might to harm the mass. They have not received the consent to influence the lives of the people so significantly, they have not received the right to inconspicuously govern, on that note, I find that it is of dire importance to the freedom of the population that the rightful government regulate and retard the power of the economic giants.

I'm not entirely sure of this line of thinking, but at the moment I think it makes sense. Thoughts?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 7:52:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Since when does anyone need permission to "influence" someone else? Governments are another matter entirely for they actually employ force towards the governed whereas corporations merely provide consumers with options. Force is what makes the government different from a corporation and what makes it need some sort of consensual justification by the parties involved.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:22:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 7:52:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Since when does anyone need permission to "significantly influence" the lives of everyone?

Since the birth of human rights.

Governments are another matter entirely for they actually employ force towards :the governed whereas corporations merely provide consumers with options.

Monopolies?.... In any case, according to you, explicit employment of force is the only threat to the freedom of the people? Corporations can implicitly coerce. Either we buy food from businesses or we die. Either we buy clothes, or the materials to make clothes from businesses, or we freeze to death in the winter. Either we buy water or a water purification system, or the materials to make the water purification system, or we starve and die. Notice how they all begin with "we buy." And also notice that if for some reason those things cannot or are MADE difficult to buy (i.e discrimination legal in the free market, unreasonable pricing etc.) Its dishonest to just sit there and believe corporations cannot employ force in any way, and always give you options. That is simply false.

Force is what makes the government different from a corporation and what makes it need some sort of consensual justification by the parties involved.

Right, except that corporations do have the power to force and monopolize, in which case they would be nothing but miniature sub-governments that DON'T have our consent to govern (influence significantly all of us en masse), and thus become tyrannical bodies.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:35:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:22:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 7:52:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Since when does anyone need permission to "significantly influence" the lives of everyone?

Since the birth of human rights.

Governments are another matter entirely for they actually employ force towards :the governed whereas corporations merely provide consumers with options.

Monopolies?.... In any case, according to you, explicit employment of force is the only threat to the freedom of the people? Corporations can implicitly coerce. Either we buy food from businesses or we die. Either we buy clothes, or the materials to make clothes from businesses, or we freeze to death in the winter. Either we buy water or a water purification system, or the materials to make the water purification system, or we starve and die. Notice how they all begin with "we buy." And also notice that if for some reason those things cannot or are MADE difficult to buy (i.e discrimination legal in the free market, unreasonable pricing etc.) Its dishonest to just sit there and believe corporations cannot employ force in any way, and always give you options. That is simply false.

Force is what makes the government different from a corporation and what makes it need some sort of consensual justification by the parties involved.

Right, except that corporations do have the power to force and monopolize, in which case they would be nothing but miniature sub-governments that DON'T have our consent to govern (influence significantly all of us en masse), and thus become tyrannical bodies.

This. Corporations take ownership of common resources that belong to the people anyways and then just sell it to them. Drinking water is a common resource, for example, but corporations have used governmental force to seize control of our supply.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:46:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:22:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 7:52:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Since when does anyone need permission to "significantly influence" the lives of everyone?

Since the birth of human rights.

You have to be more specific. An argument or example would be nice.

Governments are another matter entirely for they actually employ force towards :the governed whereas corporations merely provide consumers with options.

Monopolies?.... In any case, according to you, explicit employment of force is the only threat to the freedom of the people? Corporations can implicitly coerce. Either we buy food from businesses or we die. Either we buy clothes, or the materials to make clothes from businesses, or we freeze to death in the winter. Either we buy water or a water purification system, or the materials to make the water purification system, or we starve and die. Notice how they all begin with "we buy." And also notice that if for some reason those things cannot or are MADE difficult to buy (i.e discrimination legal in the free market, unreasonable pricing etc.) Its dishonest to just sit there and believe corporations cannot employ force in any way, and always give you options. That is simply false.

You haven't shown why any if these things are in violation of the rights of others. Discrimination shouldn't be prohibited since it doesn't infringe on rights i.e. no one has the right to be employed and not giving someone food for sale if they can't pay isn't a violation if rights since no one has a right to your property irrespective of their physical state. The burden is on you to show wh they would.

Force is what makes the government different from a corporation and what makes it need some sort of consensual justification by the parties involved.

Right, except that corporations do have the power to force and monopolize, in which case they would be nothing but miniature sub-governments that DON'T have our consent to govern (influence significantly all of us en masse), and thus become tyrannical bodies.

First, show me where anyone alive actually explicitly consented to being governed, none of that tacit bullshart. Second, I'm talking about force as in putting guns to your head and violating rights, not controlling the price if a hamburger.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:49:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:46:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:22:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 7:52:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Since when does anyone need permission to "significantly influence" the lives of everyone?

Since the birth of human rights.

You have to be more specific. An argument or example would be nice.

Governments are another matter entirely for they actually employ force towards :the governed whereas corporations merely provide consumers with options.

Monopolies?.... In any case, according to you, explicit employment of force is the only threat to the freedom of the people? Corporations can implicitly coerce. Either we buy food from businesses or we die. Either we buy clothes, or the materials to make clothes from businesses, or we freeze to death in the winter. Either we buy water or a water purification system, or the materials to make the water purification system, or we starve and die. Notice how they all begin with "we buy." And also notice that if for some reason those things cannot or are MADE difficult to buy (i.e discrimination legal in the free market, unreasonable pricing etc.) Its dishonest to just sit there and believe corporations cannot employ force in any way, and always give you options. That is simply false.

You haven't shown why any if these things are in violation of the rights of others. Discrimination shouldn't be prohibited since it doesn't infringe on rights i.e. no one has the right to be employed and not giving someone food for sale if they can't pay isn't a violation if rights since no one has a right to your property irrespective of their physical state. The burden is on you to show wh they would.

All resources were originally communal resources. According to property rights theory, just because someone asserts control over my property does not mean that it becomes their property. For example, a burglar cannot steal my laptop by force. So, people have a right to employment because they have a right to access resources that belong to them. If a corporation has control of the drinking water, then I have a right to be employed by the corporation because that was originally a shared resource.
Force is what makes the government different from a corporation and what makes it need some sort of consensual justification by the parties involved.

Right, except that corporations do have the power to force and monopolize, in which case they would be nothing but miniature sub-governments that DON'T have our consent to govern (influence significantly all of us en masse), and thus become tyrannical bodies.

First, show me where anyone alive actually explicitly consented to being governed, none of that tacit bullshart. Second, I'm talking about force as in putting guns to your head and violating rights, not controlling the price if a hamburger.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:49:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:46:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:22:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 7:52:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Since when does anyone need permission to "significantly influence" the lives of everyone?

Since the birth of human rights.

You have to be more specific. An argument or example would be nice.

Governments are another matter entirely for they actually employ force towards :the governed whereas corporations merely provide consumers with options.

Monopolies?.... In any case, according to you, explicit employment of force is the only threat to the freedom of the people? Corporations can implicitly coerce. Either we buy food from businesses or we die. Either we buy clothes, or the materials to make clothes from businesses, or we freeze to death in the winter. Either we buy water or a water purification system, or the materials to make the water purification system, or we starve and die. Notice how they all begin with "we buy." And also notice that if for some reason those things cannot or are MADE difficult to buy (i.e discrimination legal in the free market, unreasonable pricing etc.) Its dishonest to just sit there and believe corporations cannot employ force in any way, and always give you options. That is simply false.

You haven't shown why any if these things are in violation of the rights of others. Discrimination shouldn't be prohibited since it doesn't infringe on rights i.e. no one has the right to be employed and not giving someone food for sale if they can't pay isn't a violation if rights since no one has a right to your property irrespective of their physical state. The burden is on you to show wh they would.

Force is what makes the government different from a corporation and what makes it need some sort of consensual justification by the parties involved.

Right, except that corporations do have the power to force and monopolize, in which case they would be nothing but miniature sub-governments that DON'T have our consent to govern (influence significantly all of us en masse), and thus become tyrannical bodies.

First, show me where anyone alive actually explicitly consented to being governed, none of that tacit bullshart. Second, I'm talking about force as in putting guns to your head and violating rights, not controlling the price if a hamburger.

Corporations have the backing of the government, which literally only has control because it has a monopoly on violence.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:55:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Royal, all resurces were originally unowned. There no reason to think everyone originally owned everything. Lockean property theory sys that once you mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, you come to own it. Now what constitutes mixing is somewhat ambiguous, but me cutting down a tree and using the wood to build a house is only stealing from you if you already owned the tree. You don't automatically own anything.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:57:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Corporations have the backing of the government, which literally only has control because it has a monopoly on violence.

Couldn't agree more.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:57:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:55:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Royal, all resurces were originally unowned. There no reason to think everyone originally owned everything. Lockean property theory sys that once you mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, you come to own it. Now what constitutes mixing is somewhat ambiguous, but me cutting down a tree and using the wood to build a house is only stealing from you if you already owned the tree. You don't automatically own anything.

No, all resources are commonly owned; they belong to the entire human race. Lockean property theory fails to account for the fact that everyone owns everything.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:01:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:57:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:55:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Royal, all resurces were originally unowned. There no reason to think everyone originally owned everything. Lockean property theory sys that once you mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, you come to own it. Now what constitutes mixing is somewhat ambiguous, but me cutting down a tree and using the wood to build a house is only stealing from you if you already owned the tree. You don't automatically own anything.

No, all resources are commonly owned; they belong to the entire human race. Lockean property theory fails to account for the fact that everyone owns everything.

Besides the coceptaul impossibility of communal property arrangements ( ones body is also property and so it must be commonly owned as well, meanig decisions on how to use property become impossible to come to since to act in any way with ones body even to make decisions on how to use it would be to disregard consent of the other 7 billion partial owners of your body) why do you think everyone owns everything in the first place?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:13:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:46:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:22:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 7:52:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Since when does anyone need permission to "significantly influence" the lives of everyone?

Since the birth of human rights.

You have to be more specific. An argument or example would be nice.

Lockean proviso along with the derivation of the powers of government from the consent of the governed (what you seem to be ignoring is what qualifies as "governing").

Through the Lockean proviso the only justification for the conversion of common property to private property is that those who formerly had a right to that property (society) are no worse off from the conversion. If a corporation plunders water from nature and discriminates in who is allowed to buy it, that's a clear violation of the right to that water.

How do we define governing. It is, simply, the power to force or significantly influence the course of life for another human being. Corporations can have such power, except that they do not have society's consent.

Your argument that the government does not have our consent to govern is rubbish. Governments have not always existed. Man created government for the protection of their interests and mutual survival. There need not be some absurd agreement to every life born, but rather the power to every life born to influence that government and its actions, be a part of it, reform it, or leave it. No one is stopping you from leaving the U.S, you have the right to do so. The fact that you still live here and not in the wild where you will truly be free means that you need the benefits of a society and you consent to getting those necessities under society's head (the state).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:22:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:46:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:22:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 7:52:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Since when does anyone need permission to "significantly influence" the lives of everyone?

Since the birth of human rights.

You have to be more specific. An argument or example would be nice.

Lockean proviso along with the derivation of the powers of government from the consent of the governed (what you seem to be ignoring is what qualifies as "governing").

Through the Lockean proviso the only justification for the conversion of common property to private property is that those who formerly had a right to that property (society) are no worse off from the conversion. If a corporation plunders water from nature and discriminates in who is allowed to buy it, that's a clear violation of the right to that water.

You're starting from te unjustified premise that property starts out owned in common rather than unowned. Can someone explain to me why property was originally owned by everyone?

How do we define governing. It is, simply, the power to force or significantly influence the course of life for another human being. Corporations can have such power, except that they do not have society's consent.

Yeah no. This definition is the clear equivocation of governing to really anything that affects anybody. If I'm competing for a job and am
Better skilled and qualified your idiotic definition of governing would say I'm a government and govern the guy who didn't ge the job because of me.

Your argument that the government does not have our consent to govern is rubbish. Governments have not always existed. Man created government for the protection of their interests and mutual survival. There need not be some absurd agreement to every life born, but rather the power to every life born to influence that government and its actions, be a part of it, reform it, or leave it. No one is stopping you from leaving the U.S, you have the right to do so. The fact that you still live here and not in the wild where you will truly be free means that you need the benefits of a society and you consent to getting those necessities under society's head (the state).

So no you can't provide anywhere where anyone actually consented to be governed? Also this bullsh1t tacit consent garbage you're pulling is annoying. Obviously a rapist is not justified in raping just because the person being raped doesn't flee.to make an analogy, the government is the rapist. There is nowhere one can go that is not governed. Analogously, there is nowhere I can run to that doesn't have a rapist. Now just because I choose to be raped by the least terrible rapist, lends absolutely no justification for that rape to occur.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:35:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does anyone understand that by purchasing stuff from a corporation, people are consenting?

And, all of this makes sense if you stop believing in this objective rights BS and start just looking at reality.
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:38:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:22:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:46:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:22:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 7:52:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Since when does anyone need permission to "significantly influence" the lives of everyone?

Since the birth of human rights.

You have to be more specific. An argument or example would be nice.

Lockean proviso along with the derivation of the powers of government from the consent of the governed (what you seem to be ignoring is what qualifies as "governing").

Through the Lockean proviso the only justification for the conversion of common property to private property is that those who formerly had a right to that property (society) are no worse off from the conversion. If a corporation plunders water from nature and discriminates in who is allowed to buy it, that's a clear violation of the right to that water.

You're starting from te unjustified premise that property starts out owned in common rather than unowned. Can someone explain to me why property was originally owned by everyone?

Why is it true that property originally belonged to noone? And why is someone allowed to seize property if it does not belong to anyone?
How do we define governing. It is, simply, the power to force or significantly influence the course of life for another human being. Corporations can have such power, except that they do not have society's consent.

Yeah no. This definition is the clear equivocation of governing to really anything that affects anybody. If I'm competing for a job and am
Better skilled and qualified your idiotic definition of governing would say I'm a government and govern the guy who didn't ge the job because of me.

Your argument that the government does not have our consent to govern is rubbish. Governments have not always existed. Man created government for the protection of their interests and mutual survival. There need not be some absurd agreement to every life born, but rather the power to every life born to influence that government and its actions, be a part of it, reform it, or leave it. No one is stopping you from leaving the U.S, you have the right to do so. The fact that you still live here and not in the wild where you will truly be free means that you need the benefits of a society and you consent to getting those necessities under society's head (the state).

So no you can't provide anywhere where anyone actually consented to be governed? Also this bullsh1t tacit consent garbage you're pulling is annoying. Obviously a rapist is not justified in raping just because the person being raped doesn't flee.to make an analogy, the government is the rapist. There is nowhere one can go that is not governed. Analogously, there is nowhere I can run to that doesn't have a rapist. Now just because I choose to be raped by the least terrible rapist, lends absolutely no justification for that rape to occur.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:41:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why is it true that property originally belonged to noone? And why is someone allowed to seize property if it does not belong to anyone?

Because in the abscense of some sort of positive action, there is no prima facie reason to believe it is owned. And I already explained how property can be seized.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:46:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:22:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:46:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:22:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 7:52:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Since when does anyone need permission to "significantly influence" the lives of everyone?

Since the birth of human rights.

You have to be more specific. An argument or example would be nice.

Lockean proviso along with the derivation of the powers of government from the consent of the governed (what you seem to be ignoring is what qualifies as "governing").

Through the Lockean proviso the only justification for the conversion of common property to private property is that those who formerly had a right to that property (society) are no worse off from the conversion. If a corporation plunders water from nature and discriminates in who is allowed to buy it, that's a clear violation of the right to that water.

You're starting from te unjustified premise that property starts out owned in common rather than unowned. Can someone explain to me why property was originally owned by everyone?

1. We are alive, therefore we have a right to live.
2. The Resources of this earth are directly and entirely dependent on our survival.
3. We have an inherent right to the resources.

Having a right to something is the equivalent of having some kind of share in the ownership of it. Therefore, in the raw, natural world, all resources are owned. When labor is combined with it, it becomes private property. However, this conversion is only morally permissible if the population is not worse off with its occurrence. Pretty simple.

How do we define governing. It is, simply, the power to force or significantly influence the course of life for another human being. Corporations can have such power, except that they do not have society's consent.

Yeah no. This definition is the clear equivocation of governing to really anything that affects anybody. If I'm competing for a job and am
Better skilled and qualified your idiotic definition of governing would say I'm a government and govern the guy who didn't ge the job because of me.

Actually your idiotic example does not fit my definition. Nothing in that situation was forced. A corporation implicitly forces when it pollutes the air with factory emissions for example. This is a form of governing as it forces one to live with unclean air. If a company denies you a job, its not forcing you to live without a job, its denying you something that was never yours.

Your argument that the government does not have our consent to govern is rubbish. Governments have not always existed. Man created government for the protection of their interests and mutual survival. There need not be some absurd agreement to every life born, but rather the power to every life born to influence that government and its actions, be a part of it, reform it, or leave it. No one is stopping you from leaving the U.S, you have the right to do so. The fact that you still live here and not in the wild where you will truly be free means that you need the benefits of a society and you consent to getting those necessities under society's head (the state).

So no you can't provide anywhere where anyone actually consented to be governed? Also this bullsh1t tacit consent garbage you're pulling is annoying. Obviously a rapist is not justified in raping just because the person being raped doesn't flee.to make an analogy, the government is the rapist. There is nowhere one can go that is not governed. Analogously, there is nowhere I can run to that doesn't have a rapist. Now just because I choose to be raped by the least terrible rapist, lends absolutely no justification for that rape to occur.

calm the f#ck down, geez. You cannot sustain any kind of conversation without b!tching. I disagree with you and find you JUST as illogical and annoying as you find me. Get over it.

I didn't provide anything because I don't need to. One does not need to sign an agreement to be governed for consent to be reached. In any case, a government has the power to enforce anything because the PEOPLE are the ones that do the actual enforcing. If the whole police force, the whole army, the whole of American society is not consenting with the agreement of a government, the capitol would INSTANTLY be just another old looking uninfluential building. We consent for the government has power! It is if YOU personally do not consent that you must find or arrange some sort of hideaway. Perhaps we can create anarchyland for you somewhere on uncharted, ungoverned, land. :p You have no right to rob a consenting society of their protector.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:49:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:57:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, all resources are commonly owned; they belong to the entire human race.

Everything belongs to everyone! I, who was born in Cambridge, Mass, and have lived my whole life in the NorthEastern Unites States, have as much of a right to a rice field in central China as the man who works it every day.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:50:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:49:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:57:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, all resources are commonly owned; they belong to the entire human race.

Everything belongs to everyone! I, who was born in Cambridge, Mass, and have lived my whole life in the NorthEastern Unites States, have as much of a right to a rice field in central China as the man who works it every day.

Yes, and he has just as much right to the land that you squat on every day.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:53:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:49:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:57:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, all resources are commonly owned; they belong to the entire human race.

Everything belongs to everyone! I, who was born in Cambridge, Mass, and have lived my whole life in the NorthEastern Unites States, have as much of a right to a rice field in central China as the man who works it every day.

No, you have a right to the natural resources until labor is mixed with it, then it is someone else's private property....those resources can't even become private property (regardless of mixing) if society is worse off with it being so (see Lockean proviso). So no, the rice field in China is not yours.

That was an obnoxious strawman. No offense.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:55:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:53:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:49:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:57:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, all resources are commonly owned; they belong to the entire human race.

Everything belongs to everyone! I, who was born in Cambridge, Mass, and have lived my whole life in the NorthEastern Unites States, have as much of a right to a rice field in central China as the man who works it every day.

No, you have a right to the natural resources until labor is mixed with it, then it is someone else's private property....those resources can't even become private property (regardless of mixing) if society is worse off with it being so (see Lockean proviso). So no, the rice field in China is not yours.

That was an obnoxious strawman. No offense.

This allows for the seizing of collective property.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:55:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:38:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why is it true that property originally belonged to noone?

Why is it true that property originally belonged to someone?

And why is someone allowed to seize property if it does not belong to anyone?

Who's going to object? No one owns it.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:56:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:55:39 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:38:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why is it true that property originally belonged to noone?

Why is it true that property originally belonged to someone?

Ike just explained that.
And why is someone allowed to seize property if it does not belong to anyone?

Who's going to object? No one owns it.
It belongs to everyone. Just because you have the ability to kill people does not mean that you can steal their collective property.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:57:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:53:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
No, you have a right to the natural resources until labor is mixed with it, then it is someone else's private property....those resources can't even become private property (regardless of mixing) if society is worse off with it being so (see Lockean proviso). So no, the rice field in China is not yours.

That was an obnoxious strawman. No offense.

That's not even a strawman, let alone an obnoxious one. That is legitimately royalpaladin's position.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:59:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:55:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:53:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:49:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:57:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, all resources are commonly owned; they belong to the entire human race.

Everything belongs to everyone! I, who was born in Cambridge, Mass, and have lived my whole life in the NorthEastern Unites States, have as much of a right to a rice field in central China as the man who works it every day.

No, you have a right to the natural resources until labor is mixed with it, then it is someone else's private property....those resources can't even become private property (regardless of mixing) if society is worse off with it being so (see Lockean proviso). So no, the rice field in China is not yours.

That was an obnoxious strawman. No offense.

This allows for the seizing of collective property.

I understand, but I only support it because, like I said, seizing of collective property is only morally permissible if society is not harmed in the process. So long as all people have some kind of access to that property, it is okay to mix labor with it and turn it into marketable goods. This means that the poor MUST be helped, businesses MUST be regulated, and monopolies are broken up.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:08:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:56:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:55:39 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:38:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why is it true that property originally belonged to noone?

Why is it true that property originally belonged to someone?

Ike just explained that.
And why is someone allowed to seize property if it does not belong to anyone?

Who's going to object? No one owns it.
It belongs to everyone. Just because you have the ability to kill people does not mean that you can steal their collective property.

Ownership is subjective. So, technically, nobody "owns" anything, unless other people acknowledge this ownership.

But, there is no reason to think that everyone owns everything objectively.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:12:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:08:44 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:55:39 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:38:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why is it true that property originally belonged to noone?

Why is it true that property originally belonged to someone?

Ike just explained that.
And why is someone allowed to seize property if it does not belong to anyone?

Who's going to object? No one owns it.
It belongs to everyone. Just because you have the ability to kill people does not mean that you can steal their collective property.


Ownership is subjective. So, technically, nobody "owns" anything, unless other people acknowledge this ownership.

But, there is no reason to think that everyone owns everything objectively.

Nonsense. I have a pen right here, is it suddenly not mine because no one in the world knows its mine? Ownership is objective, ownership must be acknowledged only TO BE PROTECTED. Again, we naturally collectively own the resources of the Earth.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:12:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:55:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This allows for the seizing of collective property.

I also believe in collective property. That is, I think that if a community gets together to build a bridge, that the bridge belongs to the community. But I don't think that everyone own everything without anyone having ever set eyes or done anything with it. That's ridiculous.

No, everything is unowned and then people come along and make use of what others aren't already using.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:14:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:12:25 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:55:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This allows for the seizing of collective property.

I also believe in collective property. That is, I think that if a community gets together to build a bridge, that the bridge belongs to the community. But I don't think that everyone own everything without anyone having ever set eyes or done anything with it. That's ridiculous.

No, everything is unowned and then people come along and make use of what others aren't already using.

Let me explain this to you in the most basic syllogism possible.

P1. We are alive, therefore we have a right to live.
P2. The Resources of this earth are directly and entirely dependent on our survival.
C. We have an inherent right to the resources.

Having a right to something is the equivalent of having some kind of share in the ownership of it. Therefore, in the raw, natural world, all resources are owned. When labor is combined with it, it becomes private property. However, this conversion is only morally permissible if the population is not worse off with its occurrence. Get it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:17:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:14:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
P1. We are alive, therefore we have a right to live.

This doesn't follow. Hitler was alive, did he have a right to live? Is the death penalty always wrong?

P2. The Resources of this earth are directly and entirely dependent on our survival.

What does this mean? If the human race died out, the Earth would go on swimmingly.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran