Civil War arguments

[XxGodJrxX]

I never consensted to any law that prohibits me from killing, stealing, and raping random women. Perhaps I am not bound by those laws since I never signed a piece of paper where I agreed to such restrictions.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I never consensted to any law that prohibits me from killing, stealing, and raping random women. Perhaps I am not bound by those laws since I never signed a piece of paper where I agreed to such restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have a right to violate others' rights. That's the whole point - nobody has a right to *impose* upon *you*. Similarly, you have no right to impose murder or rape upon another. Your argument is exactly my argument, though you get it backwards.

[XxGodJrxX]

[ QUOTE ]

You don't have a right to violate others' rights. That's the whole point - nobody has a right to *impose* upon *you*. Similarly, you have no right to impose murder or rape upon another. Your argument is exactly my argument, though you get it backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]



Okay, then, where do rights come from? The Lockian argument is that there are natural rights to life, liberty, and property, but I do not believe that. It seems to me that we would first have to agree that there are such rights to begin with, and I do not agree that there is. If I do not agree that the rights to life, liberty, and property are actually natural, then how can your concept of "rights" stop me from taking your life, liberty, or property?

I did not read the Liberterian Creed, but by the sound of the don's post, it sounds like it is a Lockian argument.

I am, of course, speaking hypothetically. I am not a Lockian, but I will still use his principles againt you when it serves my interests [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You don't have a right to violate others' rights. That's the whole point - nobody has a right to *impose* upon *you*. Similarly, you have no right to impose murder or rape upon another. Your argument is exactly my argument, though you get it backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]



Okay, then, where do rights come from? The Lockian argument is that there are natural rights to life, liberty, and property, but I do not believe that. It seems to me that we would first have to agree that there are such rights to begin with, and I do not agree that there is. If I do not agree that the rights to life, liberty, and property are actually natural, then how can your concept of "rights" stop me from taking your life, liberty, or property?

I did not read the Liberterian Creed, but by the sound of the don's post, it sounds like it is a Lockian argument.

I am, of course, speaking hypothetically. I am not a Lockian, but I will still use his principles againt you when it serves my interests [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read the Rothbard chapter. He logically explains why property rights are consistent with human nature and the reality of human existence. I mean, expand upon the alternative--the right of every human to exert force on other--and see where that leads.

You assert that without formal law, everyone would start using force because there would be no state to prevent them. It is only rational to assume that by using force, one expects force to be used on them in return. Therefore, in every thread you seem to imply that humans want force to be exerted upon them. I contend that this is not the case. Some people will always choose to use force, regardless of the presence of the state. The other people, who are against this use of force, will demand restitution against those who use it. You seem to be implying that the former will overwhelm the latter. I contend that this is contradictory to human nature.

[XxGodJrxX]

I didn't say that people want force used on them, but that people will use force against others out of necessity. I would contend that human nature is the same as every other animal and plant in the world. The most important thing to something that is living, is to preserve itself. Look at the animals in the wild, they kill each other constantly because they feel that it would be better for them. I look out my window, and I see ducks that live in a large group, fight all the time because of food and sex.

I agree that it is in our interests to not kill each other, but without anything to prevent us, we will. You say that the majority will punish the minority that uses force, but they will do so by using force. It is an endless cycle that I do not think will stop without any agreement. An agreement to not use force, and punish those that do, is government.

I think we're going off-topic here, so lets get back to the Civil War [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that people want force used on them, but that people will use force against others out of necessity. I would contend that human nature is the same as every other animal and plant in the world. The most important thing to something that is living, is to preserve itself. Look at the animals in the wild, they kill each other constantly because they feel that it would be better for them. I look out my window, and I see ducks that live in a large group, fight all the time because of food and sex.

I agree that it is in our interests to not kill each other, but without anything to prevent us, we will. You say that the majority will punish the minority that uses force, but they will do so by using force.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you fail to note is the difference between *initiation* of the use of force and the use of force *in response* to force.

[ QUOTE ]
An agreement to not use force, and punish those that do, is government.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Government *REQUIRES* the use of (unprovoked) force.

[XxGodJrxX]

[ QUOTE ]

No. Government *REQUIRES* the use of (unprovoked) force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do governments require the use of force? My definition of government comes straight from Hobbes and Locke. Are you trying to say that a government is only a government when there is killing? How about if there was a government, but there was not taxation and no war; would that NOT be a government in your eyes? It seems to me that your bias against government is not letting you see what they actually are.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
I never consensted to any law that prohibits me from killing, stealing, and raping random women. Perhaps I am not bound by those laws since I never signed a piece of paper where I agreed to such restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you seem to be conflating law and government (namely the necessity of the State to deem something "illegal"). Some laws are natural; there is a basic principle of property rights, which is logically consistent with human nature.

Read about it here.

Oh yeah, I am still waiting for a decent justification for the "two wrongs make a right" argument (slavery and death in order to end slavery). Additionally, I would like to know why popular opinion seems to believe that it was worth 600,000 lives in order to "preserve the union."

[XxGodJrxX]

I don't think the Civil War was about ending slavery, it was about saving the union. You're framing the question in such a way so that no answer can satisfy you. If instead of 600,000 deaths, there were only a hundred, you will still be against it. You will always be against it because you feel that it was wrong, and that is fine. Lincoln, and most people, do not feel that it is wrong. Since we do not feel that it is wrong, then the cost was worth it, especially in hindsight.

I think that when one talks about wars, preconceived notions of right and wrong grounded in morality are moot. A more utilitarian approach is more useful in my opinion. From a utilitarian point of view, it was in the Union's best interest to keep the south in the United States. I highly doubt that the United States would be as powerful as it is now if it had not preserved the union.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
From a utilitarian point of view, it was in the Union's best interest to keep the south in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt that the United States would be as powerful as it is now if it had not preserved the union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, okay... that's why. So you think that a powerful government is good for the utility of the people. For the moment, I will assume that interpersonal utility comparisions are feasible and that the concept of "ultilitarianism" has validity. You appear to be aware that the Civil War set the precedent for "big government." This means state forced involuntary servitude (conscription), an increase in coercive theft of property (taxes), and the many ineffecient government monopolies (run by bureaucracies). So you are telling me that society is better off because of these things? Death induced by slavery, extortion of funds, and the uniformity and inefficiency of government monopoly are REALLY good for society.

Now, given that it is a fact that interpersonal utility comparisions are not possible (humans are not homogenous)... imagine these things from the perspective of the individual?