nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/17/90)
ellis@chips.sri.com (Michael Ellis) posts... >> Jon Allen Boone >> Phil Ronone > >>> Of course, this totally justifies what the NAZI's did to the Jews. >>> After all, they had enough poeple. What happened was part of the "social >>> contract". > >>Aha! Name calling! What the Nazi's did to the Jews... > > I certainly didn't think Phil was name calling. Of course he was name-calling. He hasn't shown any ability to to actually counter an idea he disagrees with with an idea of his own yet in this discussion. > He was showing > something very wrong with your position: If rights are and > ought to be whatever the majority at any given point decides, then > there is nothing wrong if a majority votes away all rights and > gives total power to a small elite. Something very much like that > happened in Nazi Germany. Certain rights must be absolutely > unvotable-away. That is the important sense in which rights ought > to be more primordial than government itself. Perhaps so, but this discussion has been about HOW we decide what those rights are and WHO gets to make those decisions. Earlier, Mr. Ellis posted that... # If it is your point that rightness or wrongness are not # scientifically verifiable, I am in full agreement with you. So just how DOES he propose that we determine what rights must be unvotable-away? Actually the question is purely academic; in the Real World nothing is unvotable-away, which has been my point all along. But Mr. Ellis says they "must" be. Why "must" they be? ---Peter
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/17/90)
Y'know, when this thread started it was MY stereo we were
talking about. Now its Phil Ronzone's. I guess that
answers the question about how many it takes...
(Actually it just confirms my claim that its all social consensus.)
Richard H. Graham posts...
>In article <2818@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>-- I have a counter-question: how many people does it take to
>--agree to treat "your" stereo as "yours" in order to make it
>--yours? Just you? Ten? Ten million?
>-
>-The answer is one. AND only one.
>-
>...
>-Social contract - justification of theft by a few by invoking the specter
>- of the many. See Divine Right of Kings and Fascism.
>
>This is all well and good, but I'm still waiting for your basis of the
>concept of ownership.
>
>If there is some basis of a concept of ownership that is more basic and
>more substantial, I'd like to hear it.
Don't hold your breath. Phil will probably call you some names
or make some catcalls but don't expect him to actually *explain*
anything he says. That's not his style.
---Peter ellis@chips.sri.com (Michael Ellis) (01/19/90)
> Peter Nelson > [Phil] hasn't shown any ability to to actually counter an idea he > disagrees with with an idea of his own yet in this discussion. What makes you think your postings are in any way superior to Phil's? > Perhaps so, but this discussion has been about HOW we decide what > those rights are and WHO gets to make those decisions. > Earlier, Mr. Ellis posted that... ># If it is your point that rightness or wrongness are not ># scientifically verifiable, I am in full agreement with you. > So just how DOES he propose that we determine what rights must > be unvotable-away? Evidently your memory is very short. I just gave you a classic example of an argument that voting rights should be unvotable-away. I will repeat it. ME> If rights are and ought to be whatever the majority at any given ME> point decides, then there is nothing wrong if a majority votes ME> away all rights and gives total power to a small elite. Something ME> very much like that happened in Nazi Germany. Certain rights must ME> be absolutely unvotable-away. That is the important sense in which ME> rights ought to be more primordial than government itself. This is of course not a mathematical or scientific argument. You've got to give up your idiotic notion that the subject of ethics might have anything to do with scientific verifiability. The continued failure of the human sciences should make it pretty clear that science is not a particularly practical way to understand human beings and their real world problems. > Actually the question is purely academic; in the Real World > nothing is unvotable-away, which has been my point all along. Constitutions, like promises, corporations, and other artifacts of the human mind, are exactly what we make of them. That, however, is not arbitrary, in the sense that I can arbitrarily assume that promises are frogs or laboratory tables. They are arbitrary in the sense that what they are is determined by consensus and agreement Now constitutions, like promises, are part of the real world insofar as the participants are determined to abide by their conditions. They aren't, like physical laws, automatically obeyed. If humans could figure out a more practical and just way to do things, we might indeed decide to do away with the whole machinery of constitutions and laws and rights and so on. Now a government is (or ought to be) whatever its constitution says it is. The most obvious and direct way to make rights unvotable-away is to write that very declaration right into the government's constitution. By definition, such rights are un-votable away, and so long as the people are determined to protect that constitution, that right will stand protected, barring attack from without. Note something remarkable here: the consensus is determined to protect something that overrides the even will of the consensus itself, namely the will of the individual. The question isn't academic; it is a practical, real world issue; or at least it remains a real world issue to the extent that it involves commitment and practical action. > But Mr. Ellis says they "must" be. Why "must" they be? The prima facie evidence is on my side. That voting rights must be unvotable-away is the practical conclusion from the experience of generations of humans trying out different ways of government. Recent events in eastern europe seem to bear this out. If you think otherwise, the burden of the proof is on you. >-michael
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/19/90)
Phil Ronzone posts.... >I assume by this unimaginative concept the American revolution >would have never happened. Peter Nelson to the founding fathers ... > "Come guys -- give it up. Live in the real world. There have > always been Kings and Divine Right. There always will be. > Besides, the Kings has more soldiers than us. Get real." Mr. Ronzone and others on this net may be surprised that my *personal* moral values are probably not terribly different from most other people's, or at least most people who have strong moral opinions about things. Nor do I shrink easily from a fight with long odds against me. ( if I did would I be posting articles critical of Objectivism and Libertarianism on alt.individualism???? ) The SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION is whether a *universal* standard for ethical behavior can be derived from simple observations about objective reality. Objectivists claim that not only can it be done, but that Objectivism does it. I claim that neither Objectivism nor any other philosophy or religion successfully derives a universal ethical standard. Steve Mason was trying to support the objectivist viewpoint when we last heard from him. And David Friedman and Gene Ward Smith seem to be saying that the distinction between physical reality and consensual moral reality is a non-issue; that if moral truths are perceived as true by consent that this makes them as true as truths about physical objects. [ correct me if I'm oversimplifying] But it is not clear to me how they would use this to sort out differences of opinion on moral issues. The odd thing is that, by this juncture Phil Ronzone seems to be agreeing with me about the lack of a universal standard, whereas when he started off I thought he was defending O'ism: > I assert that every human being has the right to their own life (as well > as various classes of tangible property). > A result of that assertion is that slavery, infanticide, Stalinism, Nazism, > murder, etc. is WRONG because it violates that right. > It IS an assertion. It is not engraved in rocks, it is not encoded in our > genes. > If you don't agree, that is YOUR business. ...which, of course, is how I claim the whole world works. ---Peter
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/19/90)
Michael Ellis posts... >># If it is your point that rightness or wrongness are not >># scientifically verifiable, I am in full agreement with you. > >> So just how DOES he propose that we determine what rights must >> be unvotable-away? > > Evidently your memory is very short. I just gave you a classic > example of an argument that voting rights should be unvotable-away. > I will repeat it. > >ME> If rights are and ought to be whatever the majority at any given >ME> point decides, then there is nothing wrong if a majority votes >ME> away all rights and gives total power to a small elite. Something >ME> very much like that happened in Nazi Germany. Certain rights must >ME> be absolutely unvotable-away. That is the important sense in which >ME> rights ought to be more primordial than government itself. >Peter> So just how DOES he propose that we determine what rights must >Peter> be unvotable-away? > This is of course not a mathematical or scientific argument. > You've got to give up your idiotic notion that the subject of > ethics might have anything to do with scientific verifiability. This is *not* MY idiotic notion! It is the Objectivists who have been claiming that ethical values are subject to logical, objective analysis! I only brought up science to compare how a REAL objective, rigorous approach works, to contrast it with the Objectivist's alleged intellectual rigor. Sheeesh! > The continued failure of the human sciences should make it pretty > clear that science is not a particularly practical way to > understand human beings and their real world problems. No kidding! I've been saying all along, and other readers of the net will verify, that *nobody* has demonstrated the ability to apply scientific principles to ethical, political, or other large-scale human phenomena. Remember, the original thread here was about Objectivism. >> Actually the question is purely academic; in the Real World >> nothing is unvotable-away, which has been my point all along. > > Constitutions, like promises, corporations, and other artifacts of > the human mind, are exactly what we make of them. That, however, > is not arbitrary, in the sense that I can arbitrarily assume that > promises are frogs or laboratory tables. They are arbitrary in the > sense that what they are is determined by consensus and agreement ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bingo, Mike! Who do you think started the "rights as social convention" thread? ( hint: his initials are P.N.) It is interesting that a week or so ago both Mr. Ellis and Mr. Ronzone appeared, to me anyway, to be defending the notion that there exists some absolute, universal ethical standards and at least hinting that it is possible to divine what this standard might be. But in the last day or so they both seemed to have retreated from this position. ---Peter
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/19/90)
Michael Ellis posts... >> In other words, Phil doesn't care WHO has property >> rights as long as HE has property rights. > > Really Peter, Phil didn't say that, and from his past articles, > I don't think he meant anything of the sort. From what I can make > out from past articles, my guess is he'd support anyone whose > rights had been violated. My reference was to that specific article, not to any of his past articles. He said: #I DON'T decide WHO has property rights. That may be the burning #issue in your mind, but not mine. Implying that the general or theoretical issue of property rights was not important to him ...and then saying... #I ASSERT that my property is my property and that no one has #the right to take it without my permission. ^^^^^ ...implying that the question of *his* property rights WAS important to him. Which is what I meant when I said " In other words, Phil doesn't care WHO has property rights as long as HE has property rights. " Perhaps a bit obscure which is why I included the underline ("^^^^"), which you left out of your quote. ---Peter
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/20/90)
(Phil Ronzone) writes: >So if I choose not to buy a product, say, Coors beer, because I don't >like the politics of the owner of Coors then I'm censoring or >violating some type of freedom???? Nope. You're showing your true colors concerning tolerance of opposing political views. You're discriminating economically against someone on the basis of political ideology. I don't think that's appropriate any more than doing so on the basis of race. >And I can't get a bunch of my friends to boycott a product either? I don't know how the word "can't" got into this. Of course you can. Your ability to do so is (and should be) protected by the laws of the US. >So everybody that is not buying Exxon products because of the >oil spill is censoring Exxon, right? No. They're discriminating economically against a corporation on the basis of its business practices. Here's an example. If you were organizing a boycott and wanted me to participate, I would do so if your reasons had to do with the product (an unsafe toy, gasses that deteriorate the ozone...) or some other practices of the corporation (destruction of the environment, discriminatory hiring practices, ...). I wouldn't participate if the boycott were due to the ethnic background, sexual practices, religious or political beliefs of the employees or owners of the company. And if that were the case, I would (as I'm doing now) try to persuade you to give up your boycott and fight your battle in a different arena. As another example, my decision on whether or not to hire you as a unix system manager would depend on your ability to do the job, not on the ideas you posted to alt.individualism. >I don't tolerate socialism, communism, fascism, Pol Pot, N. Korea, >Vietnam, PRC, and Albania. So what form does that intolerance take? Say I was a communist. Would you: A. Kill me. B. Beat me. C. Persuade people to shun my business practices to the point of my financial ruin. D. Persuade people to reject me as a tennant to the point of my becoming homeless. E. Argue with me, and try to change my opinions. F. Not vote for me or my candidates. G. Not vote for candidates who might enact some of my ideas. -- Richard H. Graham University of Pittsburgh - CIS rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/20/90)
In article <481d3c46.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: >#I DON'T decide WHO has property rights. That may be the burning >#issue in your mind, but not mine. > > Implying that the general or theoretical issue of property > rights was not important to him Not at all. And is stupid of you to post such. Stupid not as an insult but as an accurate description. I DON'T decide WHO has property rights, any more than I decide who lives or who dies. It is NOT in my domain by issues or morality. A King, Fascist, Dictator, Politburo DOES decide WHO has property rights and who live and dies, all immorlly of course. As is obvious to even those of limited intellectual abilities of reading and comprehension, I AM concerned about general and theoretical issues of property rights. For you to post otherwise is stupid. Or knavish. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------