Political Theory

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

Byzantine — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:23:25 GMT

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:
But it is not knowledge and ability upon which rights are based, but rather the natural rational capacity of man.

Please review my prior posts. I'm not the one debating rights.

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

Brainpolice — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:32:56 GMT

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Stranger:

banned:

Stranger:

And what are we supposed to do if they have not developed this capacity?

nothing?

I'm going to do something. Are you going to stop me?

Seems to me that in this discussion Byzantine is confusing capacity with knowledge or ability. Capacity is a natural biological feature. Unless you've got some sort of science fictional uplifting technology, there's nothing you can do to alter it. But I'm not aware of any normal, even primitive, human beings who lack a rational capacity. Primitive peoples only lack certain kinds of knowlege and ability. But it is not knowledge and ability upon which rights are based, but rather the natural rational capacity of man.

This is an excellent clarification.

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

Stranger — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:58:50 GMT

banned:

Stranger:
I'm going to do something. Are you going to stop me?

Depends what It is you're proposing to do.

Colonization.

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

banned — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:15:14 GMT

Stranger:
I'm going to do something. Are you going to stop me?

Depends what It is you're proposing to do.

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

Geoffrey Allan Plauche — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:13:38 GMT

Stranger:

banned:

Stranger:

And what are we supposed to do if they have not developed this capacity?

nothing?

I'm going to do something. Are you going to stop me?

Seems to me that in this discussion Byzantine is confusing capacity with knowledge or ability. Capacity is a natural biological feature. Unless you've got some sort of science fictional uplifting technology, there's nothing you can do to alter it. But I'm not aware of any normal, even primitive, human beings who lack a rational capacity. Primitive peoples only lack certain kinds of knowlege and ability. But it is not knowledge and ability upon which rights are based, but rather the natural rational capacity of man.

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

Donny with an A — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:28:27 GMT

I give up.

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

Stranger — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:52:53 GMT

banned:

Stranger:

And what are we supposed to do if they have not developed this capacity?

nothing?

I'm going to do something. Are you going to stop me?

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

Juan — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:42:44 GMT

Stranger:
Just as I thought, you're debating upon the basis of fairytale morality with no comprehension of what materially follows from your principles.

My principle is respect for private property and what follows from it is civilization. Your principle is "might makes right" - I'll let you figure out where your principle leads to.

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:41:22 GMT

Yeah, but that's a different matter, to do with custodial rights.

-Jon

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

Byzantine — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:01:32 GMT

Donny with an A:
For goodness sake, there are no human beings on the entire planet who do not have a capacity for deliberative reasoning, nor have there ever been such human beings over the entire course of recorded history!

Ever been in a prison and talked with criminal recidivists?

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

Byzantine — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:56:25 GMT

Donny with an A:
On the idea that members of "non-market" societies do not choose their lot in life, I'd point out that neither did you. You never had the opportunity to live the way that they live, and if you tried to do it now, you'd almost certainly fail without considerable assistance. I don't see how that's important. You're still talking as if you think that your culture is good and theirs is unreasonable.

I don't have to worry about surviving in the jungle because I am a member of a culture that has accreted technology and processes since its members themselves were living in reed huts and eating what they killed. This process of accretion is called civilization, and it requires a certain quantity of high IQ individuals to start and maintain. This is fact, not a value judgment, other than from the standpoint of individuals who can appreciate an above-subsistence living standard. And the fact of the mendicant Buddhist and the bucolic Amish shows that, contrary to your assertion, members of civilized society do have a choice. The primitives do not; they live as objects in their environment.

And before you throw an egalitarian hissy fit, the process works the other way as well. The white British underclass will probably devolve to pre-literacy in a few generations.

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

jnny — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:16:44 GMT

Waldavians, he says, are a miserable people; for goodness' sake, they walk around practically naked in their forests. They are barely rational and therefore barely human. They should be ashamed of themselves and of their own disgraceful way of life. Let us, that is, the Ruritanians, put them out of their misery. It may naively be objected that it is wrong to commit murder. But, our philosopher counters, once the Waldavians are gone, the Ruritanians can take their land, develop it, and consequently civilize it. The glory of Ruritania will be spread far and wide.

---------------------------------------------

jnnywllms

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4  /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}

<a href="http://www.drivenwide.com" REL="DO FOLLOW">Internet marketing</a>

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

nhaag — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:22:46 GMT

Stranger:

Alright, here's how things stand.

Mine company decides to move in to a territory populated by primitive tribes. It builds a road. The primitives think nothing of it. They find it curious, and go on with their primitive activities. Then it builds a mine and brings in workers to operate it. The primitives panic, think that the smoke is an evil omen, and attack the mine killing all the laborers on site.

What is the mining company to do? What difference is there between the primitive tribes and a pack of rabid wolves? It is purely a threat that must be contained.

Now you are claiming that the primitives own the land. Note that you are claiming that, the primitives themselves don't understand anything about any of this stuff. So you are claiming your right to own the primitives. Why would any judge protect this claim?

Well, first the difference between a pack of wolves and a primitive tribe is that they are different species. The tribe consist out of humans and therefor they have a natural right to own their property with respect to fellow members of the species.

Now to your example. On the basis that one ownes himself and everything he puts energy(labor) into - and the item he puts labor into is not rightfully owned by someone else- the mining company first has to make sure it does not aggress against the property rights of the tribe (i.e. individual tribesmen).

From the miners perspective it does not make any difference if the counterpart has no concept of property rights when it comes to aggression.

So, step one for the miners is to find out if the tribe cares to have them build a road. If they don't the miners can build.

If they do, the miners need to find out if individual tribesmen really own the land the road should be build on. What is the criteria for ownership of land? The use of it, right? Does tribesmen use the land? What means use? Use means putting labor into the land or the environment. This includes hunting, gathering, farming, terraforming etc. If the tribemen use the land, they own it. Because they own it, building a road by the mining company would be an aggression and therefor a crime. End of the idea of building a mine -unless the mining co is willing to commit a crime. If the tribesmen do not own the land, by the definition above, than the mining co is free to build a road.

Same procedure for the mine itself.

Given the mining co has acted rightly to the point it starts working the mine, it owns the road and the mine. At this point the attack of tribesmen is easily identified as the initiation of aggression, which in turn gives the miners the right to defend themselves.

So, where is the issue? There is no need to violate any rights or to define members of primitive tribes as not human in any sense. Just applying the libertarian principles of ownership solves the whole issue.

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

nhaag — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:57:44 GMT

Stranger:

Donny with an A:

For goodness sake, there are no human beings on the entire planet who do not have a capacity for deliberative reasoning, nor have there ever been such human beings over the entire course of recorded history!

And what are we supposed to do if they have not developed this capacity?

This whole question seems to be absurd. What are we supposed to do if red is blue? A human being has the capability for reasoning, because it is exactly this capability that the human species developed to differentiate itself from other species. Humans special capability is reasoning. You are trying rethoric tricks.

Your argument is like saying, what if a rock is not made of stone? A rock is made of stone, else it would not be a rock. what if a flea can not jump high? What if a fish can not breath under water?

My wife works for over 25 years with physical and mental disabled people. I would have to see the first one yet that is not capable of deliberate reasoning. Not that their capabilities are not limited, but, they are able to use their brains for reasoning, trust me.

Re: The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

banned — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:11:08 GMT

Stranger:

And what are we supposed to do if they have not developed this capacity?

nothing?