NationStates Jolt Archive

Land is not the fruit of anyone's labor.


Land is what real wealth is.

Well that's basically what you do when you inherit. Why work when you inherit a billion? Explain that to me please?
i love what i do, and i would continue to do it even if i had a billion dollars. but that's beside the point...what the hell kind of parallel are you trying to draw? you say "that's basically what you do when you inherit," but what do you mean? if somebody voluntarily leaves their child some money, how does that equate to selfish little Psylos demanding that he be given the right to take other people's money against their will?

oh, and please remember: the VAST majority of inheritance (at least 99%) is nothing close to a billion dollars. when my parents die i will inherit, but we are nothing close to even a million dollars. should my mother not be allowed to leave me her wedding ring after she dies? should my father not be allowed to leave me the stocks he owns in our family company? should our family home be sold to strangers against the wishes of my family? i know you are very excited about robbing the wealthy, but please remember that, in your enthusiasm, you will also be robbing the middle classes and the poor.

i love what i do, and i would continue to do it even if i had a billion dollars. but that's beside the point...what the hell kind of parallel are you trying to draw? you say "that's basically what you do when you inherit," but what do you mean? if somebody voluntarily leaves their child some money, how does that equate to selfish little Psylos demanding that he be given the right to take other people's money against their will?

oh, and please remember: the VAST majority of inheritance (at least 99%) is nothing close to a billion dollars. when my parents die i will inherit, but we are nothing close to even a million dollars. should my mother not be allowed to leave me her wedding ring after she dies? should my father not be allowed to leave me the stocks he owns in our family company? should our family home be sold to strangers against the wishes of my family? i know you are very excited about robbing the wealthy, but please remember that, in your enthusiasm, you will also be robbing the middle classes and the poor.You are probably right. I say limit it to €50 000 (about $66.000). Redistribute the rest.

I read a book in the stainless steel rat series that had this utopia where money was replaced by work hours.
everything you do is rated, as a child you get in debt to your parents who spend time looking after you, if you paint something that people like they can take it paying you the time it took to make it. If you make stuff on a production line the price is the time per unit. Houses cost how long it takes to build one.
You only work for as long as you need to buy your 30's you should be down to 2-3 hours a day.

great idea.

Well, if there's more than one definition, and you can't say that one is right and one is wrong, both are equally valid, then it can't be objective, can it?


No, both are NOT equally valid. Just because you don't or can't know for sure which (if any) is the objectively correct one does not mean that there is not an objectively correct one--it just means that you don't (or can't) know what it is. But that's beside the point--that's epistemology; we're arguing metaphysics.

You claim ignorance where it does not exist, under the guise of being one well versed in philosophy, I challenge that guise.

Any way. No point in either of us being uncivil.

Your statement has been read, and it does not say what you meant it to say.

If a moral obligation arises when one causes another to exist, that new individual is owed a moral obligation because they exist. As you agreed that everyone who exists, exists because another caused them to exist, then a moral obligation is owed to them by another for their existing. So, it can not be said that ones existence does not entitle them to a moral obligation from another. Which is substantially different than No one owes another a moral obligation because the other exists. The two statement are not the same.

Now, however, if someone is injured by the negligent conduct of another, is that person entitled to recover from the one who caused the accident? Under your idealogy, no, as no moral obligation has been declared by the one causing the accident that harmed the other, nor did that person cause the existence of the injured person. Thus, the one causing the accident had no moral obligation to not act negligently so as to harm others. If you look at what was written that incorporates your initial thoughts, then yes, a moral obligation is owed. Which do you think works better?

A fact is something that has been proven true or false, and that proof can be repeated. Otherwise, it is speculative. labeling something a fact means that it is true. It is a fact that car is green. It is a fact that car is not green. It is a fact that x is true, It is a fact that x is false. It is a fact that something is true or false. Alternatively, it is true that x is true, it is true that x is false. That something can be a fact is a concept that treats both the meaning of the word true and the criteria by which we judge the truth or falsity.

Just so you don't think I'm ignoring you, this requires a fairly long response so I'll get back to it later in the day when I have the time.

No, both are NOT equally valid. Just because you don't or can't know for sure which (if any) is the objectively correct one does not mean that there is not an objectively correct one--it just means that you don't (or can't) know what it is. But that's beside the point--that's epistemology; we're arguing metaphysics.

Um, yes. Both are equally valid. I define a tennis match to be "good" if it involves athletic netplay. Someone else defines a tennis match to be good if it involves lots of long rallies. It's a difference in DEFINITIONS. There isn't a valid definition or an invalid one; you can't *prove* a definition right or wrong. Now, in a sense, if everyone in the world uses one definition of the word, then if someone has a different definition then they're wrong; a word is defined by how it's used. However, if there is more than one common usage, there is no way to say whether a definition is right or wrong.

By the way, you still haven't defined what you mean when you call something "objective" as opposed to "subjective." Maybe if you stated your definition that would clear things up - after all, we can't ever reach a concensus if we're not even arguing over the same thing.

You are probably right. I say limit it to €50 000 (about $66.000). Redistribute the rest.
"redistribute," you say...and how is that anything other than a nice-sounding euphamism for "steal"? you have yet to give a single solitary reason why you, or anybody else, is entitled to ANY of the money earned by another person. you have yet to give any reason why it is just to take someone else's property against their wishes, or why the families of people who die suddenly should be punished by having their loved one's property stolen.

"redistribute," you say...and how is that anything other than a nice-sounding euphamism for "steal"? you have yet to give a single solitary reason why you, or anybody else, is entitled to ANY of the money earned by another person.
People call taxes "stealing", so that hold very little standing with me. It may not sound right to you, and it doesn't in the way you put it. The ideal is that everyone works for the common good, not for themselves. That is what you're missing.

The ideal is that everyone works for the common good, not for themselves. That is what you're missing.

That is never going to happen in a large enough society. On a small scale, it works - people know each other, slackers get punished, hard workers are more respected.

But if you have a factory with a thousand workers, individually, whether or not a person tries his hardest will not affect him in any way. He's one more cog in the machinery, and nobody will notice if he works at two-thirds speed. Likewise, nobody will care or reward him if he busts his ass and works overtime - there will be NO incentive for him to try his best.

Now, ideally, everyone would just try their best "for the benefit of society."

It would be nice if that worked.

Unfortunately, it doesn't.

I would like to know the definition of objectively good.

"redistribute," you say...and how is that anything other than a nice-sounding euphamism for "steal"? you have yet to give a single solitary reason why you, or anybody else, is entitled to ANY of the money earned by another person. you have yet to give any reason why it is just to take someone else's property against their wishes, or why the families of people who die suddenly should be punished by having their loved one's property stolen.
And you failed to justify how owning land is not stealing. How can you earn land?
BTW anyone with more than say €50 000 would have their property taken by the state, not only those who die suddently. How is that so hard to get?

And you failed to justify how owning land is not stealing. How can you earn land?
BTW anyone with more than say €50 000 would have their property taken by the state, not only those who die suddently. How is that so hard to get?

As a society we set up land barriers, and entitlements to the encompassed areas. An advanced method of defacating or spraying an area. We then distribute the rights to those areas to individuals who pay for, or are authorized to settle on them.

Reclaiming those rights without compensating the owner, or estate of the owner, is stealing. As you are taking what is not yours without consent or compensation. Depending on Government you may or may not have authority to do so. But, if the right is sold, why should the government have the authority to make such reclamations if it will once again sale the rights to the area?

As a society we set up land barriers, and entitlements to the encompassed areas. An advanced method of defacating or spraying an area. We then distribute the rights to those areas to individuals who pay for, or are authorized to settle on them.

Reclaiming those rights without compensating the owner, or estate of the owner, is stealing. As you are taking what is not yours without consent or compensation. Depending on Government you may or may not have authority to do so. But, if the right is sold, why should the government have the authority to make such reclamations if it will once again sale the rights to the area?But the government can just sell a right to exploit the land until your death, can't it? It depends on the social contract you have with your government. There is nothing more moral either way, but which type of contract is the more effective? The one which drives to feodal-like non-working dynasties or the one which makes everyone work for their wealth?

One in which you purchase the right is one which requires you to work for your wealth, and could possibly lead to feudalism. Wholly Government owned rights does the same thing. There is no difference.

One in which you purchase the right is one which requires you to work for your wealth, and could possibly lead to feudalism. Wholly Government owned rights does the same thing. There is no difference.
There is a difference when the government is not owned by dynasties but by the state.

Elaborate.

Elaborate.
No you elaborate. How can that lead to feudalism?
Feudalism is the system where serfs have no property and work for the nobility class who owns everything.
How can putting a maximum you can inherit lead to feudalism? I don't get that.

That social contracts can lead to individuals not working via trust funds does not mean that dynasties will emerge. As land does not necessarily translate into power.

I don't think social contracts will lead to feudalism, nor will unlimited inheritences. There is a possibility in third world agricultural nations where such contracts are based on relations to government officionados. But those are few.

So, Are we disagreeing? That is why I asked for elaboration.