NationStates Jolt Archive

Nah, centrists are just people who are afraid of taking a stand in case they're wrong. ;)

I don't know that I'd use the word utopian, utopian implies that there will be no problems, and I'm quite certain that even in the world I propose there will be. I advocate the system because it will have the fewest problems.

In addition, if we don't have ideals to strive for then how do we make a system better other than envisioning an ideal and trying to make the current system resemble it?

Some of us Centrists only end up that way after they tally up their 'points' and find out they're sitting on the fence. I thought I was right-of-centre until I realized how 'left' Canada is in comparison to the rest of North America.

I mention utopian because I have hard time believing anarchy would work, but I'm not here to rehash that one.

Ideals are great. But I prefer pragmatism. I'm sure Mao had good intentions with his Great Leap Forward. I'm sure there are idealists who can't wait until 'Judgement Day' when we won't be arguing about political systems because 'the Big Boss' will be in charge again. "The road to hell..."

And part of decreasing crime is decreasing a person's ability to commit crimes.

Not if you eliminate or reduce the capacity of people to corrupt others.
I cannot agree to that. I'm not comfortable banning actions that might lead to harm because other actions might result from them. First, such restrictions on the supply side of problems rarely work. The War on Drugs has made little progress, as have attempts to limit access to guns. The simple fact is that as long as there is demand for criminal activity, trying to shut off the supply is going to be a waste of money. I'd rather see my money spent reducing the demand for crime in a number of ways. Programs to discourage kids from joining gangs that will commit crimes, programs to encourage the responsible use of guns and programs to discourage the use of marijuana are all, in my opinion, better solutions than just banning guns, marijuana and gangs and assuming we've fixed the problem. If you want to lower crime, reduce the demand for crime through social programs like health care, education and welfare so that people don't feel the need to rob somebody in the first place.

Trying to cut off people's decision to do the right or wrong thing does not make people any more moral. How can they be more moral when they are never given the choice? A man with murderous tendencies does not give up because he can't find a gun and a heroine addict does not stop doing heroine because he can't find a clean needle. Supply restrictions to demand based problems might make us feel good that we're doing something, like how we see the large drug busts on TV, but it's a false sense of security.

Exactly, the race to the bottom, dragging wages down to the lowest country's wages.
But that's not what I said...

People leave region X to get jobs in region Y where there is an economic boom. Wages in region X go up because there is more competition for workers than there was before people left.

Meanwhile in region Y, wages are already higher. People from region X arrive and begin to depress wages, but they will only depress them to the extent that they match the new, higher wage in region X. Thus, the wage is higher across the board.

By the way, not only have wages gone up, costs have also gone down, meaning the workers gain on two fronts.

Now do you see what I mean?

Nothing ad hominen about it. It is my subjective evaluation (based on observation) of the likely cause of the apparent firmness of your belief.

Then so was mine.

Why do you feel a need to engage in such behaviour?

Because I don't have the patience to reiterate the minutia of my argument, let alone a description of the state of nature.

Because I don't have the patience to reiterate the minutia of my argument, let alone a description of the state of nature.
Reiterating anything you've posted already is unnecessary.

If by 'state of nature' you are referring to the imaginary 'pre-social' or 'non-social' human state, then I dont need a description of it. I am familiar already with it, and also with the way in which we can trace it back to the false 'nature/social' dichotomy, and also with how it is a culturally particular notion - as are the natural rights that you seem to be arguing are universal to all people, yet also claim exist by virture of 'our concieving of and understanding them'.

So does some people's concieving and understanding cause the right to exist for other people, or does the right only exist for some people and not other people, or are 'people' who dont concieve and/or understand the 'right' you describe, actually not really people?

So far as I can tell you are arguing for the existence of something that you've not posited a satisfactory 'how' or 'why' for, and that you can only argue for by appeal to imaginary, non-existent scenarios such as the 'hypothetical state of nature', and which you call a right, but which bears no resemblence to any 'right' other than in the sense of the common misuse of the word (ie to describe how someone wishes the world was)...

If by 'state of nature' you are referring to the imaginary 'pre-social' or 'non-social' human state, then I dont need a description of it. I am familiar already with it, and also with the way in which we can trace it back to the false 'nature/social' dichotomy, and also with how it is a culturally particular notion - as are the natural rights that you seem to be arguing are universal to all people, yet also claim exist by virture of 'our concieving of and understanding them'.

1. The social negotiation of rights as mitigated by the state has not always existed.

2. The state of nature is best viewed as a hypothetical human state, in which to determine the most just form of government.

3. For a quality to exist within the state of nature, it must be shown to exist outside the exclusive positive law negotiated within the social contract.

So does some people's concieving and understanding cause the right to exist for other people, or does the right only exist for some people and not other people, or are 'people' who dont concieve and/or understand the 'right' you describe, actually not really people?

The definition of a "person" is varied and I don't want to get into what constitutes a person.

However, the right is granted simply by existence, it is held and exercised through understanding. One who understands their ability to search for self-preservation cannot lose it until they are no longer conscious of it or they no longer exist.

When one has the right to free speech, the right exists in the person, but they do not exercise it until they understand the ability and responsibility that the right contains.

1. The social negotiation of rights as mitigated by the state has not always existed.
That it is utterly irrelevent given we are not talking about an absence of state, we are talking about absence of social interaction.

2. The state of nature is best viewed as a hypothetical human state, in which to determine the most just form of government.
Why use an imaginary condition that premises a condition contrary to reality and contrary to human nature in order to determine anything? That doesnt make good sense.

3. For a quality to exist within the state of nature, it must be shown to exist outside the exclusive positive law negotiated within the social contract.
For a quality to exist in an imagined construct, it must be imagined by someone to exist within it....''the state of nature" that you are appealing to is imaginary, it does not and never has existed.
Why do you think you can prove the existence of something based on an appeal to something that has never existed?

The definition of a "person" is varied and I don't want to get into what constitutes a person.

However, the right is granted simply by existence, it is held and exercised through understanding.
What in effect is the difference between a granted right and a held right from the position of the person granted and/or holding the right?

One who understands their ability to search for self-preservation cannot lose it until they are no longer conscious of it or they no longer exist.
One who can see does not lose their ability so long as they have it - that doesnt making 'seeing' a right. The ability to search for self-preservation is a capacity, not a 'right' granted by existence.

When one has the right to free speech, the right exists in the person, but they do not exercise it until they understand the ability and responsibility that the right contains.
People can exercise the right to free speech without understanding it or the responsibility is contains. Even if they couldnt I dont see the relevence given that the right to free speech is one that is not universal but rather only exists where some authority allows and/or grants it.

That it is utterly irrelevent given we are not talking about an absence of state, we are talking about absence of social interaction.

When one is discussing rights, the presence or absense of the state is always relevant.

Why use an imaginary condition that premises a condition contrary to reality and contrary to human nature in order to determine anything? That doesnt make good sense.

Because it helps us justify the actions and legislation of the state by setting a benchmark of no legislation. When we assume no legislation, we can then begin to speculate as to the benefits and costs of positive law.

For a quality to exist in an imagined construct, it must be imagined by someone to exist within it....''the state of nature" that you are appealing to is imaginary, it does not and never has existed.
Why do you think you can prove the existence of something based on an appeal to something that has never existed?

I am not appealing to the state of nature. I am appealling the internal quality of this particular natural right. Since it cannot be bestowed or taken by positive law, we can assume it to be a present in what would be the state of nature.

What in effect is the difference between a granted right and a held right from the position of the person granted and/or holding the right?

There is no difference.

One who can see does not lose their ability so long as they have it - that doesnt making 'seeing' a right. The ability to search for self-preservation is a capacity, not a 'right' granted by existence.

True, but there is a difference between sight and working for self-preservation.

Seeing is a capacity, choosing what to look at is a right. Reason is a capacity, reasoning how to promote one's self-preservation is a right.

People can exercise the right to free speech without understanding it or the responsibility is contains. Even if they couldnt I dont see the relevence given that the right to free speech is one that is not universal but rather only exists where some authority allows and/or grants it.

I am just trying to show that rights are received simply by having a qualifying characteristic, they are held and practiced by the understanding.

When one is discussing rights, the presence or absense of the state is always relevant.
Such a statement is contrary to your earlier statements regarding the qualities of this particular alledged right. Since it cannot be granted or taken away by any authority (according to you) the existence or not of a state is not relevent.

Because it helps us justify the actions and legislation of the state by setting a benchmark of no legislation.
I dont believe this particular imagining does that at all. Rather it leads to silly statements about non-existent rights.

When we assume no legislation, we can then begin to speculate as to the benefits and costs of positive law.
What's that got to do with this 'state of nature'? If we want to 'assume no legislation' it would make more sense to look at real examples of socieites without 'positive legislation' than some imaginary misleading concept.

I am not appealing to the state of nature. I am appealling the internal quality of this particular natural right. Since it cannot be bestowed or taken by positive law, we can assume it to be a present in what would be the state of nature.
So you are telling me that in an imaginary circumstance that is contrary to reality, this alledged right would exist. Right. I dont see how the claim that this alledged right would exist in an imaginary situation that is contrary to reality, proves anything about this alledged right in reality. It certainly doesnt demonstrate that it exists.


There is no difference.
Then your statement
"However, the right is granted simply by existence, it is held and exercised through understanding. "
is self contrary.
It is granted simply by existence (if existence then right)
It is held through understanding (if right then understanding)
Granted and understanding have the same identity (If granted then held and if held then granted and if not granted then not held and if not held then not granted)

True, but there is a difference between sight and working for self-preservation.
Not one that is materially relevent. What is the difference between this 'right' and 'sense of self-preservation'?

Seeing is a capacity, choosing what to look at is a right. Reason is a capacity, reasoning how to promote one's self-preservation is a right.
Sometimes people can choose what to look at, sometimes they cant; people's capacity to reason and their sense of self preservation do not equal a right.

I am just trying to show that rights are received simply by having a qualifying characteristic, they are held and practiced by the understanding.
Recieved from where, what or who?
What on earth do you mean by a right?
I dont believe in this right to life of yours. Diseases, other animals, other people, time - to name just a few can detract from people's capacity to exercise the capacity you are apparently conflating with a right. What is this right binding on? What does it offer the individual that the individual doesnt have with the capacities alone (ie if we assume this right isnt 'just there' then what's the difference?)...

Such a statement is contrary to your earlier statements regarding the qualities of this particular alledged right. Since it cannot be granted or taken away by any authority (according to you) the existence or not of a state is not relevent.

The state is relevant in contrasting natural rights to those rights granted by positive law. The state is necessary in granting rights via positive law, so a right can be considered natural when its existence is not contingent on the state or positive law.

I dont believe this particular imagining does that at all. Rather it leads to silly statements about non-existent rights.

A great portion of modern political philosophy is based on the reasoning behind the social contract and the state of nature. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls all based some of their political philosophy in it. If I can't explain it well enough for you, refer to them.

What's that got to do with this 'state of nature'? If we want to 'assume no legislation' it would make more sense to look at real examples of socieites without 'positive legislation' than some imaginary misleading concept.

If you can find an example, go for it.

I would like to point out that you said that the concept was imaginary, yet said that there are real life examples.

So you are telling me that in an imaginary circumstance that is contrary to reality, this alledged right would exist. Right. I dont see how the claim that this alledged right would exist in an imaginary situation that is contrary to reality, proves anything about this alledged right in reality. It certainly doesnt demonstrate that it exists.

The state of nature does not counter reality.

Then your statement
"However, the right is granted simply by existence, it is held and exercised through understanding. "
is self contrary.
It is granted simply by existence (if existence then right)
It is held through understanding (if right then understanding)
Granted and understanding have the same identity (If granted then held and if held then granted and if not granted then not held and if not held then not granted)

I don't even think logic that poor even has a fallacy.

If A then B
If C then D
Therefore A=D.

Not one that is materially relevent. What is the difference between this 'right' and 'sense of self-preservation'?

That depends on what you mean by the sense of self-preservation. I only know of five senses.

I dont believe in this right to life of yours. Diseases, other animals, other people, time - to name just a few can detract from people's capacity to exercise the capacity you are apparently conflating with a right.

Explain to me how disease or animals can separate someone from their ability of self-preservation.

Some of us Centrists only end up that way after they tally up their 'points' and find out they're sitting on the fence. Oh, I know, some people who are centrists genuinely believe in centrism, which means that they get the best of both worlds, or the worst of both worlds, depending on your viewpoint.

I thought I was right-of-centre until I realized how 'left' Canada is in comparison to the rest of North America. Yes, the rest of the countries are, sadly, right-wing.

I mention utopian because I have hard time believing anarchy would work, but I'm not here to rehash that one. Fair enough. I wouldn't mind talking about it, but that isn't the purpose of this thread and I don't wish to hijack it?

Ideals are great. But I prefer pragmatism. How do you determine what is practical before determining what is possible? How do you determine what is possible before trying it?

I'm sure Mao had good intentions with his Great Leap Forward. I'm not.

I'm sure there are idealists who can't wait until 'Judgement Day' when we won't be arguing about political systems because 'the Big Boss' will be in charge again. "The road to hell..."Lol. I'd like to think I'm not like those people.

I cannot agree to that. I'm not comfortable banning actions that might lead to harm because other actions might result from them. First, such restrictions on the supply side of problems rarely work. The War on Drugs has made little progress, as have attempts to limit access to guns. The simple fact is that as long as there is demand for criminal activity, trying to shut off the supply is going to be a waste of money. I'd rather see my money spent reducing the demand for crime in a number of ways. Programs to discourage kids from joining gangs that will commit crimes, programs to encourage the responsible use of guns and programs to discourage the use of marijuana are all, in my opinion, better solutions than just banning guns, marijuana and gangs and assuming we've fixed the problem. If you want to lower crime, reduce the demand for crime through social programs like health care, education and welfare so that people don't feel the need to rob somebody in the first place.That isn't exactly what I meant. In the arena of corruption, corruption is usually done through the act of bribery. If you equalize income, it becomes harder to bribe people.
(Equality of income would also allow social programs like health care (or, preferably socialized medicine) education and welfare, as well, although a country with no unemployment wouldn't need welfare.)

Trying to cut off people's decision to do the right or wrong thing does not make people any more moral. How can they be more moral when they are never given the choice? A man with murderous tendencies does not give up because he can't find a gun and a heroine addict does not stop doing heroine because he can't find a clean needle. Supply restrictions to demand based problems might make us feel good that we're doing something, like how we see the large drug busts on TV, but it's a false sense of security.
I'm not concerned with whether or not people are more moral. Ideally, they would be, but there isn't much that society can do to make people more moral. What society can do is decrease the possibility of effect of immoral actions.

But that's not what I said...

People leave region X to get jobs in region Y where there is an economic boom. Wages in region X go up because there is more competition for workers than there was before people left.

Meanwhile in region Y, wages are already higher. People from region X arrive and begin to depress wages, but they will only depress them to the extent that they match the new, higher wage in region X. Thus, the wage is higher across the board.

By the way, not only have wages gone up, costs have also gone down, meaning the workers gain on two fronts.

Now do you see what I mean?How does wages decreasing in region Y cause higher wages across the board?

That isn't exactly what I meant. In the arena of corruption, corruption is usually done through the act of bribery. If you equalize income, it becomes harder to bribe people.
(Equality of income would also allow social programs like health care (or, preferably socialized medicine) education and welfare, as well, although a country with no unemployment wouldn't need welfare.)
I thought of a dozen different ways to respond to this, but this is what I finally arrived at. I work harder than most people. I do it because I value money more than most people. Please do not make all my hard work go towards all the people that have scorned how hard I work. I can live with some of it going towards some people, but please, not all.

How does wages decreasing in region Y cause higher wages across the board?
The wage in Y has already gone up because of the economic boom. The arrival of new people cannot depress that wage to lower than its original point because any movement lower would cause people to leave that region and go elsewhere, perhaps back to X. However, as we established before, the wage in X has already gone up as people left.

The moment a single person leaves from X, the wage goes up in X, if only by a little. If there is a boom elsewhere it assumes at least a few people will leave, which means that the wage will go up in X. Similarly, the wage in Y, as established, cannot dip below the new higher wage in X. Therefore, in the event of any sort of boom, the wage has to go up.

If you don't understand, that's fine, but if you're just forcing me to type in circles to tire me out, please stop.

EDIT: Just so we're clear, you're fine with telling people exactly what they can and cannot do so they act within your moral and ethical boundaries?

I thought of a dozen different ways to respond to this, but this is what I finally arrived at. I work harder than most people. I do it because I value money more than most people. Please do not make all my hard work go towards all the people that have scorned how hard I work. I can live with some of it going towards some people, but please, not all.Well, on one hand it was your decision to work harder than everyone, so you're welcome to do so, but on the other hand if you stop working harder than other people, you'll have an increased amount of free time.

The wage in Y has already gone up because of the economic boom. The arrival of new people cannot depress that wage to lower than its original point because any movement lower would cause people to leave that region and go elsewhere, perhaps back to X. However, as we established before, the wage in X has already gone up as people left.Not everyone has the capacity to move, some people will accept the wages being lower than they were before.

The moment a single person leaves from X, the wage goes up in X, if only by a little. Not necessarily, if the economy in X is in decline, there will simply be more unemployment there.

If there is a boom elsewhere it assumes at least a few people will leave, which means that the wage will go up in X. Similarly, the wage in Y, as established, cannot dip below the new higher wage in X. Therefore, in the event of any sort of boom, the wage has to go up.And then go down in the event of a recession.

If you don't understand, that's fine, but if you're just forcing me to type in circles to tire me out, please stop.No, I understand, I simply disagree with your assessment.

EDIT: Just so we're clear, you're fine with telling people exactly what they can and cannot do so they act within your moral and ethical boundaries?I don't know of anyone who doesn't tell people what they should do, to a degree.

Well, on one hand it was your decision to work harder than everyone, so you're welcome to do so, but on the other hand if you stop working harder than other people, you'll have an increased amount of free time.
So if I don't work hard I get the same amount of money and more free time? Why would I work hard?

Not necessarily, if the economy in X is in decline, there will simply be more unemployment there.

And then go down in the event of a recession.
And the fact that we tend to expand rather than contract suggests that overall wages are on an upward global trend. Even your assessment suggests that wages go up in the case of economic prosperity.

I don't know of anyone who doesn't tell people what they should do, to a degree.
Not to the extent that you're suggesting.

So if I don't work hard I get the same amount of money and more free time? Why would I work hard?You would probably only work for as many hours as society wants you to work.

And the fact that we tend to expand rather than contract suggests that overall wages are on an upward global trend. More money being made does not always translate to higher wages for the workers.

Even your assessment suggests that wages go up in the case of economic prosperity.Yes, they go up, then down, often below the level of what they were before the economy became prosperous.

Not to the extent that you're suggesting.<shrug> If I can't find enough people who agree with me then I will need to modify my ideals.

You would probably only work for as many hours as society wants you to work.
Or I'd leave your society, unless you plan on forcing me to stay. I mean, you're already forcing me to work "as many hours as society wants", wouldn't it be unacceptable if your best and brightest thought they deserved better and left?

More money being made does not always translate to higher wages for the workers.
It usually does.

Yes, they go up, then down, often below the level of what they were before the economy became prosperous.
I'm sorry, but what's your proof for that?

Or I'd leave your society, unless you plan on forcing me to stay. I mean, you're already forcing me to work "as many hours as society wants".Naturally, if you didn't like my society, you'd leave. If you can find a society you like, wonderful. If not, you have the option of subsistence farming (This is why I said it should be an option.)

I'm sorry, but what's your proof for that?Well, in spite of the various economic booms that we've had in the U.S., many people are poorer, in spending power, than they were in 1970. This situation was mitigated somewhat by the minimum wage being raised in '96/'97, but not completely so.

Naturally, if you didn't like my society, you'd leave. If you can find a society you like, wonderful. If not, you have the option of subsistence farming (This is why I said it should be an option.)
I editted that a few minutes ago

Well, in spite of the various economic booms that we've had in the U.S., many people are poorer, in spending power, than they were in 1970. This situation was mitigated somewhat by the minimum wage being raised in '96/'97, but not completely so.
And many developing nations are richer. That's why I talk about a global economy.

Or I'd leave your society, unless you plan on forcing me to stay. I mean, you're already forcing me to work "as many hours as society wants", wouldn't it be unacceptable if your best and brightest thought they deserved better and left?I don't see it as being likely that all of the best and brightest would leave, I believe the system I propose would be in their best interests, as well. It is a possibility, if it does happen some income inequality would come about, although I would personally oppose it.

And many developing nations are richer. That's why I talk about a global economy.But again, this isn't an across the board increase.

I don't see it as being likely that all of the best and brightest would leave, I believe the system I propose would be in their best interests, as well. It is a possibility, if it does happen some income inequality would come about, although I would personally oppose it.
Well good luck, I guess. If people are willing to consent to your system I guess that's fine by me. Personally, I would not.

But again, this isn't an across the board increase.
And it isn't because we don't have fully global policies. Borders are not as open as they could be and numerous tariffs still exist.

Well good luck, I guess. If people are willing to consent to your system I guess that's fine by me. Personally, I would not.Good. I envision a world where there are no national borders, just differing societies with different systems, where people can move around to find the system that's best for them.

And it isn't because we don't have fully global policies. Borders are not as open as they could be and numerous tariffs still exist.Wouldn't opening the borders and removing the tariffs decrease wages here even more?

bomp

The state is relevant in contrasting natural rights to those rights granted by positive law. The state is necessary in granting rights via positive law, so a right can be considered natural when its existence is not contingent on the state or positive law.
The State is not relevent for the kind of 'natural rights' you appear to have advocated throughout the thread.

States are only relevent if you hold that any and every society that has rules and/or laws, but that doesnt have a state, are examples of this particular 'state of nature' concept you are referring to.


A great portion of modern political philosophy is based on the reasoning behind the social contract and the state of nature. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls all based some of their political philosophy in it. If I can't explain it well enough for you, refer to them.
As I have tried to communicate, I am aware of the varied and contrary concepts/notions that go under the general rubrics of 'natural rights' 'state of nature' etc.

Such an appeal to authorities is supposed to convince me that your belief is reasoned rather than hegemonic how exactly?

However, just for fun, I'll play along. So which of these fine folk are actually correct (or closest to being correct) about 'the state of nature', and in what details (if any) does their version of the 'state of nature' deviate from reality?

If you can find an example, go for it.
Pre-assimulation !Khung

I would like to point out that you said that the concept was imaginary, yet said that there are real life examples.
I dont doubt you would like to point it out....however I have never stated that the concept of a society existing without state-legislation was imaginary...as it happens my understanding is more human societies throughout time and space have been without state than with. This is of course why I pointed out that if you want an example of what life looks like without state legislation, there are plenty of 'real world' expamples without going off into imagination-land.

The state of nature does not counter reality.
Really? Which 'state of nature' doesnt run counter to reality? Hobbes' Locke's or Roussau's....?

I don't even think logic that poor even has a fallacy.

If A then B
If C then D
Therefore A=D.

LOL, dont you recognise it? It's not my logic Vitto...it was simply a short listing of your own premises.
Ok, I'll go a bit slower this time

You have stated that the right is granted by existence

You have stated that the right is held through understanding

You have stated that to be granted the right is the same as to hold the right

However "existing" and "understanding the particular right 'x'" do not have identical truth values. The premises you have posited are inconsistent with each other.

That depends on what you mean by the sense of self-preservation. I only know of five senses.

If you prefer, I'll rephrase for clarity..
What is the difference between this 'right' you alledge, and the desire to avoid pain, death, unpleasantness, etc?

Explain to me how disease or animals can separate someone from their ability of self-preservation.
Disease could destroy the physical structure of the brain that facilitates the processes necessary for the capacity of 'self preservation'.


PS:oops, I been away for a few days otherwise I would have posted sooner...;)

A main argument of free market capitalism is that wealth brings justice. I mean, that's essentially what it boils down to. Start with sweatshops, build wealth, sweatshops close and living standards increase, build more wealth and things just kind of creep upwards on the social justice scale. Closing down sweatshops (according to this theory) is therefore bad, and works AGAINST the 'evolution' of social justice.



I fear that this is the only version of social justice that capitalism allows for ... the "rising tide floats all boats" argument. Of course, as my friend pointed out, the rising tide does not help you much if you can't afford a boat. Then you just drown. But I suppose under the logic of the free market that is your own fault.

The State is not relevent for the kind of 'natural rights' you appear to have advocated throughout the thread.

States are only relevent if you hold that any and every society that has rules and/or laws, but that doesnt have a state, are examples of this particular 'state of nature' concept you are referring to.

You are correct that the state is irrelevant to the existence of these natural rights. You are also correct that practicality does not allow us to observe rights in the 'state of nature.'

However, those two facts make considerations of the state necessary to determine the existence of natural rights.

Those rights that exist regardless of state intervention are those rights that we can call natural, as they are innate to the person. In order to determine these rights, we must consider the state and society, and those effects that they have on the individual. When we remove those effects, we take the independent person and consider those qualities remaining to be natural. Therefore all rights that are not effected when the state and society is removed are natural rights.

Now, are you going to argue that we cannot construct theoretical models to help us comprehend concepts?

As I have tried to communicate, I am aware of the varied and contrary concepts/notions that go under the general rubrics of 'natural rights' 'state of nature' etc.

Such an appeal to authorities is supposed to convince me that your belief is reasoned rather than hegemonic how exactly?

However, just for fun, I'll play along. So which of these fine folk are actually correct (or closest to being correct) about 'the state of nature', and in what details (if any) does their version of the 'state of nature' deviate from reality?

I don't know, I have never read any of their political philosophy directly, only summaries. I am not sure how much of a correlation rests between their opinions and my own.

My suggestion was to read them so that you could take in other more respected explanations of the subject.

Pre-assimulation !Khung

What?

Really? Which 'state of nature' doesnt run counter to reality? Hobbes' Locke's or Roussau's....?

My own doesn't counter reality as it holds true to all aspects of reality, with only human constructs of society and state taken out.

LOL, dont you recognise it? It's not my logic Vitto...it was simply a short listing of your own premises.
Ok, I'll go a bit slower this time

You have stated that the right is granted by existence

You have stated that the right is held through understanding

You have stated that to be granted the right is the same as to hold the right

However "existing" and "understanding the particular right 'x'" do not have identical truth values. The premises you have posited are inconsistent with each other.

I see.

You took my answer to this question:

"What in effect is the difference between a granted right and a held right from the position of the person granted and/or holding the right?"

and applied it to this question:

"What in effect is the difference between granting a right and holding a right from the position of the person granted and/or holding the right?"

You see, while the granted right and the held right are still the same right, the actual granting of the right and holding of the right are different processes altogether.

And yes you took my premises:

If granting (existence) then right
If right then holding (understanding)

then applied a logical fallacy that I don't know the name of, creating a conclusion that you could show was contradictory:

granting (existence) = holding (understanding)

The premises still stand, it was your deduction that was invalid. I have held all along that rights are both granted and held, and that the granting and holding are separate.

If you prefer, I'll rephrase for clarity..
What is the difference between this 'right' you alledge, and the desire to avoid pain, death, unpleasantness, etc?

The conscious act. That is where the holding comes in.

Disease could destroy the physical structure of the brain that facilitates the processes necessary for the capacity of 'self preservation'.

So if we assume my definition of right to life, then we can assume that the possession of the right is contingent on one's consciousness of it.

I fear that this is the only version of social justice that capitalism allows for ... the "rising tide floats all boats" argument. Of course, as my friend pointed out, the rising tide does not help you much if you can't afford a boat. Then you just drown. But I suppose under the logic of the free market that is your own fault.

The moral statement of capitalism says that no one else should be forced to build a boat for you.

While I have not participated in this particular debate, and I have no interest in further bogging it down... I would like to add some comments on this "state of nature" concept. Hopefully, I can clarify things... although I won't get my hopes up. This is NS. :)

The State is not relevent for the kind of 'natural rights' you appear to have advocated throughout the thread.

States are only relevent if you hold that any and every society that has rules and/or laws, but that doesnt have a state, are examples of this particular 'state of nature' concept you are referring to.It would help if Vittos could be more specific about his concept of the state of nature. The answer to this question is, in effect, "it depends."

In my previous dealings with Vittos, I have pegged him as basically a Lockean. (While this may have been sometimes unfair, I maintain that it has been more or less accurate.) On that assumption, he should respond that any society that has no state is in the state of nature. Locke maintains that people discover money and commerce, and economic relations in general, in the state of nature. In fact, he seems to argue that people only "emerge" from the state of nature when they discover/institute private property, and they require state power to protect their property.

(Of course, even this argument depends on one's definition of the "state". It makes some sense to argue, for instance, that feudal society was stateless, since its political arrangments amounted to negotiations between wealthy landed parties. Locke seems to approach this definition to the extent that he insists that the state must incorporate all property-holders, and not merely the hereditary nobility.)

Interestingly, from what I have read of the current debate it seems that Vittos is to a large extent abandoning the Lockean logic of natural rights, while he remains mired in Locke's language. This may be leading to some of the confusion. Locke reasons his way to natural rights (especially the natural right to property) in a muddy sort of way that relies on a combination of Christian theology and assumptions about "human nature." He starts (as does Vittos) with a "right to life" for each individual and reasons that each individual has an extended "right" to the necessaries for her/his life, including property with which to preserve her/himself. For Locke, this right exists independent of human society essentially because it's "what God wants." It continues into human society largely because Locke assumes that there is "no other way" we could live. Indeed, at one point in the First Treatise he basically admits that his argument for "natural" inheritance rights rests on the "fact" that human beings can find no other way to preserve their children... but, of course, many societies collectively care for their children without the need for individual inheritence from parent to child.

Anyway, Vittos seems to be taking a different tack this time, arguing instead that "natural" rights are those rights that rational people will (or must) agree to in order to have any kind of association whatsoever. In the history of philosophy, this is a more Rawlsian approach (or Hobbesian, on a certain reading of Hobbes). It admits that there is no "God" or "higher power" that can establish a basis for rights outside of human association, and it admits that there probably is no life worth speaking of outside of human association. Instead, it asks, "what rights and immunities constitute the bare minimum within which society can exist?" Or, equivalently, "what are the immunities without which society could not exist?"

There have been a variety of answers to this question, many of which rely on an imaginary "state of nature" as a rhetorical device used to establish, on rational grounds, the ends of human society (or, depending on your argument, "the state"). The argument generally goes something like this: assuming people who live without common rules or government, what sort of society might they come up with? If we assume (for rhetorical purposes), that they are equals in this decision, what rights would they insist on? What could they not do without?

Kant makes the case that this mode of reason is necessariliy engaged in a process of universalization, starting with the self. In other words, what I should ask is, "What could I not do without?" Then, since reason (according to Kant) leads me to regard others as moral equals, I must conclude that if I would not wish a circumstance on myself, I should not wish it on anyone else, either.

The "problem" with this line of reasoning, for some persistent "natural rights" theorists, is that it blurs the line between "natural" rights and positive rights. (Most professional theorists have given up on the idea of natural rights.) Nevertheless, if natural rights are going to be saved, it will probably be in a manner similar to this.

So which of these fine folk are actually correct (or closest to being correct) about 'the state of nature', and in what details (if any) does their version of the 'state of nature' deviate from reality?The differences between them are obviously profound.

Hobbes' "state of nature" was all too real... He was living through it, in the context of the violent religious wars devastating seventeenth-century Europe. For practical purposes, large areas were lawless and heavily victimized by criminals, armies, and other opportunists. For Hobbes, life in the "state of nature" seemed "nasty, brutish, and short"... because that is the sort of life far too many of his fellows were living. He did not think that the "state of nature" was a mere construct, or a theory about the past: he thought that it was a very real description of the modern world without a state (and he said so).

Locke's "state of nature" is the most contradictory, since it apparently includes both a relatively peaceful time prior to the invention of money, as well as the contentious period after the invention of money but before the institution of the state.

Rousseau's "state of nature" is based, in part, on his (mis)perceptions of the "noble savage" of North America. Rousseau has no theory of "natural" rights, focusing instead on the problems of positive law. Kant is similar in this regard.

Rawls doesn't care to speculate about an "actual" state of nature. His is explicitly imaginary, along the lines discussed above.

Which 'state of nature' doesnt run counter to reality? Hobbes' Locke's or Roussau's....?For my part, I would answer that Hobbes' is an extremely accurate description of life without political organization (which does not necessarily mean a "state")... and especially when this lack of organization takes place in the context of modern technology. Rousseau's, while idealized, is a fair description of what life might be like for gatherer-hunters, both those that exist today and those that were the precursors of more "advanced" societies. Locke is, as far as I am concerned, a buffoon. ;)

You are correct that the state is irrelevant to the existence of these natural rights. You are also correct that practicality does not allow us to observe rights in the 'state of nature.'

However, those two facts make considerations of the state necessary to determine the existence of natural rights.
No they dont.

Those rights that exist regardless of state intervention are those rights that we can call natural, as they are innate to the person.
Why? Is the decision to remove particular natural traits and attributes of human existence and human nature, rather than say other traits and attributes arbitary, or is there some method to this apparent madness?

In order to determine these rights, we must consider the state and society, and those effects that they have on the individual.
So if there is no state but is society, the earlier statement states any society granted/maintained rights would be 'natural rights' yet now you state you have to determine the effects of society as well as states....:confused:

Ignoring this contradiction, it is non-sequitor at best to suggest that we need to determine and 'conceptually elimanate' the effects of 'the natural state of humans' in order to determine their 'natural rights'...why on earth would considering a human 'state of being' that is less natural than any known human 'state of being' be necessary in order to determine 'natural rights'?

When we remove those effects, we take the independent person and consider those qualities remaining to be natural.
So basically you remove a number of the set 'natural qualities' then call what's left natural qualities. For whatever reason you choose to do this, it sure as heck does not demonstrate the existence of natural rights.

Therefore all rights that are not effected when the state and society is removed are natural rights.

There are no such rights - never have been - never will be. The 'natural rights' category you describe is an empty set outside of conceptualisation and imagination.

Now, are you going to argue that we cannot construct theoretical models to help us comprehend concepts?
I dont see the relevence of the question, but if it puts you at ease I dont see that I'd argue exactly that in the forseeable future.

I don't know, I have never read any of their political philosophy directly, only summaries. I am not sure how much of a correlation rests between their opinions and my own.
Probably were not the best authorities to base a fallacious appeal to authority argument on then....:rolleyes:

My suggestion was to read them so that you could take in other more respected explanations of the subject.
I'm familiar with their explanations. Again, I dont disagree because I 'dont understand' rather I disagree because of my understanding...

What?

You wanted an example of a stateless society. I gave you one.

My own doesn't counter reality as it holds true to all aspects of reality, with only human constructs of society and state taken out.
No. Your own counters reality - your removal of 'human constructs' is non-sequitor, as is your removal or 'sociality'. I dont know how many ways to explain this - sociality is the 'state of nature' for human beings. Social groups are necessary products of human existence - if you posit a concept that removes 'sociality' and 'living in societies' from the 'human state' then you are positing a concept that is contrary to reality. Human constructs are no less natural than lion constructs, sociality is no less inherently a part of the human state of nature than is eating or sleeping.

I see.
You took my answer to this question:
"What in effect is the difference between a granted right and a held right from the position of the person granted and/or holding the right?"
and applied it to this question:
"What in effect is the difference between granting a right and holding a right from the position of the person granted and/or holding the right?"
You see, while the granted right and the held right are still the same right, the actual granting of the right and holding of the right are different processes altogether.
And yes you took my premises:
If granting (existence) then right
If right then holding (understanding)
then applied a logical fallacy that I don't know the name of, creating a conclusion that you could show was contradictory:
granting (existence) = holding (understanding)
The premises still stand, it was your deduction that was invalid. I have held all along that rights are both granted and held, and that the granting and holding are separate.
No you dont see. As I stated in my earlier thread it is a list of premises, no deduction was included....if you conclude that I deducted anything then I dont know what you are see, but it's not what I typed.

The conscious act. That is where the holding comes in.

Right, so if you have the desire but are in every single way constrained from converting that desire into a conscious act, then what...?

[/quote]So if we assume my definition of right to life, then we can assume that the possession of the right is contingent on one's consciousness of it.[/QUOTE]
As judged by who or what? At what age do we consider human infants concious enough of their right to life to have it? At what point do we consider mental function sufficiently degraded that the person has absolutely no 'right to life'?

I believe YES it is possible. Is it possible in the USA? Thats a different question. I believe the answer to that one is NO. The system here is too corrupt and far gone.

No they dont.

OK.

Why? Is the decision to remove particular natural traits and attributes of human existence and human nature, rather than say other traits and attributes arbitary, or is there some method to this apparent madness?

While the drive to create society may be a natural trait among humans, the results of their efforts may not always be what they would have naturally wanted. Often the drive (or necessity) to be a member of society will cause someone to agree to circumstances that are counter to their own self-interest.

In order to determine whether a state is just, we must determine whether the citizens of this society would freely agree to its rule. When we remove the effects of the state, we create a model where people are free of those arbitrary factors and can act in their own self-interest, this model being the 'state of nature'. When we deduce how they would behave and how they would negotiate rights, we can deduce what is a fair government in terms of positive rights, and what rights were not negotiable in the first place.

Because no one within this negotiation of rights would or could negotiate their right to life, we can consider it a 'natural' right.

So if there is no state but is society, the earlier statement states any society granted/maintained rights would be 'natural rights' yet now you state you have to determine the effects of society as well as states....:confused:

You are correct, I muddle my phrasing because I am lumping any society which conveys positive rights into the state category. The definition of state comes into play here, and I am not simply referring to a state as a government with powers of violent enforcement.

Ignoring this contradiction, it is non-sequitor at best to suggest that we need to determine and 'conceptually elimanate' the effects of 'the natural state of humans' in order to determine their 'natural rights'...why on earth would considering a human 'state of being' that is less natural than any known human 'state of being' be necessary in order to determine 'natural rights'?

Because humans have advanced beyond the point of 'herd animal'. Society is not the end-all for humans, it is only a means to the end. The true end for any person would and should be self-interest. So a creation of a model dedicated purely to allowing for self-interest is more natural than models of society.

While we can assume that humans will socialize out of necessity, we cannot assume that that socialization is the cause of all human traits, qualities, and rights. Nor can we assume that a person would agree to complete elimination of the self in order to join society. In other words, we assume that a person has a 'self' that is free of society, and that the person would not give away all of that 'self' to join society.

There are no such rights - never have been - never will be. The 'natural rights' category you describe is an empty set outside of conceptualisation and imagination.

It is your refusal to acknowledge the conceptualization that causes you to see them as an empty set. You won't accept that we can form a model to extract the effects that socialization has on human rights.

No. Your own counters reality - your removal of 'human constructs' is non-sequitor, as is your removal or 'sociality'. I dont know how many ways to explain this - sociality is the 'state of nature' for human beings. Social groups are necessary products of human existence - if you posit a concept that removes 'sociality' and 'living in societies' from the 'human state' then you are positing a concept that is contrary to reality. Human constructs are no less natural than lion constructs, sociality is no less inherently a part of the human state of nature than is eating or sleeping.

Then we can assume that the genocide of 6 million jews was the result of a natural human processes, even on the part of the Jews? That 20 million Russians had a natural preference to starve to death?

I don't know how many times to explain this - the state of nature is not an attempt to make humans anti-social creatures. It is an attempt to determine what would be a just society.

I am creating a model of the state of nature, a pre-societal state, and assuming that humans not only have the natural desire to be social creatures, but also the rational desire to be social creatures in order to optimize their well-being.

No you dont see. As I stated in my earlier thread it is a list of premises, no deduction was included....if you conclude that I deducted anything then I dont know what you are see, but it's not what I typed.

I never have stated that third premise, so I assumed it was your deduction.

Right, so if you have the desire but are in every single way constrained from converting that desire into a conscious act, then what...?

Then you are no longer conscious.

As judged by who or what? At what age do we consider human infants concious enough of their right to life to have it? At what point do we consider mental function sufficiently degraded that the person has absolutely no 'right to life'?

Good, at least we are getting somewhere. That is the first time you have addressed a point instead of an outright denial of the point.

As to your question. It would depend on the reasonable certainty we can assume that there is no conscious effort of self-preservation. Terri Schiavo, for example, could be assumed with reasonable certainty to have lost it.

Infanticide is much murkier. (Understatement perhaps?) I do not trust society's judgement on when the someone achieves that conscious awareness. My opinion is that positive law should extend protection up until the point where we can be sure that the natural right cannot exist.

The moral statement of capitalism says that no one else should be forced to build a boat for you.

You are right. It is much more moral to let your fellow man drown, while you feel all smug and superior.

You are right. It is much more moral to let your fellow man drown, while you feel all smug and superior.

Governmental justice is not the same as individual morality.

OK.
While the drive to create society may be a natural trait among humans, the results of their efforts may not always be what they would have naturally wanted.
So? Whether the results are what we want or not has no bearing on whether the results are natural or not.

Often the drive (or necessity) to be a member of society will cause someone to agree to circumstances that are counter to their own self-interest.
And so? Are you suggesting this is somehow not natural?

In order to determine whether a state is just, we must determine whether the citizens of this society would freely agree to its rule. When we remove the effects of the state, we create a model where people are free of those arbitrary factors and can act in their own self-interest, this model being the 'state of nature'. When we deduce how they would behave and how they would negotiate rights, we can deduce what is a fair government in terms of positive rights, and what rights were not negotiable in the first place.
Er no...humans dont form societies like this.

Because no one within this negotiation of rights would or could negotiate their right to life, we can consider it a 'natural' right.
Why would or could they not negotiate with another to attain a right to life?

You are correct, I muddle my phrasing because I am lumping any society which conveys positive rights into the state category. The definition of state comes into play here, and I am not simply referring to a state as a government with powers of violent enforcement.
ok

Because humans have advanced beyond the point of 'herd animal'.
Advanced? Ok, what do you mean by herd animal, and what do you mean by advance, I see that we have evolved along a particular trajectory but I dont see that gives rise to a measurement of 'advancement beyond the point of herd animal'....truth to tell I'm not sure what you mean by herd animal. Is a bonobo (chimp) a herd animal?

Society is not the end-all for humans, it is only a means to the end.
That's a big statement, I'm not convinced you can substantiate it.

The true end for any person would and should be self-interest.
By would do you mean 'were reality not the reality that it is then...'? Should is a moral imperative - ie it is an opinion statement. You might think that should be the case, but I dont see any reason to believe it and to be entirely honest I'm even certain if you mean 'should' as in "so far as I can deduce this is how it should work out" or as in "because it is good and right this is how it should work out". Do you mean should as in nearest you can figure or should as in to your mind it would be 'good and/or right' if it were so?

So a creation of a model dedicated purely to allowing for self-interest is more natural than models of society.
No it quite simply is not. A model of a never has existed imaginary state that doesnt even make conceptual sense is not a more natural model (for understanding the condition of being human) than models that are based on what actually happens in reality.

While we can assume that humans will socialize out of necessity, we cannot assume that that socialization is the cause of all human traits, qualities, and rights.
Assumptions aside we know that both humans and society are interpenetrative and interdependent. Neither is the cause entire of the other.

Nor can we assume that a person would agree to complete elimination of the self in order to join society.
In order to be a complete functioning person, a human must be socialised. The socialisation is a necessary condition for the self. No person is a whole self and not already a social member.

In other words, we assume that a person has a 'self' that is free of society, and that the person would not give away all of that 'self' to join society.

Right, another words you make a false assumption that ignores the reality of the human condition. There is no 'self seperate from society', society is a constituent of a human being 'self'. This is not a minor by the way point, it is the whole point.

It is your refusal to acknowledge the conceptualization that causes you to see them as an empty set. You won't accept that we can form a model to extract the effects that socialization has on human rights.
I have acknowledged the conceptualisation - I acknowledge that you can form a model from it, but since no human right makes sense if you extract sociality then I dont acknowledge that the model is usefully employed to this end.
I know you think its a failure on my part Vittos, but have you considered that if you read the actual philosphers you kindly directed me to (instead of second hand summaries thereof) you might see things more like I do? Is there a good reason why you would assume that of two people the one failing to understand concepts is the one that has actually read them first hand instead of in summarised format?

Then we can assume that the genocide of 6 million jews was the result of a natural human processes, even on the part of the Jews? That 20 million Russians had a natural preference to starve to death?
So far as I can tell these events were entirely natural.

I don't know how many times to explain this - the state of nature is not an attempt to make humans anti-social creatures. It is an attempt to determine what would be a just society.
I dont know how many times I need to tell you that I understand this - again I direct your attention to the fact that I am probably more familiar with the concept than you are, I at least have read Hobbes, Locke and Roussau and even a little Rawls......
I understand that it is a conceptual paradigm
I understand that it is supposed to make it possible to assess what humans would be like if they were in a natural rather than a social state, the problem is Vittos 'natural rather than social' is a false dichotomy. Persons do not have 'selves' free from society, persons are partially constituted by societies just as societies are consituted in part by the persons who belong to them. There is no good reason to extract sociality in order to see the state of nature unless you posit a false nature/society dichotomy.

I am creating a model of the state of nature, a pre-societal state, and assuming that humans not only have the natural desire to be social creatures, but also the rational desire to be social creatures in order to optimize their well-being.

In doing so you are creating a model of a state that never existed, doesnt exist and probably never will exist. I dont see that imagined models are more representitive of or better for annalysing 'the state of nature' than are actual occurences within nature (ie human societies).

I never have stated that third premise, so I assumed it was your deduction.
I asked what differentiated the two and you (if I recall) replied that the two were the same.

Then you are no longer conscious.

That is not so far as I can tell true.

Good, at least we are getting somewhere. That is the first time you have addressed a point instead of an outright denial of the point.

What? You realise the onus of making points lies with you since you argue the affirmative, I need only counter what you argue due to the 'problem of proving absence' dilema.

As to your question. It would depend on the reasonable certainty we can assume that there is no conscious effort of self-preservation. Terri Schiavo, for example, could be assumed with reasonable certainty to have lost it.
So mere existence is not sufficient?

Infanticide is much murkier. (Understatement perhaps?) I do not trust society's judgement on when the someone achieves that conscious awareness. My opinion is that positive law should extend protection up until the point where we can be sure that the natural right cannot exist.
Right, see this just leaves me wondering again what you think a 'right' is. Why would society need to extend protection to any natural right unless natual rights are not actually rights, but rather moral imperatives, wish lists 'ideal world constituents' or some similar such?

Governmental justice is not the same as individual morality.

Who said anything about governmental justice? You raised the issue of morality.

I'm not advocating for anyone having to build a boat for anyone else. I am advocating for people having access to the tools and materials they need to build one.

So? Whether the results are what we want or not has no bearing on whether the results are natural or not.

But the difference between the practical results and the hypothetical results can be used to show whether the results are just or not.

If we can show that practical society does not represent what a free people would have agreed upon, then we can assume that it is unjust in some matter.

I am not arguing that society isn't a natural human construct, what I would argue is that society can cause individual members of society to behave in manners that are unnatural.

And so? Are you suggesting this is somehow not natural?

I am saying that in the perspective of the individual compromising himself, yes, it is unnatural. No man would freely remain or join a society or social structure that did not better his situation.

Er no...humans dont form societies like this.

Hence the need for the model.

Why would or could they not negotiate with another to attain a right to life?

Because the right to life as I have defined it is inseparable from the person, except for the willful release of it, and no man would willfully offer his self-preservation in negotiation the negotiation.

Advanced? Ok, what do you mean by herd animal, and what do you mean by advance, I see that we have evolved along a particular trajectory but I dont see that gives rise to a measurement of 'advancement beyond the point of herd animal'....truth to tell I'm not sure what you mean by herd animal. Is a bonobo (chimp) a herd animal?

We have developed consciousness of self, the concept of individuality, we understand ourselves as something independent of the congregation.

Granted, advanced was a poor choice of words.

That's a big statement, I'm not convinced you can substantiate it.

The person's end should be himself, society exists merely as a mean to promote that end. I accept personhood as an end in itself as a moral absolute, but I don't have much substantiation for that other than that is how I want my personhood viewed.

By would do you mean 'were reality not the reality that it is then...'? Should is a moral imperative - ie it is an opinion statement. You might think that should be the case, but I dont see any reason to believe it and to be entirely honest I'm even certain if you mean 'should' as in "so far as I can deduce this is how it should work out" or as in "because it is good and right this is how it should work out". Do you mean should as in nearest you can figure or should as in to your mind it would be 'good and/or right' if it were so?

For should, I mean that I believe justice allows for people to be their own ends, and for would I mean that under the hypothetical model people would be their own ends.

No it quite simply is not. A model of a never has existed imaginary state that doesnt even make conceptual sense is not a more natural model (for understanding the condition of being human) than models that are based on what actually happens in reality.

You are correct, the model that exists is more natural than the model I am trying to create. But the practical model does not necessarily represent the most natural preferences of those individuals that constitute it.

Assumptions aside we know that both humans and society are interpenetrative and interdependent. Neither is the cause entire of the other.

People are not the sole cause of the society they form?

In order to be a complete functioning person, a human must be socialised. The socialisation is a necessary condition for the self. No person is a whole self and not already a social member.

Agreed, but a free person can disassociate himself from society.

Right, another words you make a false assumption that ignores the reality of the human condition. There is no 'self seperate from society', society is a constituent of a human being 'self'. This is not a minor by the way point, it is the whole point.

In other words, I consider that society is not a necessary constituent of the fully formed self. Once the self is formed, society becomes an option.

I have acknowledged the conceptualisation - I acknowledge that you can form a model from it, but since no human right makes sense if you extract sociality then I dont acknowledge that the model is usefully employed to this end.
I know you think its a failure on my part Vittos, but have you considered that if you read the actual philosphers you kindly directed me to (instead of second hand summaries thereof) you might see things more like I do? Is there a good reason why you would assume that of two people the one failing to understand concepts is the one that has actually read them first hand instead of in summarised format?

I have already said that I am not entirely interested in forming my ideas around that of those philosophers. I imagine that, were I to read their arguments I would find where my opinions disagree with theirs.

My concepts are not Locke's concepts, they are not Rawl's concepts, they are my own. However you seem far more interested in addressing my arguments as if they were that of Locke, Hobbes, or Rawls.

So far as I can tell these events were entirely natural.

So Jews can be assumed to naturally walk themselves in to gas chambers?

I dont know how many times I need to tell you that I understand this - again I direct your attention to the fact that I am probably more familiar with the concept than you are, I at least have read Hobbes, Locke and Roussau and even a little Rawls......
I understand that it is a conceptual paradigm
I understand that it is supposed to make it possible to assess what humans would be like if they were in a natural rather than a social state, the problem is Vittos 'natural rather than social' is a false dichotomy. Persons do not have 'selves' free from society, persons are partially constituted by societies just as societies are consituted in part by the persons who belong to them. There is no good reason to extract sociality in order to see the state of nature unless you posit a false nature/society dichotomy.

I am trying to show what form society would take were people to allowed to negotiate the social contract naturally.

In doing so you are creating a model of a state that never existed, doesnt exist and probably never will exist. I dont see that imagined models are more representitive of or better for annalysing 'the state of nature' than are actual occurences within nature (ie human societies).

I see societies as having a strong coersive power. Therefore I would argue that practical models of society do not represent the natural interests of those individuals involved.

Would individuals freely composing a society accept the rule of a tyrant.

I asked what differentiated the two and you (if I recall) replied that the two were the same.

No, you asked whether a granted right and held right were the same, I replied that those rights are the same. I never said that the granting and holding are the same.

So mere existence is not sufficient?

No, consciousness is also required.

Right, see this just leaves me wondering again what you think a 'right' is. Why would society need to extend protection to any natural right unless natual rights are not actually rights, but rather moral imperatives, wish lists 'ideal world constituents' or some similar such?

You know what, you are correct, I completely redefined the right to life for that portion. We have absolutely no call or reason to make determinations on the when the right to life is held, as it is completely internal.

So infanticide is not even related to the right to life as I have defined it.

But the difference between the practical results and the hypothetical results can be used to show whether the results are just or not.
So really we are not looking at what is natural, but rather what is 'desirable' (ie justice).

If we can show that practical society does not represent what a free people would have agreed upon, then we can assume that it is unjust in some matter.
Being unjust is not however necessarily unnatural.

I am not arguing that society isn't a natural human construct, what I would argue is that society can cause individual members of society to behave in manners that are unnatural.
I dont believe for a moment that if members of a society behave a certain way, that that behaviour is unnatural. On the contrary if it occurs and there is no reason to assume supernatural intervention, it (whatever it is) must be natural.

I am saying that in the perspective of the individual compromising himself, yes, it is unnatural. No man would freely remain or join a society or social structure that did not better his situation.
Here is a huge flaw in the seperation of the social from the whole. What a person believes to be compromising (to themselves) and what a person beleives constitutes 'better' are not indepedent of their socialisation. If you remove socialisation what is left is not a 'whole person'.

Hence the need for the model.
Er, no, hence the irrelevancy of the model.

Because the right to life as I have defined it is inseparable from the person, except for the willful release of it, and no man would willfully offer his self-preservation in negotiation the negotiation.

So the right to life does not protect a person from being murdered by another person in this 'contractual negotiation'? If it does protect the person (ie prevents another person determined to murder them from doing so) please explain how. If it doesnt then you must conceed that a person in the position of the potential murder victim could negotiate with the potential murderer in order to not be murdered. That would certainly seem to me that their right to life (in the form of not being murdered in the immediate future) had been negotiated.

We have developed consciousness of self, the concept of individuality, we understand ourselves as something independent of the congregation.

Granted, advanced was a poor choice of words.

We dont know to what extent other animals have developed such capacities, however I would point out that they are capacities and do not so far as I can see translate into a 'right'.

The person's end should be himself, society exists merely as a mean to promote that end. I accept personhood as an end in itself as a moral absolute, but I don't have much substantiation for that other than that is how I want my personhood viewed.
Say's you. There are whole societies where such a veiw is non-existant or is entirely out of sorts with the beliefs of the society at large. This is why the model you wish to employ is so very flawed. It is becase you were socialised in a culture characterised (to a great extent) by by the philosophy 'individualism' that you hold such a belief. Other societies do not understand the world and themselves like this. There is no evidence that the Euro-Western way of looking at the world is any more true than alternatives. The point is that the view of humans as 'individuals' is not universal, it is culturally particular. Things that are culturally particular are learned during socialisation. If you remove socialisation we have no idea what a person would believe is the relationship between themselves a possible society, what is better, whether the person is the means to the end of society or vice-versa. You conclusion about what people would choose in the absence of having been 'socialised' is in fact the direct result of your socialisation. You may believe everyone would act as you state minus socialisation, but you only think that because of your particular socialisation.

For should, I mean that I believe justice allows for people to be their own ends, and for would I mean that under the hypothetical model people would be their own ends.

So in other words what you mean is 'it is my opinion that' - the point is your opinion very obviously stems from your socialisation. People differently socialised might have a very different opinon, and some in fact do.

You are correct, the model that exists is more natural than the model I am trying to create. But the practical model does not necessarily represent the most natural preferences of those individuals that constitute it.

Neither does your model. It simply substitutes the socialisation that people have for your particular socialisation. As it happens since socialisation is natural whatever way in which it alters peoples' prerferences is also natural.

People are not the sole cause of the society they form?
No. I didnt cause English to be the dominant language in my society, I didnt invent the insitution of formal education, the existence of roads are their rules doesnt come from me.
Society is not merely the people existing in that society, it also includes the social facts that apply in that society. Whilst these facts may stem from acts and initiatives of people, many facts stem from people who are not currently members of the society (ie they are dead).

Agreed, but a free person can disassociate himself from society.

But not from their socialisation. Society's effects on the person will continue to be an aspect of the person.

In other words, I consider that society is not a necessary constituent of the fully formed self. Once the self is formed, society becomes an option.

Right but that person will still be characterised from their socialisation. They can choose to not associate with the society but they carry it's effects with them.

I have already said that I am not entirely interested in forming my ideas around that of those philosophers. I imagine that, were I to read their arguments I would find where my opinions disagree with theirs.
My concepts are not Locke's concepts, they are not Rawl's concepts, they are my own. However you seem far more interested in addressing my arguments as if they were that of Locke, Hobbes, or Rawls.
You directed me to read Locke, Hobbes and Rawls in order to get a better description of what you claimed to be explaining, now you realise that I am better acquainted with these authors than yourself you are distancing yourself from your attempted fallacious appeal to authority. Ok, as you please.

So Jews can be assumed to naturally walk themselves in to gas chambers?

I dont presume that they supernaturally walked themselves in to gas chambers, do you?

I am trying to show what form society would take were people to allowed to negotiate the social contract naturally.
You may be trying to do so, but your methodology is flawed. You are attempting to show what form society would take were people unnatural and able to unnaturally negotiate the social contract, in an effort to show what form society would take could people negotiate the social contract naturally. Surely you can see the flaw in such methodology?

I see societies as having a strong coersive power. Therefore I would argue that practical models of society do not represent the natural interests of those individuals involved.

Other than supernatural interersts the only interests people have are natural. The chances of one thing representing the interest of a large group is pretty darn slim given that people have conflicting interests.

Would individuals freely composing a society accept the rule of a tyrant.
Some would.

No, you asked whether a granted right and held right were the same, I replied that those rights are the same. I never said that the granting and holding are the same.
Except they must be; if X and Y haven happened is identical, then X happening is identical to Y happening.

No, consciousness is also required.
OK

You know what, you are correct, I completely redefined the right to life for that portion. We have absolutely no call or reason to make determinations on the when the right to life is held, as it is completely internal.

I am? Hot damm! I knew that extra coffee would help somewhere along the line...;)

So infanticide is not even related to the right to life as I have defined it.
Ok...

So really we are not looking at what is natural, but rather what is 'desirable' (ie justice).

That is the general goal of political philosophy, isn't it? I don't want to form society into a state of nature, or even base rights upon a natural basis.

I just want society to be formed out of the natural behavior and preference of the people that form it. So I am trying to form a model of a 'natural state' from which to derive that society.

Being unjust is not however necessarily unnatural.

Certainly, nature is inherently unjust, as there is no consideration of justice, merit, or fairness. But I believe that people would naturally want justice out of their society, so a state built out of a free negotiation of society and rights would have a just society.

I dont believe for a moment that if members of a society behave a certain way, that that behaviour is unnatural. On the contrary if it occurs and there is no reason to assume supernatural intervention, it (whatever it is) must be natural.

It depends on your definition of naturally. If someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to give them your car, then giving him the car would be natural behavior given the situation. However, assuming that the car has great utility to you, handing over the car to someone would not be a natural act in itself. So I want to define natural behavior as behavior that is natural to ourselves, rather than to the situation.

Here is a huge flaw in the seperation of the social from the whole. What a person believes to be compromising (to themselves) and what a person beleives constitutes 'better' are not indepedent of their socialisation. If you remove socialisation what is left is not a 'whole person'.

This is true, all people have their preferences formed, in large part, by social norms. But I disagree that the removal of socialisation leaves less than a whole person, it simply leaves a person without the conditioning that society brings. No one is raised to self-sufficiency without social conditioning, but I would say that the practical necessity doesn't constitute an absolute necessity.

Er, no, hence the irrelevancy of the model.

If I am correct that a just society is one that allows for people to negotiate a social contract free of coersion, then it is a necessity, because no man (maybe very few) has ever negotiated the social contract free of coersion.

So the right to life does not protect a person from being murdered by another person in this 'contractual negotiation'? If it does protect the person (ie prevents another person determined to murder them from doing so) please explain how. If it doesnt then you must conceed that a person in the position of the potential murder victim could negotiate with the potential murderer in order to not be murdered. That would certainly seem to me that their right to life (in the form of not being murdered in the immediate future) had been negotiated.

You are correct. What I have been arguing has not been what the vast majority would call the 'right to life'. I wouldn't know what to call what I have been calling the 'right to life,' the right to self-preservation, perhaps.

I could use a definition that categorized the typical 'right to life' as natural, but I'm not entirely sure I want to.

We dont know to what extent other animals have developed such capacities, however I would point out that they are capacities and do not so far as I can see translate into a 'right'.

I would say that there are capacities, and that there are claims to the usage of those capacities. Those claims are what I would consider rights, and as such there is both the capacity of reason, and the right to use it for self-preservation.

Say's you. There are whole societies where such a veiw is non-existant or is entirely out of sorts with the beliefs of the society at large. This is why the model you wish to employ is so very flawed. It is becase you were socialised in a culture characterised (to a great extent) by by the philosophy 'individualism' that you hold such a belief. Other societies do not understand the world and themselves like this. There is no evidence that the Euro-Western way of looking at the world is any more true than alternatives. The point is that the view of humans as 'individuals' is not universal, it is culturally particular. Things that are culturally particular are learned during socialisation. If you remove socialisation we have no idea what a person would believe is the relationship between themselves a possible society, what is better, whether the person is the means to the end of society or vice-versa. You conclusion about what people would choose in the absence of having been 'socialised' is in fact the direct result of your socialisation. You may believe everyone would act as you state minus socialisation, but you only think that because of your particular socialisation.

This is all true in denouncing my opinion of what the natural state would lead to, which I haven't done much (for obvious reasons).

However, I cannot see any free individual acting in counter to their own natural self interest. All the natural state does is place all individuals in a position of freedom to act naturally in their own self-interest. It doesn't say that a society that eliminates the individual is unjust, only that it should be shown that the person would have wanted that in the first place.

I have always felt that justice is not in the results, but in the process responsible for the results. So even if the socialisation of those members of society shines through into the results, as long as society is contemplated as if negotiated from this beginning point I would consider it just.

That is the general goal of political philosophy, isn't it? I don't want to form society into a state of nature, or even base rights upon a natural basis.

I just want society to be formed out of the natural behavior and preference of the people that form it. So I am trying to form a model of a 'natural state' from which to derive that society.
Yes but your model, in that what you choose and dont choose, and in your notion of 'justice' ect, are all influenced by your socialisation. Your simply presenting a socially biased selection process in order to reach your pre-decided, culturally particular conclusion.

Certainly, nature is inherently unjust, as there is no consideration of justice, merit, or fairness. But I believe that people would naturally want justice out of their society, so a state built out of a free negotiation of society and rights would have a just society.

What you believe doesnt appear to have been 'deeply considered' by - in particular the consequences of 'world-view' formation during socialisation.

It depends on your definition of naturally. If someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to give them your car, then giving him the car would be natural behavior given the situation. However, assuming that the car has great utility to you, handing over the car to someone would not be a natural act in itself. So I want to define natural behavior as behavior that is natural to ourselves, rather than to the situation.

If it is not 'supernatural' then naturally it is natural. The picking and choosing of traits, definitions and members of the set' natural', to add unsubstantiated assumptions and/or to to include and exclude things in order to invoke one's desired conclusionis is an all too common problem. The word natural is not a 'blank tile' that you chuck in whenever arbitary distinctions would invoke a praticular answer. If it's supernatural, show me as much, if it's not supernatural, then it's natural.

This is true, all people have their preferences formed, in large part, by social norms. But I disagree that the removal of socialisation leaves less than a whole person, it simply leaves a person without the conditioning that society brings.
Anthropologists, phsyciatrists, phsychologists, and human developmental specialists, etc, disagree with you.

No one is raised to self-sufficiency without social conditioning, but I would say that the practical necessity doesn't constitute an absolute necessity.

Then you would speak in error.

If I am correct that a just society is one that allows for people to negotiate a social contract free of coersion, then it is a necessity, because no man (maybe very few) has ever negotiated the social contract free of coersion.
Even if you are correct and what you describe would be 'a' just society, it is so flawed as to be no better than no model. It seems effort would be better expending finding a 'realistic' model of society whose product is a 'just society' rather than muck around with one we know is pure fantasy, is unempiracle in the conclusions produced, and isnt much use.

You are correct. What I have been arguing has not been what the vast majority would call the 'right to life'. I wouldn't know what to call what I have been calling the 'right to life,' the right to self-preservation, perhaps.

I could use a definition that categorized the typical 'right to life' as natural, but I'm not entirely sure I want to.

I think that it's not a right. I think you are conflating "'desire/will' and capacity" with "right".

I would say that there are capacities, and that there are claims to the usage of those capacities. Those claims are what I would consider rights, and as such there is both the capacity of reason, and the right to use it for self-preservation.
What claims, I dont recall claiming the usage of my capacities. It was just part of my 'development'. The capacity to use reason for self-preservation, I see, the 'right' no. Not unless by right you mean a conflation of "desire/will and capacity".

This is all true in denouncing my opinion of what the natural state would lead to, which I haven't done much (for obvious reasons).

However, I cannot see any free individual acting in counter to their own natural self interest. All the natural state does is place all individuals in a position of freedom to act naturally in their own self-interest. It doesn't say that a society that eliminates the individual is unjust, only that it should be shown that the person would have wanted that in the first place.

The point is what you believe is the 'natural interest' of 'free persons' is a culturally particular belief. It stems from your socialisation.

I have always felt that justice is not in the results, but in the process responsible for the results. So even if the socialisation of those members of society shines through into the results, as long as society is contemplated as if negotiated from this beginning point I would consider it just.
The definition of justice is normative not empiracal. That means it is culturally particular. You cant 'free' people from this particularism and still have a 'functioning healthy person', and you can possibly conclude what such a person (another words one free from the 'coercion of social conditioning') would consider 'just' and 'in their natural'.

Yes but your model, in that what you choose and dont choose, and in your notion of 'justice' ect, are all influenced by your socialisation. Your simply presenting a socially biased selection process in order to reach your pre-decided, culturally particular conclusion.

Even if the results derived from this model are influenced by socialisation, that doesn't make them unjust. It is the consideration of all people as equal negotiators to the social contract that would make it just. If equal negotiators subvert themselves due to cultural biases it would still be just.

What you believe doesnt appear to have been 'deeply considered' by - in particular the consequences of 'world-view' formation during socialisation.

It seems completely unrational for people to seek to form unjust governments given the opportunity to form just governments. Granted, the individuals may have different values of justice, but to give up those values without when they come at no cost makes no sense.

If it is not 'supernatural' then naturally it is natural. The picking and choosing of traits, definitions and members of the set' natural', to add unsubstantiated assumptions and/or to to include and exclude things in order to invoke one's desired conclusionis is an all too common problem. The word natural is not a 'blank tile' that you chuck in whenever arbitary distinctions would invoke a praticular answer. If it's supernatural, show me as much, if it's not supernatural, then it's natural.

Behaviors can be exhibited through coersion and conditioning. These behaviors are not innate, and as such are unnatural behaviors.

There are no supernatural forces at work here, there are just conflicts between opposing natural behaviors, when these two natural behaviors come into conflict, one will inevitably no longer maintain the same form it had before and becomes unnatural.

Anthropologists, phsyciatrists, phsychologists, and human developmental specialists, etc, disagree with you.

Bully for them.

Even if you are correct and what you describe would be 'a' just society, it is so flawed as to be no better than no model. It seems effort would be better expending finding a 'realistic' model of society whose product is a 'just society' rather than muck around with one we know is pure fantasy, is unempiracle in the conclusions produced, and isnt much use.

From your perspective there would be no way of judging justice when observing 'realistic' models, as the judges would only be using their culturally.

Just how would I find a realistic model and determine it to be 'just'?

What claims, I dont recall claiming the usage of my capacities. It was just part of my 'development'. The capacity to use reason for self-preservation, I see, the 'right' no. Not unless by right you mean a conflation of "desire/will and capacity".

How do you define 'rights'?

The point is what you believe is the 'natural interest' of 'free persons' is a culturally particular belief. It stems from your socialisation.

Which would make it difficult to show natural rights based on the model, I get that. It has been a long time since I tried to justify any natural rights with the model.

There are a few ideas that are counter to the idea of "Pure capitalism" The first is the idea of minimum standards, in working conditions, in products, and in quality of living. Should people be allowed to starve on the streets if they can not or will not support themselves? What minimum should be provided for such people?
What can we accept in products on the market? What if a soup company starts selling a really, really cheap brand of soup, which they can make so cheaply because of their cheap canning practices, which introduce a significant risk of botulism? Should that soup be allowed on the market? Is it a person's right to buy a product that might kill them? What efforts must be made to educate consumers on such risks. During the industrial revolution they had children working in factories where they might lose fingers to unsafe machinery, or even be killed. In some country (I can't remember where) they had kids mining for coal. What minimum standards are acceptable? And if we limit companies to safe work environments and products, that eliminates the laborers willing to work in those conditions or buy those unsafe products.

Another thing is the effect of advertising. A good advertising campaign can often cause a person to buy a product with less value at a higher price than a cheaper, better product that might be available.

Sadly, many problems with capitalism are caused by corruption in regards to the regulations. Unsafe drugs get through the FDA while much cheaper versions are deemed illegal, even though often safe.

Capitalism is based on the concept of free trade. Now it should be noted that free trade in theory is pretty good (there are some failings in under provision of certain goods and transfering of costs to third parties (e.g pollution)) and relies upon all producers and all consumers having perfect knowledge of the market and each other. In other words your example about the soup company meant that the consumer knew about the risk of buying the product and is able to way the risk correctly. Now no theory survives being put into practise because the real world is not perfect which is why we need governments/institutions looking out for everyone where the system fails, such has the under provision of health care and education. This is why the most successful countries in the world are mixed economies (with varying degress between completely free trade and extreme socialist (controlled economies))

in response to this sentance of yours "Should people be allowed to starve on the streets if they can not or will not support themselves?". I support providing a minimum standard for people who cannot support themselves but would do if it was within their means. However I do not support giving any help to people who will not support themselves but it is within their means to do so as this diverts scarce resources away from people who actually reqiure the help. The problem comes because it can be difficult to seperate the two groups apart and so some of the second group is tolerated in society to make sure that the ones in need are not missed out.

Even if the results derived from this model are influenced by socialisation, that doesn't make them unjust. It is the consideration of all people as equal negotiators to the social contract that would make it just. If equal negotiators subvert themselves due to cultural biases it would still be just.
Just according to you, but you are under the influence of your socialisation.

It seems completely unrational for people to seek to form unjust governments given the opportunity to form just governments. Granted, the individuals may have different values of justice, but to give up those values without when they come at no cost makes no sense.

The point is that different world views lead to different conclusions. What is just can vary significantly enough one person's just government is another person's unjust, just as one person's just social contract is another person's unjust social contract.

Behaviors can be exhibited through coersion and conditioning. These behaviors are not innate, and as such are unnatural behaviors.

Absolute nonsense. You are playing semantic tricks with unnatural. If it's not supernatural it is natural.

There are no supernatural forces at work here, there are just conflicts between opposing natural behaviors, when these two natural behaviors come into conflict, one will inevitably no longer maintain the same form it had before and becomes unnatural.
Nothing that happens or exists that is not supernatural is unnatural. The fact that you would say such a thing indicates that you are assuming a false society/nature dichotomy.

Bully for them.
:rolleyes:

From your perspective there would be no way of judging justice when observing 'realistic' models, as the judges would only be using their culturally.
So far as I know people invent justice. I have ideas about what I consider just, but I have no way of demonstrating absolutely which of the existing contrary notions of 'justice' (if any) are the best crafting of justice.

Just how would I find a realistic model and determine it to be 'just'?
I'm not sure why you would? I would be more concerned with whether lives were just than 'society or government'. To be honest I care more about quality of lives rather than justice. It just so happens that I believe a sense of justice (ie the belief that one is just and is justly treated) can promote quality of life.

How do you define 'rights'?
As a rule, custom or tradition that has some enforment authority or power that obligates others to either act or not act (correlative with the 'right').

Which would make it difficult to show natural rights based on the model, I get that. It has been a long time since I tried to justify any natural rights with the model.
Ok

Who said anything about governmental justice? You raised the issue of morality.

I'm not advocating for anyone having to build a boat for anyone else. I am advocating for people having access to the tools and materials they need to build one.

Apparently VO has no intention of addressing this one ...

So the right to life does not protect a person from being murdered by another person in this 'contractual negotiation'? If it does protect the person (ie prevents another person determined to murder them from doing so) please explain how. If it doesnt then you must... (concede) ...that a person in the position of the potential murder victim could negotiate with the potential murderer in order to not be murdered. That would certainly seem to me that their right to life (in the form of not being murdered in the immediate future) had been negotiated.

The negotiation of a Social Contract would not be made with the potential murderer, it would be made with society as a whole. The agreement would be that society would use its collective force to prevent your murder, or, failing that, to punish the murderer. While the punishment of the murderer may not help you, but it may, in the aggregate, have a dissuasive effect on other potential murderers. The knowledge of the likelihood of punishment will hopefully make your murder less attractive to the potential killer before you.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, in general, but, this argument shows a misunderstanding of the concept of social contract. The contract must always be with society in the aggregate.

Henry Ford announced a minimum five dollar salary for all elegible employees working eight-hour days. It was conceived as a profit-sharing plan which would motivate Ford employees to adopt efficient and productive habits at both the factory and the home.

The Ford Sociological Department was created to administer the plan by sending field agents into the community to visit workers at home to determine the quality of their home lives. It was believed that influencing the behavior of employees at home would turn them into better workers.


This is an example of capitalist justice in a laissez faire context. Ford was one of the less abusive employers of the laissez faire period. They didn't call them robber barons for nothing.

Who said anything about governmental justice? You raised the issue of morality.

Governmental justice and morality are inextricably interwoven.

I'm not advocating for anyone having to build a boat for anyone else. I am advocating for people having access to the tools and materials they need to build one.

Well I certainly won't object to equal access, but you run into problems when you consider the expertise in building boats, making tools, and refining materials. All the access and materials in the worlds are useless without expertise, and capitalism does a magnificent job of distributing resources to those with the expertise.

Can your individual cut and plane the lumber, smelt the iron for nails and tools, and then assemble the boat? My guess is that he can't and must rely on others. Capitalism ensures that the others get fair compensation for the work they do.

EDIT: It at least intends to do that.

Just according to you, but you are under the influence of your socialisation.

Give me an example of a cultural bias that would oppose a system that defined justice based on the collective society's free input.

The point is that different world views lead to different conclusions. What is just can vary significantly enough one person's just government is another person's unjust, just as one person's just social contract is another person's unjust social contract.

Completely agreed, that is why contracts are user defined. However, all valid contracts must have agreement of the parties free of duress.

Absolute nonsense. You are playing semantic tricks with unnatural. If it's not supernatural it is natural.

You can train cats to use toilets. While it isn't supernatural, it is certainly not a natural trait of cats.

Nothing that happens or exists that is not supernatural is unnatural. The fact that you would say such a thing indicates that you are assuming a false society/nature dichotomy.

To return to the holocaust example again, it is ludicrous to assume that the Jews made a natural decision to undergo genocide, yet the society that they were a part of sent them to gas chambers. While there have been natural behaviors that caused the society to kill them, it was not a natural agreement on the part of the Jews.

So far as I know people invent justice. I have ideas about what I consider just, but I have no way of demonstrating absolutely which of the existing contrary notions of 'justice' (if any) are the best crafting of justice.

And my model gives the people a blank slate with which to map out their systems and codes of justice. Pretty much all I am saying is that justice can only exist when the members of society are allowed to freely agree to it.

It could seem like the most heinous system of justice imaginable to you or I, but if it is the free and natural agreement of the people who are bound by the system, then it will be just.

I'm not sure why you would? I would be more concerned with whether lives were just than 'society or government'. To be honest I care more about quality of lives rather than justice. It just so happens that I believe a sense of justice (ie the belief that one is just and is justly treated) can promote quality of life.

And why are you concerned about the quality of lives?

As a rule, custom or tradition that has some enforment authority or power that obligates others to either act or not act (correlative with the 'right').

With the purpose of?

Governmental justice and morality are inextricably interwoven.

Please give me your definition of governmental justice then.



Well I certainly won't object to equal access, but you run into problems when you consider the expertise in building boats, making tools, and refining materials. All the access and materials in the worlds are useless without expertise, and capitalism does a magnificent job of distributing resources to those with the expertise.


In theory yes. In practice, it tends not to be so meritocratic. In reality, it is who you know, not what you know, that is more likely to get you ahead in the capitalist economy.


Can your individual cut and plane the lumber, smelt the iron for nails and tools, and then assemble the boat? My guess is that he can't and must rely on others. Capitalism ensures that the others get fair compensation for the work they do.

EDIT: It at least intends to do that.

Yes. Again, in theory. In practice, some are greatly ovecompensated, and some are greatly undercompensated.

Please give me your definition of governmental justice then.

Fairness in governance.

In theory yes. In practice, it tends not to be so meritocratic. In reality, it is who you know, not what you know, that is more likely to get you ahead in the capitalist economy.

Certainly, but I was backing the moral backing to capitalism. I will agree that capitalism has failures, but the moral backing is just in my opinion. The failures are best righted from within the capitalism, not with the complete elimination of capitalism.

Yes. Again, in theory. In practice, some are greatly ovecompensated, and some are greatly undercompensated.

When you can find a reasonable way to determine compensation without market labor pricing, you can complain about that.

The negotiation of a Social Contract would not be made with the potential murderer, it would be made with society as a whole.
This does not exclude the possibility of the potential social group consisting only of one big murderous person and one much weaker potetional murder victim. The point isnt how the social contract would be made, but rather that it is entirely concievable that a person would negotiate re a right to life.

The agreement would be that society would use its collective force to prevent your murder, or, failing that, to punish the murderer. While the punishment of the murderer may not help you, but it may, in the aggregate, have a dissuasive effect on other potential murderers. The knowledge of the likelihood of punishment will hopefully make your murder less attractive to the potential killer before you.

None of which is relevent to whether or not a person could in a circumstance feel a need to and have the capacity to negotiate their 'life' (ie their right to life is negotiable contrary to Vitto's claims).

I don't necessarily disagree with you, in general, but, this argument shows a misunderstanding of the concept of social contract. The contract must always be with society in the aggregate.
No it doesnt, it demonstrates rather that it is false to state that no person would ever negotiate with their alledged 'right to life'. Vittos stated that no person would negotiate their right to life, but I disagree, social contract or not.

Give me an example of a cultural bias that would oppose a system that defined justice based on the collective society's free input.
Based on which society's free imput? This is the problem. A cultural notion you have assumed in the soveriegnty of individual for instance. In many cultures people dont have such a concept. Rather the unit of importance is the family household unit, or the extended family unit or even the clan unit. In many societies (for instance in many tradition Melanesian soceities' individual action is considered base and low, only actions that promote the community entire are considered worthwhile and individuals themselves do not exist as we see them, but rather are one aspect of their family/community whole. Merely the starting point of the unit of importance (ie individual, family., community, etc) would result in different concepts of justice. For an individualistic conception of 'just' individuals should have autonomy from their family - for a 'family/community' conception of 'just' individuals autonomy is secondary to any individual concerns - in such a society your notion of people having no rights in the labour of others would be considered unjust and even obscene.

Completely agreed, that is why contracts are user defined. However, all valid contracts must have agreement of the parties free of duress.

Which proves does it not that we cannot know what pre-social people would argree was just so cant use that model to invoke a just society.

You can train cats to use toilets. While it isn't supernatural, it is certainly not a natural trait of cats.

It is an absolutely natural trait of cats to go to the toilet. The cat has other natural traits, as do I. I bring my natural traits to bear on the cat's natural traits in order to naturally train the cat to naturally go to the toilet outside of my home. Throughout the process from the traits concerned to the product, the entire process is natural as is it's outcome. Again I draw your attention to the fallacy of the social/nature dichotomy.

To return to the holocaust example again, it is ludicrous to assume that the Jews made a natural decision to undergo genocide, yet the society that they were a part of sent them to gas chambers. While there have been natural behaviors that caused the society to kill them, it was not a natural agreement on the part of the Jews.


Natural agreement is an entirely new notion being posited into the conversation. I cant imagine what you think it proves. Natural refers to all things that are not supernatural - nothing more.

And my model gives the people a blank slate with which to map out their systems and codes of justice. Pretty much all I am saying is that justice can only exist when the members of society are allowed to freely agree to it.

I disagree that is the only way in which justice could exist. I certainly hope I am right because what you suggest appears to me something that will not ever happen.

It could seem like the most heinous system of justice imaginable to you or I, but if it is the free and natural agreement of the people who are bound by the system, then it will be just.
Even if it excludes the 'natural right' that is the actual issue we are discussing? You know the one that no just society can ignore?

And why are you concerned about the quality of lives?
Because I prefer for people to have high quality lives. I prefer people to experiance pleasantries rather than unpleasantries. I disparage suffering and am well-dispossed to enjoyment and contentment.

With the purpose of?
Confering the benefit of the specific right granted/held.

Based on which society's free imput? This is the problem. A cultural notion you have assumed in the soveriegnty of individual for instance. In many cultures people dont have such a concept. Rather the unit of importance is the family household unit, or the extended family unit or even the clan unit. In many societies (for instance in many tradition Melanesian soceities' individual action is considered base and low, only actions that promote the community entire are considered worthwhile and individuals themselves do not exist as we see them, but rather are one aspect of their family/community whole. Merely the starting point of the unit of importance (ie individual, family., community, etc) would result in different concepts of justice. For an individualistic conception of 'just' individuals should have autonomy from their family - for a 'family/community' conception of 'just' individuals autonomy is secondary to any individual concerns - in such a society your notion of people having no rights in the labour of others would be considered unjust and even obscene.

Based on any society's input. As I have said, the results are not just in themselves, it is the process that produces the results that would measure the justice of the society.

Which proves does it not that we cannot know what pre-social people would argree was just so cant use that model to invoke a just society.

It shows that the model doesn't provide a universal result, not that the model cannot result in what could be thought of as a just society.

It is an absolutely natural trait of cats to go to the toilet. The cat has other natural traits, as do I. I bring my natural traits to bear on the cat's natural traits in order to naturally train the cat to naturally go to the toilet outside of my home. Throughout the process from the traits concerned to the product, the entire process is natural as is it's outcome. Again I draw your attention to the fallacy of the social/nature dichotomy.

I was referring to literally using a toilet, but regardless, you confirm what I was saying, it is a conflict between your natural behavior and the cat's natural behavior, with the result a reversal of the natural behavior from the cat's perspective.

Yes there was a natural process that brought about the behavior, and no, there is no supernatural force at work here, but the behavior of the cat is artificial. It reflects your nature, not its.

Natural agreement is an entirely new notion being posited into the conversation. I cant imagine what you think it proves. Natural refers to all things that are not supernatural - nothing more.

Natural agreement meaning free agreement, agreement free of coercive outside forces and factors.

I disagree that is the only way in which justice could exist. I certainly hope I am right because what you suggest appears to me something that will not ever happen.

The practical results can mirror the theoretical application of the model.

Even if it excludes the 'natural right' that is the actual issue we are discussing? You know the one that no just society can ignore?

The right that I have been discussing is enforced regardless of societal negotiations. It is not possible for society to provide or revoke its benefits.

Because I prefer for people to have high quality lives. I prefer people to experiance pleasantries rather than unpleasantries. I disparage suffering and am well-dispossed to enjoyment and contentment.

And why do you think I try to form a just model of government?

Confering the benefit of the specific right granted/held.

What benefits could a right be expected to convey?

Based on any society's input. As I have said, the results are not just in themselves, it is the process that produces the results that would measure the justice of the society.
The problem is the outcome in some case may or does contradict your alledged 'natural right' to the 'right to life' (which you appear to extend to the right to dispose of one's labour autonomously). You seem to forget where you started - trying to prove the absouteness of a right to life which precludes any interference in the autonomy of the disposal of one's own labour (to sum up the line of reasoning you were arguing).

It shows that the model doesn't provide a universal result, not that the model cannot result in what could be thought of as a just society.
No it shows the model doesnt produce any empiracal result whatsoever.

I was referring to literally using a toilet, but regardless, you confirm what I was saying, it is a conflict between your natural behavior and the cat's natural behavior, with the result a reversal of the natural behavior from the cat's perspective.
There is no conflict of behaviour. The interaction between two or more entities with the result of some change in one or more of the entities is the most natural thing in the world. Natural is everything not supernatural that has ever happening, is happening or will ever happen. There is nothing unnatural about any behaviour produced or induced through natural means.

Yes there was a natural process that brought about the behavior, and no, there is no supernatural force at work here, but the behavior of the cat is artificial. It reflects your nature, not its.
So what? All artificial things are natural...

Natural agreement meaning free agreement, agreement free of coercive outside forces and factors.

Except no person is an island. There can be no person free of socialisation who is a functioning person as we understand such to be. This socialisation is an 'outside force/factor'. There is no getting away from socialisation and what people will conceive of as right proper, just and in their interests correlates to their socialisation. This is a point you dont seem to get past. You claim this 'natural right' exists due to things these peoples' possess and that it is necessary for justice, yet such people would see it as unjust and would see your adherence to it as proof of the coercion your socialisation exhibits on you.....

The practical results can mirror the theoretical application of the model.

Except that the theoretical model is impossible. It cant tell us how to go about achieving this just society, further whether or not the society that is produced is just is a matter of opinion. Even people who were socialised in the Western-Euro tradition dont believe the conclusions you draw regarding autonomy of disposal of labour are just. The model cant be applied in actuality, it's 'just' results are questionable within your own society and utterly alien to other cultures. More to the point even if the theory worked, could be applied and was perfect, it wouldnt prove this alledged 'natural right'.

The right that I have been discussing is enforced regardless of societal negotiations. It is not possible for society to provide or revoke its benefits.
Except that you have consistently failed to show how it is enforced, by who or what enforces, or what protection it offers a person against someone who doesnt recognise the right....
So please describe the 'enforcement' of this 'right' for me.

And why do you think I try to form a just model of government?

To prove an ideological point? Really I dont know, nor do I consider it would prove much either way about the soundness of this alledged 'natural right to life'.

What benefits could a right be expected to convey?
Either the benefits described, or some form of compensation/retribution/what-have-you (as per the 'right-particular' enforcement).

A main argument of free market capitalism is that wealth brings justice. I mean, that's essentially what it boils down to. Start with sweatshops, build wealth, sweatshops close and living standards increase, build more wealth and things just kind of creep upwards on the social justice scale. Closing down sweatshops (according to this theory) is therefore bad, and works AGAINST the 'evolution' of social justice.

Other people say, whoa there fella! Why should we wait for justice and put up with human rights abuses in the meantime?? And I ask...can we build justice INTO capitalism? There are some examples of such attempts, fair trade is an example of capitalism bound by certain ethical rules. But could we do it on a larger scale?

It's pretty pointless trying to make a perfect system. Individuals have the power to make the world a better place.

The problem is the outcome in some case may or does contradict your alledged 'natural right' to the 'right to life' (which you appear to extend to the right to dispose of one's labour autonomously). You seem to forget where you started - trying to prove the absouteness of a right to life which precludes any interference in the autonomy of the disposal of one's own labour (to sum up the line of reasoning you were arguing).

I don't remember ever saying that the right life provides one with autonomous disposal of labor.

There is no conflict of behaviour. The interaction between two or more entities with the result of some change in one or more of the entities is the most natural thing in the world. Natural is everything not supernatural that has ever happening, is happening or will ever happen. There is nothing unnatural about any behaviour produced or induced through natural means.

So what? All artificial things are natural...

There are multiple definitions of natural.

Except no person is an island. There can be no person free of socialisation who is a functioning person as we understand such to be. This socialisation is an 'outside force/factor'. There is no getting away from socialisation and what people will conceive of as right proper, just and in their interests correlates to their socialisation. This is a point you dont seem to get past. You claim this 'natural right' exists due to things these peoples' possess and that it is necessary for justice, yet such people would see it as unjust and would see your adherence to it as proof of the coercion your socialisation exhibits on you.....

It would be impossible for a member of a model society to determine it was unjust, as they were responsible for determining the nature of the society. They would have to think their own ideas of justice were unjust, and that makes absolutely no sense.

Except that the theoretical model is impossible. It cant tell us how to go about achieving this just society, further whether or not the society that is produced is just is a matter of opinion. Even people who were socialised in the Western-Euro tradition dont believe the conclusions you draw regarding autonomy of disposal of labour are just. The model cant be applied in actuality, it's 'just' results are questionable within your own society and utterly alien to other cultures. More to the point even if the theory worked, could be applied and was perfect, it wouldnt prove this alledged 'natural right'.

I have already said that I am not wishing to create a universal form of just government.

Except that you have consistently failed to show how it is enforced, by who or what enforces, or what protection it offers a person against someone who doesnt recognise the right....
So please describe the 'enforcement' of this 'right' for me.

It is held by our conscious understanding of it. As long as we know that it is there, it is there.

Either the benefits described, or some form of compensation/retribution/what-have-you (as per the 'right-particular' enforcement).

This is like splitting hairs.

The rights have the purpose of giving the benefits of the rights.
The benefits that the rights provide are the benefits that the right describes.

Those may have been the two worse answers I have ever heard.

What sort of benefits would the right describe? What is the benefit provided described by the right to free speech?

Fairness in governance.

Still not sure what that means ...


Certainly, but I was backing the moral backing to capitalism. I will agree that capitalism has failures, but the moral backing is just in my opinion. The failures are best righted from within the capitalism, not with the complete elimination of capitalism.

I've never understood how people can argue with a straight face that more capitalism is the solution to the problems that capitalism creates.


When you can find a reasonable way to determine compensation without market labor pricing, you can complain about that.

Not letting executives set other executives salaries for starters. They tend to overvalue their own work.

Still not sure what that means ...

I can't give you a strict definition of what justice or fairness is, as it means different things to everyone, and if you cannot figure out what I mean by "fair governance" we are probably at a stalemate.



I've never understood how people can argue with a straight face that more capitalism is the solution to the problems that capitalism creates.

I was saying that failures in a capitalist market should be treated by government manipulation of the capitalist system.

Although, many problems could be alleviated by sticking to a truer capitalistic model. There have been many instances in the past where government intervention exascerbated problems, while leaving them to be righted by the business cycle would have helped.

Not letting executives set other executives salaries for starters. They tend to overvalue their own work.

The Board of a corporation sets the executive's salaries.

Regardless, that doesn't at all address the problem.

I can't give you a strict definition of what justice or fairness is, as it means different things to everyone, and if you cannot figure out what I mean by "fair governance" we are probably at a stalemate.


That's just it. They are ambiguous terms so I was wondering how you define them.




I was saying that failures in a capitalist market should be treated by government manipulation of the capitalist system.


Although, many problems could be alleviated by sticking to a truer capitalistic model. There have been many instances in the past where government intervention exascerbated problems, while leaving them to be righted by the business cycle would have helped.



Agreed. But there are also lots of examples of market failures that the market simply can't correct, and where some form of government intervention is probably required. For example, there is very little incentive to internalize externalities. In fact, the incentive is to do quite the opposite. Externalize as many costs as possible. Dealing with that in any kind of meaningful way probably requires some form of state intervention, even if it just to impose say a carbon tax, or an emmissions trading system.

The Board of a corporation sets the executive's salaries.

Regardless, that doesn't at all address the problem.

But in reality, the board is usually effectively controlled by the executive through the use of management slates and proxy votes.

That's just it. They are ambiguous terms so I was wondering how you define them.

I consider a government fair in that it grants all of its members with universal benefit as according to their desires.

Agreed. But there are also lots of examples of market failures that the market simply can't correct, and where some form of government intervention is probably required. For example, there is very little incentive to internalize externalities. In fact, the incentive is to do quite the opposite. Externalize as many costs as possible. Dealing with that in any kind of meaningful way probably requires some form of state intervention, even if it just to impose say a carbon tax, or an emmissions trading system.

I suppose the best way to deal with externalities is to add artificial market value to external commodities.

But in reality, the board is usually effectively controlled by the executive through the use of management slates and proxy votes.

Proxy votes can be used by the executive or opponents of the executive.

I consider a government fair in that it grants all of its members with universal benefit as according to their desires. .

I still don't understand what that means. Illustrate with an example maybe?


I suppose the best way to deal with externalities is to add artificial market value to external commodities. .

Agreed. But the devil is in the details. Depending on the nature of the externality, government involvement will probably be required. For example, polluters will not voluntarily set up an emissions trading system as long as they can pollute for free.


Proxy votes can be used by the executive or opponents of the executive.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In many jurisdictions, there are serious restrictions on the ability of ordinary shareholders to wage a proxy war. And the practical reality is that company resources will be behind the executive slate. This will include things such as having employees phone loyal shareholders to get them to vote the way management wants. Trust me, I've seen it done.

I don't remember ever saying that the right life provides one with autonomous disposal of labor.
I suggest that without being able to autonomously dispose of one's labour one cannot assert that one absolutely has the full ability to conduct their own self preservation. The conducting of one's own self-preservation (which is apparently your definition of this dubious requires that one has the ability to autonomously dispose of their own labour - so the right to life (as defined by you) requires a right to dipose autonomously of one's own labout.

There are multiple definitions of natural.
Most of which either because of or in order to hide poor thinking. Any definition of nature that implies, necessitates or requires a false dichotomy is flawed definition and serves no purpose in critical thinking or even good thinking.

It would be impossible for a member of a model society to determine it was unjust, as they were responsible for determining the nature of the society. They would have to think their own ideas of justice were unjust, and that makes absolutely no sense.
You have switched the definition of model, from a meaning a 'replica' or 'structure that mimics or demonstrates conceptually or physically the form of some thing, entity or conceptual construct', to meaning 'ideal, perfect' etc. Frankly that is a very disingenius attempt at switch and bait........

.... you surely didnt think I'd fall it for did you?:confused:

Such a tactic reeks of desperation. You couldnt more plainly demonstrate your inability to respond to the point raised if you put neon signs up outside my bedroom window that read "Vittos has no answer to that..."
Sometimes it's better or to say nothing and have people suspect you have no counter argument or point to make than it is to speak up and remove all doubt. For your future benefit - this for you was one of those times....

I have already said that I am not wishing to create a universal form of just government.
Forget government, the fact is the 'natural right' that inherently exists independently of society etc is not universal and the notion that it exists in a 'state of nature' is very much socially dependent.

It is held by our conscious understanding of it. As long as we know that it is there, it is there.
Problem - you have claimed it exists independently of society in this fantasy state of nature where humans live independently. Now forgetting the fantasy element involved as I have already pointed out - no such person would have any stimulus that invoked any concious understanding of the concept you describe. Being independent they have no need, nor stimulate that would bring them to consider and consiously understand rights of any kind.
As it happens (to summarise)
the right to life
exists in the non-existent state of nature
has no originitor
is held in existence by our socially derived understanding of it
exists independently of society...
etc
forget the summarising....even this far through listing traits you have claimed for this alledged right we can see that it is utterly incoherent. I expect this is because it is probably based on the same false dichotomy from which you appear to derive your understanding of natural/unnatural.

This is like splitting hairs.

The rights have the purpose of giving the benefits of the rights.
The benefits that the rights provide are the benefits that the right describes.

No it isnt like splitting hairs at all.....:confused:

Those may have been the two worse answers I have ever heard.
Very well, I challenge you to provide a better definition of what a 'right' is.

What sort of benefits would the right describe?
The benefits that the particular right grants.....I would have thought that were fairly obvious.....

What is the benefit provided described by the right to free speech?
Depends on the right. In the case of the right (to free speach) that many Americans are familiar with, the benefits are to non-interference in making and dessiminating ideas, words, concepts, etc. The exact benefit and its limitations are generically described in the document that grants the rights and further defined in precedent setting judgements from US courts, and no doubt will continue to be further defined into the future.

But can Humans be trusted to share equality?

But can Humans be trusted to share equality?
Whether or not humans can be trusted to share equality, I doubt that all humans can be equally trusted to share equality equally....:p ;)

But can Humans be trusted to share equality?Yes, it is in their best interest to do so. If things are allowed to become unequal then a particular human will more likely end up with less than ze would have had when things were equal.

I suggest that without being able to autonomously dispose of one's labour one cannot assert that one absolutely has the full ability to conduct their own self preservation. The conducting of one's own self-preservation (which is apparently your definition of this dubious requires that one has the ability to autonomously dispose of their own labour - so the right to life (as defined by you) requires a right to dipose autonomously of one's own labout.

I have only said that the right pertains towards the ability to plan in which way to conduct one's own self-preservation. I have never claimed that that self-preservation is provided for, nor that all avenues for self-preservation are open.

Most of which either because of or in order to hide poor thinking. Any definition of nature that implies, necessitates or requires a false dichotomy is flawed definition and serves no purpose in critical thinking or even good thinking.

I can't entirely make out what you are saying here.

As for this false dichotomy that you continue to say I am upholding, I have never said that society is not natural, as society is not supernatural.

However, there are definitions of natural that are not antonyms of supernatural. Behavior that doesn't reflect the innate behavior of a person can be called unnatural. If the behavior of another forces one to stop his natural behavior, then the behavior becomes unnatural.

You have switched the definition of model, from a meaning a 'replica' or 'structure that mimics or demonstrates conceptually or physically the form of some thing, entity or conceptual construct', to meaning 'ideal, perfect' etc. Frankly that is a very disingenius attempt at switch and bait........

What are you talking about? From the very beginning I called this model the only way to determine whether a government is just or not. I have maintained that the perfect adherence to the model will lead to an ideally just government. I have never once considered it a replica, in fact I have admitted more than once that this does not represent how practical societies are formed.

And most importantly this model is a structure that conceptually demonstrates the form of a conceptual construct. It fits perfectly into your definition of a model, and nothing I said in that last post contradicts that.

.... you surely didnt think I'd fall it for did you?:confused:

Such a tactic reeks of desperation. You couldnt more plainly demonstrate your inability to respond to the point raised if you put neon signs up outside my bedroom window that read "Vittos has no answer to that..."
Sometimes it's better or to say nothing and have people suspect you have no counter argument or point to make than it is to speak up and remove all doubt. For your future benefit - this for you was one of those times....

I thought you would actually respond to it without misguided condescention.

So once again I say, my particular socialisation only affects my particular perceived results of the model. However, my perceived result of the model has no bearing on another's, as I am not formulating what would be a just model for their society.

Because the model proposes that, if government constructs itself as if constructed out of the sense of justice of its people, the people could not consider the government to be unjust.

Even with this proposed ideal nature of the model, there is nothing that prevents it from being a model.

Forget government, the fact is the 'natural right' that inherently exists independently of society etc is not universal and the notion that it exists in a 'state of nature' is very much socially dependent.

The right as I have described can only be willed away by the individual or lost in death.

Problem - you have claimed it exists independently of society in this fantasy state of nature where humans live independently. Now forgetting the fantasy element involved as I have already pointed out - no such person would have any stimulus that invoked any concious understanding of the concept you describe. Being independent they have no need, nor stimulate that would bring them to consider and consiously understand rights of any kind.
As it happens (to summarise)
the right to life
exists in the non-existent state of nature
has no originitor
is held in existence by our socially derived understanding of it
exists independently of society...
etc

Our understanding of the concept of a 'right' is contingent on our socialisation. The sense of self, the identification of the subjective view, and the knowledge that said self will cease to exist is not maintained is not socially obtained.


No it isnt like splitting hairs at all.....:confused:

Very well, I challenge you to provide a better definition of what a 'right' is.

The benefits that the particular right grants.....I would have thought that were fairly obvious.....

Your definition of the concept of rights is a perfectly acceptable one. Where the "splitting hairs" comment applies is typified by the last sentence in the above quote.

To recap my questions and your answers to the questions word for word:

Q:"How do you define 'rights'?"
A:"As a rule, custom or tradition that has some enforment authority or power that obligates others to either act or not act (correlative with the 'right')."

Q:"With the purpose of?"
A:"Confering the benefit of the specific right granted/held."

Q:"What benefits could a right be expected to convey?"
A:"Either the benefits described, or some form of compensation/retribution/what-have-you (as per the 'right-particular' enforcement)."

Q:"What sort of benefits would the right describe?"
A:"The benefits that the particular right grants"

I asked three questions hoping that you would show what benefits a right can carry. What you answered is that "A right grants a benefit, the benefit granted is the benefit described by the right, the benefit described by the right is the benefit granted by the right."

Depends on the right. In the case of the right (to free speach) that many Americans are familiar with, the benefits are to non-interference in making and dessiminating ideas, words, concepts, etc. The exact benefit and its limitations are generically described in the document that grants the rights and further defined in precedent setting judgements from US courts, and no doubt will continue to be further defined into the future.

With a little leading, you have given me the answer I was looking for.

Now, would you say that the right protects the use of a capacity from outside interference? In what other fashion would you define the ability to communicate ideas?

Would you say that, were it not a desirable capacity, that we would maintain a right to free speech?

Couldn't this 'positive' right be the result of a desired capacity?

I have only said that the right pertains towards the ability to plan in which way to conduct one's own self-preservation. I have never claimed that that self-preservation is provided for, nor that all avenues for self-preservation are open.
The right elaborates on this ability how exactly? So far as I can tell the ability/capacity and your alledged 'right' are identical. Not one thing you have said has indicated otherwise. Once and for all what is the effect of this right, how is it enforced, in what way does it differ from the capacity/ability that you claim it stems from?

I can't entirely make out what you are saying here.

As for this false dichotomy that you continue to say I am upholding, I have never said that society is not natural, as society is not supernatural.
No use of unnatural to describe non-supernatural events doesnt depend on the false dichotomy referred to.

However, there are definitions of natural that are not antonyms of supernatural.
Yes and they depend on the false dichotomy referred to.

Behavior that doesn't reflect the innate behavior of a person can be called unnatural. If the behavior of another forces one to stop his natural behavior, then the behavior becomes unnatural.
Er, no. It is entirely natural for two or more things to interact and for one or more of those things to behave differently or to become different during and post interaction to as they were pre-interaction. There is nothing whatsoever unnatural about it.
I am aware that unnatural is used to describe all kinds of things from 'moral' to 'not artificial' but I maintain that this requires certain assumptions/conflations that cant be substantiated.

What are you talking about? From the very beginning I called this model the only way to determine whether a government is just or not.[/QUOTE]
What were you on about?

I have maintained that the perfect adherence to the model will lead to an ideally just government.
Yes and yet have not provided a single argument that proves that the model even would be just.
Further you claim that you have no intention to create a model of a universally just government, yet you also claim perfect adherence leads to an ideally just government. Please reconcile these two contrary claims.

I have never once considered it a replica, in fact I have admitted more than once that this does not represent how practical societies are formed.
Right, then I can only assume you were being ethnocentric, since to having been informed that in some cultures the ideas that your notion of justice appear to rely on do not exist, you answer as though it were an empiracal fact that they must be wrong (ie the non-existence of people with differing ideas to yours of justice in the 'model society' that you claim is ideal).

And most importantly this model is a structure that conceptually demonstrates the form of a conceptual construct. It fits perfectly into your definition of a model, and nothing I said in that last post contradicts that.

My mistake, I thought you were going for internal justification when in fact you were merely implying that all cultures other than your own are less correct than your own (at least that's the only meaning I can take out from the text)...

I thought you would actually respond to it without misguided condescention.

As best pleases you.....

So once again I say, my particular socialisation only affects my particular perceived results of the model. However, my perceived result of the model has no bearing on another's, as I am not formulating what would be a just model for their society.
Please reconcile this with your claim that adherence to your model leads to an ideally just governement, and more significantly with your claim that it is the only model that leads to a just society.

Because the model proposes that, if government constructs itself as if constructed out of the sense of justice of its people, the people could not consider the government to be unjust.

No it doesnt. The model proposes that we assume a concepts that are socially derived and dont necessarily have equivalents in other societies.

Even with this proposed ideal nature of the model, there is nothing that prevents it from being a model.
Ideal to you.

The right as I have described can only be willed away by the individual or lost in death.
Sigh, so loosing conciousness no longer makes one loose the right?

Our understanding of the concept of a 'right' is contingent on our socialisation.
No kidding...!
The sense of self, the identification of the subjective view, and the knowledge that said self will cease to exist is not maintained is not socially obtained.
If that's the case substantiate, otherwise I will go with the far more substantive and coherent arguments of experts in various fields of human society, and human emotional/cognitive/developmental processes.

Your definition of the concept of rights is a perfectly acceptable one. Where the "splitting hairs" comment applies is typified by the last sentence in the above quote.

What?
To recap my questions and your answers to the questions word for word:

Q:"How do you define 'rights'?"
A:"As a rule, custom or tradition that has some enforment authority or power that obligates others to either act or not act (correlative with the 'right')."

Q:"With the purpose of?"
A:"Confering the benefit of the specific right granted/held."

Q:"What benefits could a right be expected to convey?"
A:"Either the benefits described, or some form of compensation/retribution/what-have-you (as per the 'right-particular' enforcement)."

Q:"What sort of benefits would the right describe?"
A:"The benefits that the particular right grants"

I asked three questions hoping that you would show what benefits a right can carry. What you answered is that "A right grants a benefit, the benefit granted is the benefit described by the right, the benefit described by the right is the benefit granted by the right."
What other answer is there? Benefits granted by a right are particular to that right. It's like asking 'what is a word' and when you get an answer asking 'well then what are the things communicated by words?'. In all honesty I felt the question regarding what benefits a right conveyed was obtuse....

With a little leading, you have given me the answer I was looking for.
As I say, I thought the question regarding what benefits 'a right' conveys was a very silly question giving the specific correlation between a particular right and the particular benefits it conveys.

Now, would you say that the right protects the use of a capacity from outside interference?
Which right? What a right does is specific to that right.

In what other fashion would you define the ability to communicate ideas?

Mediation capacity...I dont see how it's relevent though...

Would you say that, were it not a desirable capacity, that we would maintain a right to free speech?
What the hell are you on about Vittos?

Couldn't this 'positive' right be the result of a desired capacity?
Well so what if it is? Just because all bananas are fruit doesnt mean all fruit are bananas. The fact that a right (or even all rights) might be the result of desires to protect capacities does not make desired capacities all rights...honestly WTF are you on about?:confused:

But can Humans be trusted to share equality?
I'd like to chime in with a resounding HELL NO.

Human beings, as a rule, cannot be trusted to treat all others equally. Tribal mentality is part of most cultures to one degree or another. For "Us" to be happy requires that "They" be less happy. For "Us" to be powerful, we must have power over "Them." For "Us to be free, "They" must be restricted.

The right elaborates on this ability how exactly? So far as I can tell the ability/capacity and your alledged 'right' are identical. Not one thing you have said has indicated otherwise. Once and for all what is the effect of this right, how is it enforced, in what way does it differ from the capacity/ability that you claim it stems from?

The right is only different from the capacity it stems from on a conceptual level, however, it is different from other capacities in that it is protected from infringement by our conscious existence. No matter what actions another takes, and as long as we maintain our conscious being, we will be able to plan the methods in which we better or maintain ourselves.

Further you claim that you have no intention to create a model of a universally just government, yet you also claim perfect adherence leads to an ideally just government. Please reconcile these two contrary claims.

If the results of this model are not universal, then when I say that this model results in a ideally just government it means that the ideally just government is not a universal concept. Our standards for justice will not equal another society's ideas of justice, however as long as those other society's are allowed to apply their ideas of justice to their government, the government will be just.

Right, then I can only assume you were being ethnocentric, since to having been informed that in some cultures the ideas that your notion of justice appear to rely on do not exist, you answer as though it were an empiracal fact that they must be wrong (ie the non-existence of people with differing ideas to yours of justice in the 'model society' that you claim is ideal).

My notions of justice are only applicable when I apply them to the model.

Rational thought states that, when one is allowed to apply one's own notion of justice to government, one cannot then find that government unjust.

My mistake, I thought you were going for internal justification when n fact you were merely implying that all cultures other than your own are less correct than your own (at least that's the only meaning I can take out from the text)...

You are inventing all sorts of interpretations.

Please reconcile this with your claim that adherence to your model leads to an ideally just governement, and more significantly with your claim that it is the only model that leads to a just society.

Justice is subjective to those that it is applied to. Therefore, ideally just governments will mean different things to different people and societies. Therefore, only when we allow the constituents of a government to apply their system of justice to the government will the government me just, as they are the only one's who can measure a government's justice.

If that's the case substantiate, otherwise I will go with the far more substantive and coherent arguments of experts in various fields of human society, and human emotional/cognitive/developmental processes.

The recognition of the subjective is only possible through the subjective. It is through recognition of the subjective that we begin to apply notions to what we consider to be our self. Therefore the developmental triggers that key the sense of self occur within us. Once the self is created, then it becomes social, whereas we project our sensations into others (empathy) and adopt behaviors of others (imitation).

What other answer is there? Benefits granted by a right are particular to that right. It's like asking 'what is a word' and when you get an answer asking 'well then what are the things communicated by words?'. In all honesty I felt the question regarding what benefits a right conveyed was obtuse....

I was hoping you would offer a classification of what benefits a right can offer. As far as I know there is only two, the protection or provision of a capacity, or the recoup of loss from the violation of a capacity.

Which right? What a right does is specific to that right.

The right I asked about, the freedom of speech.

Mediation capacity...I dont see how it's relevent though...

Well so what if it is? Just because all bananas are fruit doesnt mean all fruit are bananas. The fact that a right (or even all rights) might be the result of desires to protect capacities does not make desired capacities all rights...honestly WTF are you on about?:confused:

So a right is "a rule, custom or tradition that has some enforment authority or power that obligates others to either act or not act (correlative with the 'right')" that can serve to protect capacities.

So when I say that there is a natural right that is imposed by natural forces that obligates others to not violate my capacity for planning my self-preservation, you say that I am using an invalid definition of a right?

Tribal mentality is part of most cultures to one degree or another. I don't see how this statement leads to this:

For "Us" to be happy requires that "They" be less happy. For "Us" to be powerful, we must have power over "Them." For "Us to be free, "They" must be restricted.

I don't see how this statement leads to this:

It is not uncommon for large groups of people to assosciate based on common qualities, and then to regard dissimilar qualities as being bad or inferior. I don't know if it is ingrained, but tribal mentality often does lead to a sense of 'us vs. them'.

It is not uncommon for large groups of people to assosciate based on common qualities, and then to regard dissimilar qualities as being bad or inferior. I don't know if it is ingrained, but tribal mentality often does lead to a sense of 'us vs. them'.Yes, but this doesn't preclude the possibility of there being, in essence, a worldwide tribe.
Additionally, I don't see how viewing dissimilar qualities as being bad or inferior means that we need to see people with those qualities suffering.