NationStates Jolt Archive

I did not vote for Bush.

Bush is the President of Venezuela? I heard some wierd rumour that Hugo Chavez was President of Venezuela. Perhaps I was mistaken?

(Venezuela's government being the one committing the crime, of theft)

No it isn't.

Let me explain why:

1) Laws change with governments, a law is simply the preferences of the current government translated into action, and enforced by people who use physical force to enforce them.

2) Most abuses committed by governments were perfectly legal, that doesn't make them right.

The unspoken part of your argument is that a government has the right to make any law it likes, no matter what that law is, because your argument has always asserted that there is no place for right and wrong except in the sense that the state defines right and wrong with the law, and can change its preference at any time.

It is actually you who stands against the rule of law.

The right and wrong must be defined by law, and must change, because there isn't any way to state a scale of right and wrong based on unmovable principles.

Here we enter the point that a goverment must have their legality backed up by legitimacy, that means the approval of most of the people living in said country. In this case we have a legal decision also backed up by legitimacy.

Apart than from legality and legitimacy, by which principles should we build our morals, then?

Moral is not a fixed value, as you seem to think. Morals change according times and people. The fact that a goverment makes a decision based on legality, and legitimacy, gives that decision enough moral ground.

No it doesn't, because a government, especially a democratic government, is simply people. They have no special powers, or insights, they are not demigods. They are simply people.

Your argument does in fact boil down to "might is right", because the sole distinguishing feature of a government is a legal monopoly on the use of force.

Let me ask you something for a change. Why should the oil companies keep the fields, or to own them in the first place?

Have you not studied homesteading, especially since I have brought it up several times?

Please consider that they never bought them in the first place.

Since we are talking about land with no previous owner, from whom could they buy it? God?

You cannot buy something which no one owns.

In other words, you're out of material, so you've decided to turn to ad-hominem. A man would admit as much, then again, he might have read what I posted.

Perhaps you can point out where I have disputed that the government can force rightful owners from their property? I will answer, I have not, in fact, I said they could physically do it in plain English. I will repeat it because you obviously did not read it:



Is that clear enough for you?

Now, the idea that a government derives its legitimate power from the citizenry is not exactly new. Its been around for a while, and is generally accepted.

What is also generally accepted is the idea that if you don't have the right to do something, you can't ask someone else to do it for you. Simple examples, you don't have the right to commit murder, so you don't have the right to hire an assassin to murder someone. You do not have the right to steal, so you do not have the right to hire a professional thief to do it for you.

That people in this context vote in a government to commit the crime, rather than hiring bonafide criminals, does not make it any different.

Now, you have not actually made your argument, you have done what everyone else has done, argue by assertion, hoping that I will accept it without question if it is stated in a slightly different way. You have not actually explained where the state gets the right, in the moral sense, to do something.

I know where they get the legal right to do it, they make the laws, and they have the men with guns to carry them out. Law is irrelevant, because law is nothing more than the arbitrary preferences of politicians translated into reality. I hardly have the space, or the time to list all the abuses by governments that were perfectly legal.

You need to first understand the difference between an observation and a 'attack'. Ad hominem it was not.

Secondly you are pissing in the wind if you do not understand what purpose the Law serves in government. You are pissing in the wind.

I will say it once more in terms you understand. You do not own (outright) your land. The government can take you land legally. It does not need the military or anything like that to take your land. Of course if you do not recognize the government then you will face punishment as dictated by the Law. That might well include force.

That is the reality.

That does not mean I agree to it but that is the reality.

All you are doing is whining that the big bad government is being big and bad whine whine whine. No shit. Welcome to the real world.

:rolleyes:

dp

The right and wrong must be defined by law.

You actually have it the wrong way around.

If the law is the sole definer of right and wrong, then right and wrong come down to nothing more than the political interests of those in power.

Here we enter the point that a goverment must have their legality backed up by legitimacy, that means the approval of most of the people living in said country. In this case we have a legal decision also backed up by legitimacy.

Like I said above, you are defining wrong as the political interests of those in power, because their political interests are getting the maximum number of votes.

I will say it once more in terms you understand. You do not own (outright) your land. The government can take you land legally. It does not need the military or anything like that to take your land.

It does need to use force when the citizen does not "cooperate" with people who threaten for force him if he does not.

I will put this simply: this argument is not fundamentally about law, a law can make anything legal, but it cannot make things right. That is the point that simply isn't getting into your head.

President Hugo Chavez was democratically elected by the People of Venezuela.. on a landslide. (wasn't even close)

Yet you said you didn't vote for Bush? What does Bush have to do with anything? Where did I even mention him?

You say "a crime was committed". Prove it.

He is admitting to taking property without the consent of its owners, admitting it in the media no less. Is an extremely public confession good enough?

Perhaps he is insane, and confessing to a crime he did not commit in the throws of his madness?

Bush is the President of Venezuela? I heard some wierd rumour that Hugo Chavez was President of Venezuela. Perhaps I was mistaken?President Hugo Chavez was democratically elected by the People of Venezuela.. on a landslide. (wasn't even close)

Bush?.. Bush was appointed by the Republican supremes.


Venezuela's government being the one committing the crime, of theftYou say "a crime was committed". Prove it.

Innocent until proven guilty says the Law (US and Venezuelan Law)

Yet you said you didn't vote for Bush? I stand by my statement.. I did NOT vote for the chimp.

What does Bush have to do with anything? You posted this"people in this context vote in a government to commit the crime, rather than hiring bonafide criminals, does not make it any different."

I consider the Iraq war to be a crime.

Some people (mostly Republican voters) wanted that War .. the same people voted for Bush.

Now many of them changed their mind.. Now they think the War and/or electing Bush was a mistake.
too late.

You desconstruct a lot, but hardly give alternatives to the points stated in the thread. Derrida, perhaps?

If law do not defines right and wrong, (I agree with this, it doesn't defines right and wrong, but it is more like an expression of what's right and wrong), What or who defines what's right and what's wrong?

By which principles do you define morals? Morals beyond your own individual ground. By which or whom consensus?

The Homestead Act is valid in the US, but it is a LAW there, as valid as any other, and submitted to the same flaws of the law that you have pointed at here. Also, US acts do not apply to venezuelan territory or goverment.

Then to own property you just...Claim it? May I point out that by coming here and developing those fields the oil companies accepted the terms of the Venezuelan State by a contract?

No, I am stating that the workers contracted to do certain work, for a certain wage.

Your subjective evaluation of these companies is irrelevant.

Answer this: can your argument work with a company that acts in a manner that you would consider to be fair?

You are implying that it cannot, your argument is dependent on "evil" companies.

If your argument cannot work with the nicest, most innocent company, then your argument is fallacious.

I am not discussing some theoretical company that only operates in a theoretical market and always obeys laws. I am talking about real things. Between 1917 and today, Venezuela has lived under dictatorships for over half that time. All of those dictators espoused free market conditions.

If your argument cannot deal with the reality of corrupt governments and corporate abuse, then it is unrealistic.

Don't thank me for an explaination, then disregard it completely. One's thanks should not be that hollow.

I will explain it simply, the bondholder puts up his cash once, and is almost certain to get the return required by the bond.

The stockholder does not put up his money once. He buys a part of the company, so his money is tied up in the company, and to its fortunes while he continues to own the stock. It is an ongoing investment.

He owns a piece of the company, so he is entitled to a proportional piece of its profits.

Again, I thank you for the definition, but I do not agree that it is an ongoing investment on the part of the stockholders. You may define it as such, but I do not. Why is your definition more correct than mine? Because it corresponds to your theories? I could easily put forth the theory that since the worker goes to work every day, (s)he has an ongoing investment, and therefore deserves part of the profits. Such a supposition would be as correct as yours. It would merely espouse a different economic model. Again, why is your theory more correct than mine?

You've given me no reason to change my opinion. You have offered no argument that the worker is entitled to more than the pay for which he contracted. You have simply asserted that this must be so, and your only evidence is that the worker turns up, and does what his salary pays him to do.

And you have offered no argument as to why the stockholder should, except repeating your theories ad nauseam. Your only evidence is that you think it should be that way. This is why I have stated that this is a matter of opinion. It is you opinion that the stockholder should have an ongoing reward. You have done nothing to change my opinion that your opinion is wrong.

The employment is simply a sale (from the worker's point of view), and a purchase (from the oil company's point of view). The worker sells his services to the oil company at an agreed price. The oil company pays the price, and the transaction is completed.

How is there anything beyond this?

Sentimental rubbish about local economies, and communities isn't an argument, and your neglect of the role of capital is simply unbelievable.

Answer me this: can the raw labour of these workers (by itself, with no capital involved) build anything like the modern oil industry. Just the raw physical energy, nothing else.

Thank you for summarising your viewpoint as to how workers should be treated in a perfect free market society. In reality, things like sentimental rubbish often override economic logic. This is why people spend so much money taking care of sick pets and chronically ill family members. My grandfather was going to die anyway, so why did we bother spending all that money making sure his last days were at least painless. A more economic decision would have been to simply shoot him.

Now answer me this: can the capital of these stockholders (by itself, with no raw labour involved) build anything like the modern oil industry? Just the capital, nothing else. No, of course it cannot.

That is a distinction without a difference. The most important thing is that the land is rightfully private property, whether owned by the oil companies, or by their landlords, and the government has no right to steal the property simply to improve the Treasury's bottom line.

What if, as Aelosia has demonstrated with all those links, the State of Venezuela, owns the land? That makes the land public property. It is owned in common by all the Venezuelan people. And if the people of Venezuela grant the power of exproporiation and nationalisation to their democratically elected government, then the government does have the right to do these things. It is analogous to a police force. You and I do not have the right to kill or imprison people who are not attacking us directly. Instead, we have granted the state the right to do so if they can prove that it is in the best interests of the community. In this case, because the entire Venezuelan economy depends on oil, the sovereignty of the Venezuelan state would be threatened if they did not have control over it. While this may offend the moral sens of free marketeers, the Venezuelan state has more important things to worry about.

Have you never heard of homesteading?

Yes, I have, but I do not see how it has anything to do with Venezuela. Unless you are arguing that no one had ever stepped foot on those oil fields until the US multinationals came along. That would be clearly false, and you do not seem unintelligent, so I will assume you meant something else.

Anyways, it's nice to meet you. I like debating with those people who do not agree with me, but are also intelligent and fairly polite. Hope you stay around NSG for a while.

And the oil companies have been using the infrastructure. Indirectly, albeit, but they have been using it.

oil companies do not exist in the necessary sense to be using or possessing anything in such a way to have a clear claim to ownership. they are not real entities and only exist through social convention, and therefore social convention can determine what they do and do not get to claim as theirs.

I am not discussing some theoretical company that only operates in a theoretical market and always obeys laws. I am talking about real things. Between 1917 and today, Venezuela has lived under dictatorships for over half that time. All of those dictators espoused free market conditions.

Irrelevant. Your argument should be able to work against nice people, because the fundamental issue at hand is not that oil companies aren't run by innocent sweethearts, but that they make high profits that the Venezuelan governments wants to further its fiscal, and therefore political bottom-line.

If your argument cannot deal with the reality of corrupt governments and corporate abuse, then it is unrealistic.

Irrelevant.

And you haven't explained how your argument deals with nice, clean companies.

I do not agree that it is an ongoing investment on the part of the stockholders.

Then you are simply wrong.

How is it that you can plausably define ownership of stock as a one-time investment? For one thing, the stock doesn't even hold the value it had when they paid for it.

I could easily put forth the theory that since the worker goes to work every day, (s)he has an ongoing investment, and therefore deserves part of the profits.

There is no logic in such a position. As I said, the worker simply contracts to do a certain amount and type of work, for a certain wage.

You can propose alternatives all you like, but unless you can provide logical, factual alternatives, you are just waffling.

I will tell you the principle problem with your theory: it totally undermines the basis under which they are employed, contracts. Their claims have already been specifically established, and the conditions are mutually beneficial, and approved of by the employees and the oil company. Were it not so, they would not work for the oil company. Intorducing your vague "profit-sharing" rubbish completely undermines that.

Again, why is your theory more correct than mine?

I can argue mine logically, all you have done is assert the truth of yours, with no attempt at logical argument.

And you have offered no argument as to why the stockholder should, except repeating your theories ad nauseam.

The stockholder does own part of the company. That cannot be seriously disputed.

You have not shown why the stockholder's investment in one time. Do you even realise that a stockholder can lose his "one-time" investment months, or years down the track, or it could double. How can you have a one-time investment that changes over the course of time?

How is it that investing $1000 today could be either $0 in two years time, or $3000 in two years time? How can that be considered to be a one-time investment?

A one-time investment should be just that, x amount at the time, which remains that amount. A stockholder's investment constantly changes, it can change several times over the course of a day.

How can you have a one-time investment that will not hold the same value eight hours after it is made?

Now answer me this: can the capital of these stockholders (by itself, with no raw labour involved) build anything like the modern oil industry? Just the capital, nothing else. No, of course it cannot.

If you can't answer my question, don't ask me questions.

I have already stated what the worker's contributions are, and pointed out that their rewards have already been defined by the workers themselves in their contracts.

What if, as Aelosia has demonstrated with all those links, the State of Venezuela, owns the land?

The state has no right to own unclaimed land.

Yes, I have, but I do not see how it has anything to do with Venezuela. Unless you are arguing that no one had ever stepped foot on those oil fields until the US multinationals came along.

The question of landownership is only in dispute where we are dealing with land no one owned at the time the oil companies went in. This means land which had either never been owned, or had been abandoned by its previous owners.

The case that has been asserted (but not argued) is that if no individual owns the land, then it is the property of the Venezuelan government.

And if the people of Venezuela grant the power of exproporiation and nationalisation to their democratically elected government, then the government does have the right to do these things.

I think you may have walked into a minefield.

"Nationalisation" is a euphamism for theft. It is simply the taking of property without the consent of the owners. The fact that it is done by the state is irrelevant because the state derives its legitimate powers from the citizens.

Now, no ordinary Venezuelan has the right to steal, so how can he ask someone else to steal on his behalf?

It would be like you hiring an assassin to kill someone, and the law would rightfully recognise you as party to the murder.

In this case, because the entire Venezuelan economy depends on oil, the sovereignty of the Venezuelan state would be threatened if they did not have control over it. While this may offend the moral sens of free marketeers, the Venezuelan state has more important things to worry about

Private property rights do not change the fact of Venezuelan government jurisdiction, nor does it threaten soverignty.

You desconstruct a lot, but hardly give alternatives to the points stated in the thread. Derrida, perhaps?

You make a lot of assertions, but hardly give arguments to back them.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Then you are simply wrong.

There is no logic in such a position.

I can argue mine logically, all you have done is assert the truth of yours, with no attempt at logical argument.

If you can't answer my question, don't ask me questions.

The state has no right to own unclaimed land.

(Is this your opposing logic? Do you think you have just used logic or your opinion? Because I can use logic to determine exactly the opposite)

You make a lot of assertions, but hardly give arguments to back them.

Oh, and by the way, before you keep your line of line "you aren't saying nothing, I pwn!", I have told you like ten times that the companies never owned those fields, and you just continue to skip the issue and to keep making assumptions that you label as "logical", as if logic couldn't be used to counter exactly what you have said here.

Here I leave you with a rather carefully selected collection of your use of logic. Bye.

I have told you like ten times that the companies never owned those fields, and you just continue to skip the issue and to keep making assumptions that you label as "logical", as if logic couldn't be used to counter exactly what you have said here.

Sorry, but you have not made the case that the state rightfully owns these fields. That is where you are failing, to make a moral argument for state ownership, that is why you have gone for the red herring of law, without acknowledging that the law is nothing more than the arbitrary preferences of those in power, and that most government abuses are perfectly legal.

You say that logic can counter my position, if that is so, then why are you not doing it?

Sorry, but you have not made the case that the state rightfully owns these fields. That is where you are failing, to make a moral argument for state ownership, that is why you have gone for the red herring of law, without acknowledging that the law is nothing more than the arbitrary preferences of those in power, and that most government abuses are perfectly legal.

You say that logic can counter my position, if that is so, then why are you not doing it?

Your position is based on moral. Moral is not logical. Actually moral is not a fixated concept. there are as many morals as there are individuals. your argument from the base, fails.

The law is just a sociological and political consensus of morals, at least since the outcome of the Republic, and then even more, the Democracy.

Now, no ordinary Venezuelan has the right to steal, so how can he ask someone else to steal on his behalf?

"Now, no ordinary Venezuelan has the right to make laws, so how can she ask someone else to make laws on her behalf?"

You don't seem to understand what government is.

Chavez is a bitch.:eek:

"Now, no ordinary Venezuelan has the right to make laws, so how can she ask someone else to make laws on her behalf?"

You don't seem to understand what government is.

Yes I do, and its powers are delegated from the people, so how can a government rightfully do anything that an individual does not have the right to do?

Your position is based on moral. Moral is not logical. Actually moral is not a fixated concept. there are as many morals as there are individuals. your argument from the base, fails.

Relativism won't get you out of the bind you are in, you need to make a moral case for government theft.

The law is just a sociological and political consensus of morals

In point of fact, it is nothing of the kind. Law is simply that which the legislature has passed (by whatever means laws are made). It reflects the political interests of the legislators, nothing more.

and its powers are delegated from the people

Yes, but the government is not an individual.

It is the representative of society, which makes its character fundamentally different from the individual thief.

Its right to expropriate property is derived from individuals, but that does not mean individuals have the right to individual expropriation. It only means they have the right to live in a society where property is regulated by the public for the public good - not by themselves for whatever private whim they may have.

Yes, but the government is not an individual.

Neither is a lynch mob.

It is the representative of society, which makes its character fundamentally different from the individual thief.

Not really, and a lynch mob can be said to represent society.

Its right to expropriate property is derived from individuals, but that does not mean individuals have the right to individual expropriation.

That is an unjustified leap in logic.

It only means they have the right to live in a society where property is regulated by the public for the public good - not by themselves for whatever private whim they may have.

But the "public" is merely lots of individuals. It has no character of its own, it is not a discrete entity, merely a group of individuals.

This means that the "public good" is nothing more than the good of some individuals.

Regulating property in the name of the public good therefore means regulating the property of some in the interests of others.

Neither is a lynch mob.

If you cannot tell the difference between a democratic constitutional government and a lynch mob, that is not my problem.

That is an unjustified leap in logic.

Um, what is?

Regulating property in the name of the public good therefore means regulating the property of some in the interests of others.

No - it means regulating everyone's property in the interests of everyone.

That is why everyone can vote, and everyone is subject to the law.

If you cannot tell the difference between a democratic constitutional government and a lynch mob, that is not my problem.

Soheran, your claim is that the collective nature of government makes it fundamentally different to an individual, and gives it rights that an individual does not possess. In its collectivity, the only difference between a government and a lynch mob is scale (and even that is not always the case).

Um, what is?

You've acknowledged that an individual does have the right to steal, then you claim that many individuals have the right to steal collectively.

No - it means regulating everyone's property in the interests of everyone.

Including the chap who's property is seized?

That is why everyone can vote, and everyone is subject to the law.

Majority rule does not ensure that everyone's interests are served, and everyone's rights are protected. Majority rule ensures that the majority's interests are served, and the majority's rights are protected.

In its collectivity, the only difference between a government and a lynch mob is scale (and even that is not always the case).

Not scale. Non-exclusivity.

You've acknowledged that an individual does have the right to steal, then you claim that many individuals have the right to steal collectively.

Now you're just ignoring what I've said. Again.

Individuals, in most circumstances, do not have the right to take property from others. Society has broader rights in this regard; indeed, society has the right to define the constitution of property in the first place.

I already explained the basis for this distinction.

Including the chap who's property is seized?

Particular expressions of universal rules will always seem to be exclusivist.

The murderer, for instance, might insist that when she is arrested, the political community is suppressing her interests to the exclusive will of the majority... but what she fails to take into account is that the universal rule "do not murder" protects her as well. She cannot murder others... and others cannot murder her. If others made the attempt, they would suffer the same punishment.

Of course, this matter is complicated in class societies. While roughly every member of a political community is a potential murderer or murder victim, the abuses of the rich against everyone else are not so easily universalizable. The population can be very roughly divided into potential perpentrators and potential victims. The victims tend not to also be perpentrators, and vice versa.

The result is that political behavior as far as those abuses go tends to give the appearance of exclusivity - some are indeed regulating the property of others for their own interests. Yet this is not a trend that comes out of nowhere. It is a corrective response to immense private inequality whose protection under the guise of nominal liberal equality would make that guarantee about as laughable as North Korea's claim that it is a democratic republic.

Majority rule does not ensure that everyone's interests are served, and everyone's rights are protected.

No, but democracy is not majority rule.

We do not practice majority suffrage. We practice universal suffrage.

Society has broader rights in this regard; indeed, society has the right to define the constitution of property in the first place.

Society is nothing more than a group of individuals. Its collectivity does not change its character.

I already explained the basis for this distinction.

No you didn't. You said that it was representative of society, I pointed out that a lynch mob can represent society, and that society is nothing more than a collection of individuals.

The murderer, for instance, might insist that when she is arrested, the political community is suppressing her interests to the exclusive will of the majority...

So, you equate someone wanting to keep his property with a murderer?

No, but democracy is not majority rule.

We do not practice majority suffrage. We practice universal suffrage.

The outcomes under democracy are the results of what the majority want.

Society is nothing more than a group of individuals.

Yes, and a group of individuals is not the same thing as an individual.

Especially when it comes to making decisions applying to that same group of individuals.

No you didn't. You said that it was representative of society, I pointed out that a lynch mob can represent society, and that society is nothing more than a collection of individuals.

"Its right to expropriate property is derived from individuals, but that does not mean individuals have the right to individual expropriation. It only means they have the right to live in a society where property is regulated by the public for the public good - not by themselves for whatever private whim they may have."

Lynch mobs are still private institutions - merely portions of the political community.

So, you equate someone wanting to keep his property with a murderer?

This is very indicative of the way you think.

I write out a few paragraphs about the relevant principle, and instead of actually responding to the argument about it, you pick out my choice of example and object to it irrelevantly.

I could have said "rapist" or "mugger" or any other unambiguous criminal, and the point would have been the same.

The outcomes under democracy are the results of what the majority want.

There is no "the majority." There are lots of majorities, encompassing, in the end, pretty much everyone.

Lynch mobs are still private institutions - merely portions of the political community.

That is a question of scale. A lynch mob may not be representative of a national political community, but it can certainly represent a village.

I could have said "rapist" or "mugger" or any other unambiguous criminal, and the point would have been the same.

No, because murderers, rapists, and muggers actively violate the rights of others. Someone merely wanting to keep his property is not violating anyone's rights.

There is no "the majority." There are lots of majorities, encompassing, in the end, pretty much everyone.

The majority that turns out on election day is the only one that matters.

A lynch mob may not be representative of a national political community, but it can certainly represent a village.

Including the villager they lynch?

Someone merely wanting to keep his property is not violating anyone's rights.

"Property" is a social convention whose only legitimate function is to serve the public good.

When it transgresses this function, the public has the right to restrict it.

The majority that turns out on election day is the only one that matters.

Because there is only one election? And only one politician elected?

Including the villager they lynch?

Answer that yourself. You seem to think that expropriation serves the interests of everyone, therefore including the one from whom the property is stolen.

"Property" is a social convention whose only legitimate function is to serve the public good.

And I have already pointed out that there is no discrete entity called "the public" merely a collection of individuals, and therefore the "public good" is merely code for the interests of some individuals (over the rights of others)

When it transgresses this function, the public has the right to restrict it.

Let me put your point more clearly: when some individuals see it as being in their intersts, they can violate the rights of other individuals.

Answer that yourself. You seem to think that expropriation serves the interests of everyone, therefore including the one from whom the property is stolen.

Only I doubt allowing lynching by majority vote serves anyone's interests, and if such a law were ever to be presented, it would be rejected.

And I have already pointed out that there is no discrete entity called "the public" merely a collection of individuals, and therefore the "public good" is merely code for the interests of some individuals (over the rights of others)

Are we really back to this again? :rolleyes:

Let me put your point more clearly: when some individuals see it as being in their intersts, they can violate the rights of other individuals.

That's not what I said.

Only I doubt allowing lynching by majority vote serves anyone's interests, and if such a law were ever to be presented, it would be rejected.

Depends on the community. I have heard of communities in which lynchings received wide support.

Are we really back to this again?

If you want to ignore my argument, don't bother responding.

That's not what I said.

Yes it is.

Depends on the community. I have heard of communities in which lynchings received wide support.

Yes, lynchings of some members.

Lynchings simply by majority vote is a different matter... the only time I could see it passing is if there are more or less constant minority-majority relations.

The possible consequences of such an eventuality should be protected against constitutionally.

If you want to ignore my argument, don't bother responding.

If you want to ignore my argument, don't bother responding.

Yes, lynchings of some members

Yes, just as stealing from some people is supported by other people.

Who said anything about a lynch mob needing a formal vote?

If you want to ignore my argument, don't bother responding.

Your argument fizzled out when you started jabbering about the "public good", while ignoring what the public actually is. You treat it as a single discrete entity, with rights and interests all its own, when it is nothing of the kind. You have not justified this thinking, you have merely asserted that it is so.

Yes, just as stealing from some people is supported by other people.

You clearly have been ignoring what I've said, as usual.

Whatever.

You clearly have been ignoring what I've said, as usual.

No, I am guilty of something much worse, not accepting your assumptions as immutable facts.

Relativism won't get you out of the bind you are in, you need to make a moral case for government theft.

Well, relativism tend to get you out of the discussions in your opinion. You jump from logic to moral all the time, dodging every time you seem to got a point. Actually, you haven't faced most of the arguments presented to you, but placing another in front each time you answer.

I don't need to make a moral case, first because you asked me to build a logical case, and now you jump to morals after realizing logic has nothing to do with morals. You were based on logic on a moral problem, and were claiming the point of others as void given a "logic" that was nothing more than a "moral" posture of yours.

Actually defining the law as a written expression of the morals of the people that created them is enough case for me. In a democratic state, laws are exactly the consensus of the morals of the majority of individuals of the country, or at least it is supposed to be.

In point of fact, it is nothing of the kind. Law is simply that which the legislature has passed (by whatever means laws are made). It reflects the political interests of the legislators, nothing more.

And the political interests of the legislators are supposed to represent the political interests of the majority of the people that elected them. You need a class on representativity, that gives legitimacy to legality and laws.

What you are arguing lately, are opinions and theories, and also moral postures. Where is your logic?

I don't need to make a moral case, first because you asked me to build a logical case, and now you jump to morals after realizing logic has nothing to do with morals.

I've been quite consistant that the case needs to be grounded in morality. Your contention that the moral is inheriently illogical is yet another case of you arguing by assertion.

Your argument must start with morality, and follow in a logical order. Unfortunately, your argument has consisted of assertions and nothing more.

Actually, you haven't faced most of the arguments presented to you, but placing another in front each time you answer.

What arguments? All you have posted is assertions.

Actually defining the law as a written expression of the morals of the people that created them is enough case for me.

So, it convinces you. Of course your own opinion convinces you. If your own opinion didn't convince you, you'd be rather a strange fellow. But you do not define law as such in the very same post, and you have no justification for the view you state above. You have posited no moral case for the laws, only that those who believe they will benefit think their actions moral. To that, I can only say "big deal", people who will benefit from something can always think it moral.

In a democratic state, laws are exactly the consensus of the morals of the majority of individuals of the country, or at least it is supposed to be.

You contradicted this below.

And the political interests of the legislators are supposed to represent the political interests of the majority of the people that elected them.

Now you have contradicted yourself. You have up until now been saying that laws reflect the moral perspectives of the general population, now you admit that laws reflect the political interests of the people who make them.

What you are arguing lately, are opinions and theories, and also moral postures. Where is your logic?

Don't try to transfer the burden of proof. You have asserted that these government thefts are moral. It is you who need to prove that assertion (not merely state it in a slightly different form every time you post).

I've been quite consistant that the case needs to be grounded in morality. Your contention that the moral is inheriently illogical is yet another case of you arguing by assertion.

You have been quite consistant in the fact that the case has to be argumented in logic, and then suddenly sprang to morals. Mt contention that the moral is illogical is based on the fact that logic, as conceived by human reason, is fixed and unfailing, meanwhile moral is changing and hardly unmovable, being different according to each individual. We cannot speak about grey areas in logic, while in moral is the common ground. Given that, moral is not logical at all, not even by conception. That is not an assumption, that is an argument.

Your argument must start with morality, and follow in a logical order. Unfortunately, your argument has consisted of assertions and nothing more.

My argument has consisted, amongst other things, about facts, that seems to be completely absent in yours, and conclusions, that also seem to be completely absent by you. Each time you are presented to an argument, you just desestimate by judging it as not valid and jump towards something else. First, the existance of privilege of goverments, when faced with that, you just desestimated it as something that held no moral ground. When then, presented with legality as the basis of the goverment's privileges, you dodged the issue based on discarding legality as a coherent system, but now jumping from "logic", your supposed first defense, to "morals".

What arguments? All you have posted is assertions.

By my judgment, you haven't posted anything coherent for a while, for example calling the right of homesteading upon a transnational company that hardly "needs" land for conventional survival, (pointing to the fact that the Homesteading Act about that practice covers only the US), or defending the right of private ownership but entirely disregarding the law as a social and moral code. But of course, those inconsistencies are arguments, and I just "assert" things.

So, it convinces you. Of course your own opinion convinces you. If your own opinion didn't convince you, you'd be rather a strange fellow. But you do not define law as such in the very same post, and you have no justification for the view you state above. You have posted no moral case for the laws, only that those who believe they will benefit think their actions moral. To that, I can only say "big deal", people who will benefit from something can always think it moral.

Moral is linked to human individuals and to human groups. Nature, as such, is "amoral", having no moral as such, and without humans, there would be no morals. Individual moral determines the behavior of an individual, and it varies completely from person to person. Social moral determines the attitude of cultures or societies, and need a consensus to reach extra individual jurisdiction. The expressions of the consensus needed to state codes of conduct are the laws, created in democratic societies by the elected representatives of the population, that concede them that power to enforce their own morals or convictions.

Your own opinion seems to suffice to approve everything you throw here as an argument. But of course, it wouldn't go other way around, no?



Now you have contradicted yourself. You have up until now been saying that laws reflect the moral perspectives of the general population, now you admit that laws reflect the political interests of the people who make them.

No, I didn't, you just jumped a big gap over there. The laws reflect the political interests of the people who make them, and those interests are, at large, to reflect the moral perspectives of the general population, that elected them to make laws precisely to make them reflect their moral postures. No contradiction there.

Don't try to transfer the burden of proof. You have asserted that these government thefts are moral. It is you who need to prove that assertion (not merely state it in a slightly different form every time you post).

These goverment measures are entirely moral, just from a different moral than the one you are defending here in this thread, because are based on a moral instrument, the venezuelan law, even if that is not valid according to you. If you label anything that contradict your own moral as "amoral", we can leave this here because there is nothing else to discuss. Remember that with morals, contrary to logic, we have different postures, and all of them may be valid.

Remember that the private ownership right is a guarantee contained in a law, after all. Without laws, or if laws are not valid, or "amoral", then private ownership is as void, and amoral as the laws.

You have been quite consistant in the fact that the case has to be argumented in logic, and then suddenly sprang to morals. Mt contention that the moral is illogical is based on the fact that logic, as conceived by human reason, is fixed and unfailing, meanwhile moral is changing and hardly unmovable, being different according to each individual. We cannot speak about grey areas in logic, while in moral is the common ground. Given that, moral is not logical at all, not even by conception. That is not an assumption, that is an argument.

You are creating a false dillema, that a moral argument cannot be logical, and a logical argument cannot be moral.

Each time you are presented to an argument

You haven't presented an argument, you presented assertions dressed as arguments.

No, I didn't, you just jumped a big gap over there. The laws reflect the political interests of the people who make them, and those interests are, at large, to reflect the moral perspectives of the general population, that elected them to make laws precisely to make them reflect their moral postures. No contradiction there.

No, were that the case, most of the laws on the books would not exist, because a basic moral perspective is don't do to others what you would not have done to yourself.

a moral instrument, the venezuelan law

That is a political instrument.

These goverment measures are entirely moral, just from a different moral than the one you are defending here in this thread,A

Circular argument. All you have done is say "its moral because the law says its moral, because the law is a moral instrument".

It does need to use force when the citizen does not "cooperate" with people who threaten for force him if he does not.

I will put this simply: this argument is not fundamentally about law, a law can make anything legal, but it cannot make things right. That is the point that simply isn't getting into your head.


Indeed. But these forces cannot be put into motion without the requisite legal authorisation.

Indeed. But these forces cannot be put into motion without the requisite legal authorisation.

The forces are the agents of the legislature. The authorisation is in place, before they even load their weapons.