NationStates Jolt Archive

Pragmatism isn't an end in itself, it's a philosophy concerned with reaching a goal. That's what annoys me when people talk about pragmatism as though it was an ideology or a system of beliefs - it doesn't tell you what you want to achieve. That can only be done by something else, something like moral systems based on utilitarianism or natural rights. So there is nothing pragmatic about natural rights sometimes and utilitarianism some other times. It's just arbitrary and inconsistent.

So an individual or a government can only rely upon one (arbitrary) philosophy, or its inconsistent? Well, I sure hope ours is as inconsistent as the situation requires.

If you wanted to do a government healthcare system it should be done by state so those of us not liking it could move.

Tel-Aviv University (History and English Studies, completing BA this year). Austrian economics, of course.

If you wanted to do a government healthcare system it should be done by state so those of us not liking it could move.

A good idea but most states don't have that kind of money. Though technically neither does the federal government.

A good idea but most states don't have that kind of money. Though technically neither does the federal government.

what's the difference between the states Taxing and the federal government taxing it?
the only major difference is the states can't print their own money.

So an individual or a government can only rely upon one (arbitrary) philosophy, or its inconsistent?
The idea behind philosophy is that it isn't arbitrary. We can argue about what philosophical system they should follow, and ultimately I'd say there is one correct one, but that's not the issue at hand.

Well, I sure hope ours is as inconsistent as the situation requires.
For a situation to require anything, you must have a goal in mind which dictates a correct response which would help us achieve it. My point is that a philosophy tells you what this goal should be, and that implies different correct responses. Pragmatism doesn't tell you what the goal should be, hence it's not a philosophy in the sense that it tells right from wrong and is of no importance in addressing my argument.

What I mean by inconsistent is the idea that in healthcare we attempt to make sure everyone's right to medical treatment is implemented, while in setting tax rates we use utilitarian calculus to conclude that rich people value a given number of dollars less, therefore we should tax them more and minimise the unhappiness caused. The two actions aren't just different, they have different goals, they are evaluated according to different criteria. And those criteria are inconsistent: sometimes utilitarian calculus will lead to violations of rights, and sometimes defending rights will lead to aggregate happiness not being maximised. You can't follow both systems at once, even if it is for different policy areas, because all actions by the government must ultimately have the same goal since it is one body which was created to achieve it.

If you wanted to do a government healthcare system it should be done by state so those of us not liking it could move.
Why should you have to move? Just allow people to opt out: you don't pay for them in your tax bill, and you don't get access to government health services.

Why should you have to move? Just allow people to opt out: you don't pay for them in your tax bill, and you don't get access to government health services.

the problem is that would lead to other opt outs. and eventually no one would pay for any service they don't tax.

What I mean by inconsistent is the idea that in healthcare we attempt to make sure everyone's right to medical treatment is implemented, while in setting tax rates we use utilitarian calculus to conclude that rich people value a given number of dollars less, therefore we should tax them more and minimise the unhappiness caused. The two actions aren't just different, they have different goals, they are evaluated according to different criteria. And those criteria are inconsistent: sometimes utilitarian calculus will lead to violations of rights, and sometimes defending rights will lead to aggregate happiness not being maximised. You can't follow both systems at once, even if it is for different policy areas, because all actions by the government must ultimately have the same goal since it is one body which was created to achieve it.
No. Governments are not created to blindly follow a single political philosophy. Political philosophers can get away with that, but there's a reason Burke had so many caveats in his writing - he was an actual, working politician. Just because utilitarianism can lead to violations of rights, doesn't mean it has to. The government picks and chooses their policies based on their outcomes, not their inputs.

...The two actions aren't just different, they have different goals, they are evaluated according to different criteria. And those criteria are inconsistent: sometimes utilitarian calculus will lead to violations of rights, and sometimes defending rights will lead to aggregate happiness not being maximised. You can't follow both systems at once, even if it is for different policy areas, because all actions by the government must ultimately have the same goal since it is one body which was created to achieve it.
Though governments generally don't have the 'same goal', and aren't exactly dogmatic with their metaethical or normative deliberations.

the problem is that would lead to other opt outs. and eventually no one would pay for any service they don't tax.
And? As long as the services that really cannot be provided on a user pays basis without significant freerider problems are financed by a compulsory tax, if people don't want to pay into a public healthcare scheme, maybe there shouldn't be one.

No. Governments are not created to blindly follow a single political philosophy.
They are designed to do something, right? Why do you think governments exist and should exist?

Political philosophers can get away with that, but there's a reason Burke had so many caveats in his writing - he was an actual, working politician.
Actual, working politicians are the most pointless, twisted people on the planet precisely because they live by caveats. And it should be noted that I am no fan of Burke (predictably), given that I think any argument which even contains so much as the hint of admitting the imperfection of individual reason to be self-contradictory.

Of course, going beyond that, Burke just wasn't a fan of established orders being upset. That's not exactly a comprehensive system of philosophy even if it was argued properly.

Just because utilitarianism can lead to violations of rights, doesn't mean it has to. The government picks and chooses their policies based on their outcomes, not their inputs.
Philosophy informs outcomes, which then imply inputs. Inconsistency in philosophy makes the entire idea of government idiotic, because the only reason it can be allowed to exist in the first place is because it has to perform a certain function which must be determined by philosophy.

Though governments generally don't have the 'same goal', and aren't exactly dogmatic with their metaethical or normative deliberations.
Hence why libertarianism is so appealing a view to take in real life. People must ask themselves what the purpose of government is, why it's justified to inflict violence on other people because of it and ultimately, whether the government we actually have is serving this purpose or not. And if it isn't, then depending on how fundamental the difference between is and ought is in this case, simply voting in another party into power (provided that was even possible, given that informed opinion loses out virtually always in modern democracy to emotional appeals and unprincipled populism) is not going to be enough. And if that is the case, the most immediate response would be to ask for a reduction in this government.

And that logic obviously goes for libertarianism on both the left and right.

And? As long as the services that really cannot be provided on a user pays basis without significant freerider problems are financed by a compulsory tax, if people don't want to pay into a public healthcare scheme, maybe there shouldn't be one.




The opt out just makes it too easy.
People would opt out of paying for education if they didn't have kids in school.

Changing states however is a big step and allows people to individually leave a system, if it significantly bothers them.

Philosophy informs outcomes, which then imply inputs. Inconsistency in philosophy makes the entire idea of government idiotic, because the only reason it can be allowed to exist in the first place is because it has to perform a certain function which must be determined by philosophy.
Once again, you're wrong. A government is not a mechanism for fulfilling a single philosophy. It is a mechanism for many things, but those things can be something Nozick would like, or something Rawls would like, or something Rousseau would like, and this doesn't make the government inconsistent - it makes it functional. Political philosophies exist in the abstract, and there is no practical way to translate that into a working political system because different issues require different solutions that can be drawn from any number of political philosophies. If I wanted an answer to affirmative action, I might draw upon Rousseau but I wouldn't draw upon Hobbes because he doesn't really give a damn about it. On the other hand, if I wanted to address freedom of religion Hobbes would be the ideal guy to go to (well, depending on how you feel about religion).

Our government is not purely a Rawlsian liberal democracy, obviously, or a Burkean conservative haven, or a Millsian utilitarian paradise. On any number of issues it can be any of those, or it can combine. But it is not just one thing, and no government on the earth is just one thing. Governments exist. Political philosophies are ideals - not blueprints. Our government performs different functions for every individual living under it - I don't agree on "Why government?" with my neighbor.

Pragmatism isn't an end in itself, it's a philosophy concerned with reaching a goal. That's what annoys me when people talk about pragmatism as though it was an ideology or a system of beliefs - it doesn't tell you what you want to achieve. That can only be done by something else, something like moral systems based on utilitarianism or natural rights. So there is nothing pragmatic about natural rights sometimes and utilitarianism some other times. It's just arbitrary and inconsistent.

I think you missed the point.

It doesn't need to be an ideology or system of beliefs.

If the pragmatic approach is to - and let's be extreme - have communist states, inter-governed by a capitalist nation, then the fact that you're arguing two different ideologies is irrelevant.

If you're saying you can't distribute x one way, and y another... that's nonsensical. Of course you can. And if it's pragmatic to do it that way, most people will (all other things being equal).

If you wanted to do a government healthcare system it should be done by state so those of us not liking it could move.

There's little control over southbound travel across the mexican border.

Buh bye now.

Once again, you're wrong. A government is not a mechanism for fulfilling a single philosophy.
It isn't often, but it can be.

Think of the USSR under Lenin.

Political philosophies exist in the abstract, and there is no practical way to translate that into a working political system because different issues require different solutions that can be drawn from any number of political philosophies.
I'd beg to differ.

The three examples you give - Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, Rawls' Theory of Justice and Mill's Utilitarianism - are specifically designed to be practical, 'working' philosophies; they don't exist 'in the abstract'. Importantly, they're not designed to be ideals; at least, not in the whole.

Though governments don't usually follow a single philosophical vision, they sometimes do, and moreover, this doesn't mean that political philosophies that aren't followed by governments don't work practically.

The opt out just makes it too easy.
People would opt out of paying for education if they didn't have kids in school.
You could easily make it a ten year commitment, or allow some other mechanism to deal with the implications of uncertainty in order to secure funding.

But the entire point is that it's supposed to be as easy as possible. It's not cool to force people to do things against their will. Hence we should minimise the instances in which we do it.

Changing states however is a big step and allows people to individually leave a system, if it significantly bothers them.
It also involves significant costs, and so people who have done nothing wrong are being presented with a choice between two costly alternatives. Which one they end up choosing is largely irrelevant - the important thing is that they should cost as little as possible.

Once again, you're wrong. A government is not a mechanism for fulfilling a single philosophy.
Look, a government must have a purpose, doesn't it? If not, why do we have them?

If I wanted an answer to affirmative action, I might draw upon Rousseau but I wouldn't draw upon Hobbes because he doesn't really give a damn about it.
But that doesn't necessarily mean you can't use Hobbes' philosophy to come up with an answer to your problem. I'm not saying we have to implement some random book by a random philosopher. I'm saying that there needs to be an internally consistent philosophical basis for the actions a government takes. If nothing else, a government writes laws, which are meant to ensure that people don't do wrong things. But only philosophy can inform what "wrong" is, and you can't possibly get an internally consistent or even sensible (and I would argue about "pragmatic") code of law if the government attempts to implement lots of different ideas on morality at the same time.

Our government performs different functions for every individual living under it - I don't agree on "Why government?" with my neighbor.
So? What does your neighbour have to do with it? It's not like right and wrong are subject to majority opinions.

But if your neighbour is a utilitarian, and you're an advocate of natural rights, then there simply is no compromise possible. Unless neither of you have an internally consistent view, you will demand that old people get healthcare and he will demand that they don't (given there are better alternatives to spend the resources in his view). It's an either-or thing, and government cannot but be one thing and not the other.

I think you missed the point.
I think we're both missing each other.

If the pragmatic approach is to - and let's be extreme - have communist states, inter-governed by a capitalist nation, then the fact that you're arguing two different ideologies is irrelevant.
Okay, pragmatism is a way of making decisions that might tell you to have this combination of systems to achieve...what? Maximise wealth? Happiness? Freedom?

Those are the answers that pragmatism cannot give you. And I'm saying that utilitarianism or natural rights ethics do suggest those answers, and that the two offer answers that necessarily contradict each other.

So if he wants to say "we should take from the rich for XY technical reason", then that's okay. It may not be okay to actually do it, but at least it would be an argument that might fit into his overall view. But if he gives an explicitly utilitarian reason for it, then he cannot take anything other than a utilitarian stance on any other issue without contradicting himself.

There's little control over southbound travel across the mexican border.

Buh bye now.

No need Texas doesn't want government health care, even to the point of refusing federal funds, like we did with unemployment benefits.

You could easily make it a ten year commitment, or allow some other mechanism to deal with the implications of uncertainty in order to secure funding.

But the entire point is that it's supposed to be as easy as possible. It's not cool to force people to do things against their will. Hence we should minimise the instances in which we do it.



Yeah a contract would be a nice way to provide an opt out.

what a coincidence, i too enjoy wearing tinfoil hats and hoarding gold and guns

And, evidently, trolling.

Dont forget not giving a flying fuck about anyone but yourself, and MAYBE the corporate elite.

Please do not confuse us with Republicans.

And, evidently, trolling.

if making fun of the paranoid style in 'libertarianism' is wrong, i don't want to be right. not until they give us our word back and go dirty up some other word - republican, maybe. it's not like they really believe in liberty anyway, except in the most narrowly circumscribed way that just amounts to a sort of neo-feudalism. and that's when they aren't opportunistic fascists (though clearly not so good at picking out valuable opportunities) or standard conspiracy theorists, which all too many 'libertarians' are.

But if your neighbour is a utilitarian, and you're an advocate of natural rights, then there simply is no compromise possible. Unless neither of you have an internally consistent view, you will demand that old people get healthcare and he will demand that they don't (given there are better alternatives to spend the resources in his view).
Perhaps, though I'm sure you can construct a utilitarian argument to support healthcare for the elderly; though I realise this isn't your point.

What I would say is that it is possible to work a compromise between two differing normative positions. Ignoring pluralistic views, often folks arrive at the same opinion through different means, different ethical standpoints. I'm not saying a government, or any institution for that matter, shouldn't have a coherent ethical philosophy, but that it is possible for differing opinions to work together towards the same goals.

if making fun of the paranoid style in 'libertarianism' is wrong, i don't want to be right. not until they give us our word back and go dirty up some other word - republican, maybe.
*sigh* I did not realize that you could 'own' words. My apologies.:rolleyes:
it's not like they really believe in liberty anyway, except in the most narrowly circumscribed way that just amounts to a sort of neo-feudalism. and that's when they aren't opportunistic fascists (though clearly not so good at picking out valuable opportunities) or standard conspiracy theorists, which all too many 'libertarians' are.
*sigh* This must be some sort of a past-time for self-assured leftists... Making fun of Libertarianism. My apologies to the Leftists on this forum who do not make slurs with little real evidence other than the imagined falsehoods made up by bored people who have nothing better to do than to flamebait people on the internet.

if making fun of the paranoid style in 'libertarianism' is wrong, i don't want to be right. not until they give us our word back and go dirty up some other word - republican, maybe. it's not like they really believe in liberty anyway, except in the most narrowly circumscribed way that just amounts to a sort of neo-feudalism. and that's when they aren't opportunistic fascists (though clearly not so good at picking out valuable opportunities) or standard conspiracy theorists, which all too many 'libertarians' are.

It's hard to say what you're more full of - shit or strawmen.

Okay, pragmatism is a way of making decisions that might tell you to have this combination of systems to achieve...what? Maximise wealth? Happiness? Freedom?

Those are the answers that pragmatism cannot give you. And I'm saying that utilitarianism or natural rights ethics do suggest those answers, and that the two offer answers that necessarily contradict each other.

So if he wants to say "we should take from the rich for XY technical reason", then that's okay. It may not be okay to actually do it, but at least it would be an argument that might fit into his overall view. But if he gives an explicitly utilitarian reason for it, then he cannot take anything other than a utilitarian stance on any other issue without contradicting himself.

As Chumbly pointed out - the point is - you CAN have divergent ideologies. Your claim that you couldn't do x AND do y was built on particularly shaky ground, because you absolutely can.

Just one thought that's been stewing around in my head over the weekend - you say 'it's not okay' to 'take from the rich' (for example)... but... well, why?

I've not been talking about redistribution of wealth - but this is a thought I've been entertaining. Normally, we all tend to argue in favor of what is 'fair'... although we may differ over what we think 'fair' is.

So - for some - it's saying "I earned this money, therefore it is mine, and none should be taken from me". For others, it's saying "no man is an island, the fact that you could earn that money is actually a benefit you gained from the greater society".


And what I arrived at is - those who are extremely wealthy seem to object very strongly to how 'unfair' it is to take any of their accumulated wealth... but seem particularly blind to how 'unfair' it is for so many people to live literally from paycheck to paycheck...

No need Texas doesn't want government health care, even to the point of refusing federal funds, like we did with unemployment benefits.

And yet, as soon as the 'Swine Flu' story broke, Texas were all over trying to get Federal help.

Texas will do what the federal government tells Texas to do. If the global US model becomes nationalized healthcare, Texas will do it. They may pout and grumble, and puff up their chests, but the state collectively isn't dumb enough to shit where it eats.

Perhaps, though I'm sure you can construct a utilitarian argument to support healthcare for the elderly; though I realise this isn't your point.
Which is why I consider utilitarianism such a cop-out. Sure, maximising aggregate happiness sounds like a great goal. But given our inability to measure it other than with decidedly imperfect proxies, it doesn't really do very much in terms of informing decision making. Depending on what I think gives us happiness and how I measure it, I can support abortion or not, for example.

What I would say is that it is possible to work a compromise between two differing normative positions. Ignoring pluralistic views, often folks arrive at the same opinion through different means, different ethical standpoints. I'm not saying a government, or any institution for that matter, shouldn't have a coherent ethical philosophy, but that it is possible for differing opinions to work together towards the same goals.
And I agree with that as well. But the point is that when you make a very simple, utilitarian argument for a policy, like the one Virginia Cooper put forward, then believing that argument kind of requires you to make simple, utilitarian arguments for other policies as well. And those don't lead to the places where he's likely to want to go.

It's not so much that I'm arguing against a progressive tax system right now. It's more a matter of how you justify it, and whether your doing so requires that by consistency you'd have to also support other policies.

As Chumbly pointed out - the point is - you CAN have divergent ideologies. Your claim that you couldn't do x AND do y was built on particularly shaky ground, because you absolutely can.
I realise that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=590467). I'm just saying it's dodgy and arbitrary to do so.

Just one thought that's been stewing around in my head over the weekend - you say 'it's not okay' to 'take from the rich' (for example)... but... well, why?
Because it's not okay to take from anyone. It's a punishment, it's inflicting harm on someone they did nothing to earn. I'm more likely to be defending the rich because it seems more okay to call for them to be taken from, but if someone wanted to charge big taxes on poor people (particularly when we reach levels at which the taxes clearly end up being more than the government services that person actually benefits from), then I'd be against that just the same.

I've not been talking about redistribution of wealth - but this is a thought I've been entertaining. Normally, we all tend to argue in favor of what is 'fair'... although we may differ over what we think 'fair' is.
It's not really about fairness, more about right and wrong. The degree to which the two are connected probably depends on exactly what you consider to be fair.

So - for some - it's saying "I earned this money, therefore it is mine, and none should be taken from me". For others, it's saying "no man is an island, the fact that you could earn that money is actually a benefit you gained from the greater society".
Except that I think that for the most part you can actually divide this benefit and associate its parts with the people you actually dealt with. And those people get paid that share, or something approaching it, in the actual dealings themselves. The question is: how did someone on the other side of the country, who I have never seen or heard of, how is that person involved with my wealth or income? It's all very easy to talk about society, but society doesn't do anything in your stead, so I don't see how this person could have done anything that would mean he deserved or was otherwise meaningfully associated with a part of my income.

And even if we did decide that society had a right to my labour or its products, the question is why that implies that this random person should receive a larger share of it than I would, or someone else might. We make these decisions based on majority vote, which is BS in my view. You start out with society as an ethereal third concept that has a property right to this money, then we use its nature as a poorly defined concept to justify the idea that a majority verdict actually represents its will and interest, and then we suddenly make the jump back to the physical world with real people and give some of them money. It's just dodgy reasoning, backed up by lethargy and the law and nothing else.

And what I arrived at is - those who are extremely wealthy seem to object very strongly to how 'unfair' it is to take any of their accumulated wealth... but seem particularly blind to how 'unfair' it is for so many people to live literally from paycheck to paycheck...
Hence why fairness is probably not the best concept to use. The point is that if you tax a rich person, you're doing them harm. But who is doing harm to that poor person? It's no one's fault that they are poor, no one is guilty of a crime, and hence punishing some people for the purposes of restitution of justice is not the answer. Hence why people should be encouraged to give voluntarily, but using compulsion to do it just isn't right.

And yet, as soon as the 'Swine Flu' story broke, Texas were all over trying to get Federal help.

That's only because the federal government doesn't let the state of Texas close off our boarder with Mexico as we will to.


Texas will do what the federal government tells Texas to do. If the global US model becomes nationalized healthcare, Texas will do it. They may pout and grumble, and puff up their chests, but the state collectively isn't dumb enough to shit where it eats.

My argument is for the states to have the choice.
But luckily nationalized healthcare will never become the standard so it is irrelevant.

*sigh* I did not realize that you could 'own' words. My apologies.:rolleyes:

no, but you can use words in more and less useful ways. USian-style libertarianism is a less useful way of understanding liberty, given that it routinely prioritizes property over liberty.

*sigh* This must be some sort of a past-time for self-assured leftists... Making fun of Libertarianism. My apologies to the Leftists on this forum who do not make slurs with little real evidence other than the imagined falsehoods made up by bored people who have nothing better to do than to flamebait people on the internet.

oh come on, i know more about libertarianism than most liberts. their movement has always been filled with various right-wing lunatics - 'patriot' movement types, gold-bugs, neo-confederates, people worried about international jewish plots, and people preparing for the coming race war.

as for the neo-feudalism of the 'real' liberts, that is merely the outcome of their prioritizing property. this just means that power in society will be divided by wealth, with the rich and powerful ruling their own private fiefdoms and the vast bulk of people having to cater to the whims of the neo-feudal lords (until we all get fed up and just kill the fuckers, of course). after all, someone will own the roads, own the malls, own the place you work, etc. and they will have absolute control over what goes on there, not subject to any sort of democratic decision making or external checks to secure equal liberty for all.

no, but you can use words in more and less useful ways. USian-style libertarianism is a less useful way of understanding liberty, given that it routinely prioritizes property over liberty.

All liberty stems from private property rights. For example, self-ownership.

oh come on, i know more about libertarianism than most liberts. their movement has always been filled with various right-wing lunatics - 'patriot' movement types, gold-bugs, neo-confederates, people worried about international jewish plots, and people preparing for the coming race war.

All of those are made of fail, with the exception of gold "bugs." All the others are nuts who deserve ostracism regardless of what they call themselves.

as for the neo-feudalism of the 'real' liberts, that is merely the outcome of their prioritizing property. this just means that power in society will be divided by wealth, with the rich and powerful ruling their own private fiefdoms and the vast bulk of people having to cater to the whims of the neo-feudal lords (until we all get fed up and just kill the fuckers, of course). after all, someone will own the roads, own the malls, own the place you work, etc. and they will have absolute control over what goes on there, not subject to any sort of democratic decision making or external checks to secure equal liberty for all.

Nothing should be subject to democratic decision making. Democracy is a complete contrast to self-ownership. Others should not be able to make decisions that affect you; only you should. Everything a person does should be subject only to his own decision making, provided that it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's right to do the same. For example, you should have the right to decide who you sleep with, but the person you want to sleep with also has the right to decide if they want to sleep with you or not. If you want to build a 300 mile tall castle and paint it green with red hearts, why is that anyone else's business?

I support self-government. Every person should be allowed to freely start, join, or leave the society of his choosing. For example, if you want to establish a confederation of anarchist communes, that is your right. If someone else wants to establish a fascist state based on red-headed supremacy, that is their right. Provided, of course, that everyone joins of their own free will, and provided further that said societies are not established by force.

no, but you can use words in more and less useful ways. USian-style libertarianism is a less useful way of understanding liberty, given that it routinely prioritizes property over liberty.

Right. You keep believing that.

oh come on, i know more about libertarianism than most liberts.
Right. Well, whatever keeps your ego afloat.
their movement has always been filled with various right-wing lunatics - 'patriot' movement types, gold-bugs, neo-confederates, people worried about international jewish plots, and people preparing for the coming race war.
All parties have their bad eggs. You think that there' any Communist/Socialist party out there without it's share of bums, Deadbeats, freaks who want the Soviet Union revived, people who have only joined in the hope that they will never have to work again, Control-Freaks, and closet Fascists?

as for the neo-feudalism of the 'real' liberts, that is merely the outcome of their prioritizing property. this just means that power in society will be divided by wealth, with the rich and powerful ruling their own private fiefdoms and the vast bulk of people having to cater to the whims of the neo-feudal lords (until we all get fed up and just kill the fuckers, of course).
Riiight. And YOU'RE talking about the conspiracy theorists in the US Libertarian Party?
after all, someone will own the roads, own the malls, own the place you work, etc. and they will have absolute control over what goes on there, not subject to any sort of democratic decision making or external checks to secure equal liberty for all.
The hell? Do you even read up on what the Libertarian Party stands for? Or do you just make shit up and hope people believe you?

All liberty stems from private property rights. For example, self-ownership.

that is not at all the relationship between liberty and private property. property is a system for constraining action and adjudicating disputes. it is neither the originator liberty, nor the only system possible for defining it.

and self-ownership is a particularly poor way to understand anything, obscuring more than it illuminates and opening the door to various abuses like debt slavery.

All of those are made of fail, with the exception of gold "bugs." All the others are nuts who deserve ostracism regardless of what they call themselves.

yet instead they fit quite nicely into the libert 'mainstream'. hell, just check out the stuff ron paul lent his name to.

Nothing should be subject to democratic decision making. Democracy is a complete contrast to self-ownership. Others should not be able to make decisions that affect you; only you should. Everything a person does should be subject only to his own decision making, provided that it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's right to do the same.

and you'll find that the world is full of decisions that affect more than you. in such cases, the only way to decide things while respecting liberty is democratically. if we do not, then we just have a case of some making decisions for others. therefore you either do not really believe that nothing should be subject to democratic decision making or approve of some ruling others. or, i suppose, believe that only the life of a hermit is compatible with liberty.

I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul. And I'll admit, some of his supporters are quite nuts.

Which is why I consider utilitarianism such a cop-out. Sure, maximising aggregate happiness sounds like a great goal. But given our inability to measure it other than with decidedly imperfect proxies, it doesn't really do very much in terms of informing decision making. Depending on what I think gives us happiness and how I measure it, I can support abortion or not, for example.
I broadly agree, though it's important to note that hedonistic utilitarianism isn't the sum of all things utilitarian. Few modern proponents of the theory, or more accurately, theories, view utility as simply happiness.

However, quantifiability is a major problem, even for those utilitarians who plump for 'interest' or 'well-being' as the description of utility. Environmental good(s) is a particular example where the theory goes all wobbly, I feel. How can I quantify the utility benefit of a mountain, say?

The question is: how did someone on the other side of the country, who I have never seen or heard of, how is that person involved with my wealth or income?
Because that person is part of the economy, part of society, part of what enables one to create wealth. Now, you could say, 'oh but this person didn't contribute directly to me getting wealthy', but how can we rightly judge this? Unless you live in a completely self-contained community, the person on the other side of the country cannot be said to have nothing to do with you prospering, just as a single hill on the other side of the world cannot be said to have nothing to do with the local weather.

Your income was garnered through a system of interconnected individuals, each with a large number of circumstances far beyond their control which in part determines their wealth; for good or for ill. I know you don't hold the nonsensical view that poverty is merely a sign of laziness; you recognise, surely, that there are those who toil throughout their lives in poorly-waged jobs, and that these people, in their turn, a part of the economy that fuels your income.

If you don't accept, as I know you don't, that ownership of resources and the means of production should be shared by all, held in equal by all, then I don't see how you can do anything but realise that (a) those who are rich make their wealth on the backs of others' labour, as well as their own (i.e., a recognition of nothing more than the workings of modern capitalism), and that (b) there will be some who put in effort, labour, etc., into their income, but are not wealthy down to little more than their position in the economic system.

Extending a safety net through progressive taxation is the least that can be done to recognise the labour of others. Taxation isn't a punishment, as you make it out to be, but the pay-off one makes to exist in the society we do. I'm willing to discuss the possibility of a system without taxation at all, but a modern capitalist system without progressive taxation is not an ethical, nor a viable, choice.

It's all very easy to talk about society, but society doesn't do anything in your stead...
Come now, there's no benefit to being in society?



All liberty stems from private property rights.
So without property, we cannot be free?

Nothing should be subject to democratic decision making... Everything a person does should be subject only to his own decision making, provided that it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's right to do the same.
Problem is, we live in a society that is so interconnected, that there is very little of our lives that don't interfere, in some manner, upon someone else's.

You say nothing should be subject to democratic decision making, but that would imply that nothing is truly a subject that affects all.

If you want to build a 300 mile tall castle and paint it green with red hearts, why is that anyone else's business?
Because your use of the land the castle is built on, and use of the resources the castle is built from, affects others. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong to build such a castle (though I'd question your aesthetic taste), but it is obviously somebody "else's business".

So without property, we cannot be free?

Every person owns property. You own yourself.

Problem is, we live in a society that is so interconnected, that there is very little of our lives that don't interfere, in some manner, upon someone else's.

Such as?

You say nothing should be subject to democratic decision making, but that would imply that nothing is truly a subject that affects all.

Let me re-phrase. Nothing should be subject to democratic decision making unless said decision making only applies to those who consent to membership in the democracy.

Because your use of the land the castle is built on, and use of the resources the castle is built from, affects others. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong to build such a castle (though I'd question your aesthetic taste), but it is obviously somebody "else's business".

In a few cases, yes (i.e., if my castle is a major polluter, than obviously it will affect others), but otherwise, no.

Whoever it was that said Nozick, Rawls and Mills were constructing practical political systems:

This is the case with many political philosophers, but I would argue that not one has yet to actually succeed. The problem with political philosophy as a whole is that the philosopher begins with a set of assumptions about how the whole of government should be run (such as Rawl's difference principle, for instance) and then constructs their entire governmental structure around those assumptions. What I am arguing is that each individual facet of government cannot be effectively designed around the same principles - but rather, have to be addressed as individual "machines", so to speak, as opposed to cogs in one, larger machine. So while Rawls might work in the Department of Labor, he might not work in the State Department - where Nozick might be more applicable (a dumb example, but I'm trying to illustrate separation, not philosophy). Government has to be designed for functionality in the first place, and philosophy second. Therefore, on occasion, philosophy will be sacrificed.

My example of this is from Burke - who prided himself on being practical, more so than any other political philosopher of merit. A Burkean system doesn't allow for change. While his reasoning on this is sound, it is constricted by his assumptions about change and what government should be doing. Now his principles work in some cases (changing certain laws shouldn't be easy), but in other cases easy change is far more preferable to the alternative.

Government has to be designed for functionality in the first place, and philosophy second.

This appears to be your unargued for assumption.

True, I cannot blindly apply (say) the difference principle to the question of international politics... but certainly I can apply Rawlsian principles broadly conceived to the question. Rawls does so himself in The Law of Peoples.

And why wouldn't I? "Functionality"? But "functionality" as such doesn't mean anything; functionality of what, functionality toward what, functionality through what? If you mean that it is not reasonable to put a philosophical moral principle before efficacy in the achievement of some end, then you are really just presupposing that the ends justify the means. Why should we agree?

Every person owns property. You own yourself.
That begs the question, both of the nature of freedom, and of the existence of property rights. Your positing a natural property right to oneself, and a freedom that comes with such ownership.

Where does this right come from?

Such as?
Sorry?

Let me re-phrase. Nothing should be subject to democratic decision making unless said decision making only applies to those who consent to membership in the democracy.
What of decisions involving children, the very elderly or the mentally disabled?

In a few cases, yes (i.e., if my castle is a major polluter, than obviously it will affect others), but otherwise, no.
What do you mean 'no'?

Do you deny that the use of resources and land has any effect on the lives of others? If you build a castle and, presumably, want to attach property rights to that castle, then you're positing duties onto others; at the very least respect of your rights.

That affects others.



Whoever it was that said Nozick,
Rawls and Mills were constructing practical political systems:[/I]
Twas me.

The problem with political philosophy as a whole is that the philosopher begins with a set of assumptions about how the whole of government should be run (such as Rawl's difference principle, for instance) and then constructs their entire governmental structure around those assumptions.
Not necessarily. Utilitarianism, for example, is written on an ethical principle, not a governmental one, while Rawls isn't making assumptions about how government should be run, he's trying to determine how government should be run.

Government has to be designed for functionality in the first place, and philosophy second.
But this functionality is based itself on a philosophy, even if that philosophy is in the vague meaning of the term, drawn from multiple sources.

That begs the question, both of the nature of freedom, and of the existence of property rights. Your positing a natural property right to oneself, and a freedom that comes with such ownership.

Where does this right come from?

You possess this right simply by virtue of being born.

Sorry?

What are some examples?

What of decisions involving children, the very elderly or the mentally disabled?

Those should be made by their families. Of course, the desires of the children/elderly/disabled should be taken into consideration.

What do you mean 'no'?

I mean, if it doesn't directly affect you, then it shouldn't be anyone else's business.

Do you deny that the use of resources and land has any effect on the lives of others? If you build a castle and, presumably, want to attach property rights to that castle, then you're positing duties onto others; at the very least respect of your rights.

That affects others.

Of course, everyone has to respect each others' rights. And it can have an affect, for example, if my castle pollutes your land, in which case you should have the right to take me to court and seek restitution.

You possess this right simply by virtue of being born.
But what about being born confers property rights?

What other rights are conferred onto us by nature of our existence?

What are some examples?
Of what?

(Apologies, I've lost the thread of your questioning.)

Of course, everyone has to respect each others' rights. And it can have an affect, for example, if my castle pollutes your land, in which case you should have the right to take me to court and seek restitution.
Woah, cowboy!

You've still got to make an argument for the construction of the castle. What gives you the right to use the land and resources needed to build the castle, over me or any other person?

But what about being born confers property rights?

Humans naturally have these rights. No one confers them.

What other rights are conferred onto us by nature of our existence?

In a nutshell: The right to say, think, or do anything you wish, except initiate aggression against others or violate their rights.

Of what?

(Apologies, I've lost the thread of your questioning.)

You had said, "Problem is, we live in a society that is so interconnected, that there is very little of our lives that don't interfere, in some manner, upon someone else's."

I was wondering what some examples are.

Woah, cowboy!

You've still got to make an argument for the construction of the castle. What gives you the right to use the land and resources needed to build the castle, over me or any other person?

If I acquired or purchased the land by fair and legitimate means, or if I found it myself (and no one else owns it), I have the right to build the castle there.

Humans naturally have these rights. No one confers them.

[natural rights of humans]: The right to say, think, or do anything you wish, except initiate aggression against others or violate their rights.
But what determine that we have property rights and not, say, the right to a good coffee on a Saturday morning?

You had said, "Problem is, we live in a society that is so interconnected, that there is very little of our lives that don't interfere, in some manner, upon someone else's."

I was wondering what some examples are.
Of aspects of our lives that don't interfere with others?

Private thoughts, I suppose; to the point until we act on them.

If I acquired or purchased the land by fair and legitimate means, or if I found it myself (and no one else owns it), I have the right to build the castle there.
So you see that all of this involves others.

But "functionality" as such doesn't mean anything; functionality of what, functionality toward what, functionality through what?
Exactly.

That's only because the federal government doesn't let the state of Texas close off our boarder with Mexico as we will to.


No, it's because Texas couldn't deal with the crisis on it's own.

And closing off the border wouldn't help, since each of the incident locations so far have ben connected with people moving in and out of the country legitimately.


My argument is for the states to have the choice.
But luckily nationalized healthcare will never become the standard so it is irrelevant.

If states had the choice, Texas wouldn't opt out if all other states had it.

Humans naturally have these rights. No one confers them.


You say that so confidently.

On the other hand, as examples of abandoning babies clearly illustrate, the only 'right' you are born with is the 'right' to die in a dumpster, unless someone ELSE protects you.

So, whence cometh these 'rights'?

Devilstower over at the dkos has a moving article I think is relevant to the topic at hand. Its longish, but well worth the read.

How Freedom Was Lost (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/3/724370/-How-Freedom-Was-Lost)

No, it's because Texas couldn't deal with the crisis on it's own.

And closing off the border wouldn't help, since each of the incident locations so far have been connected with people moving in and out of the country legitimately.


Closing the boarders means closing it to legitimate traffic, with the first sign of the disease American citizens returning being subject to quarantine. Stopping illegal traffic is just business as usual.
We likely would have closed it a month ago over the drug war issue.
Texas would have easily been able to handle this is federal law didn't prevent us from taking the appropriate action.


If states had the choice, Texas wouldn't opt out if all other states had it.

You don't know Texas very well do you ?
But right now only one state I think has opted for state ran health care. Seems the reverse of your scenario is more correct.

Closing the boarders means closing it to legitimate traffic, with the first sign of the disease American citizens returning being subject to quarantine.


Nonsensical. Unless you mean that Texas was going to close ALL of it's borders.

The virus is IN the US, that's why closing the borders is useless.


We likely would have closed it a month ago over the drug war issue.
Texas would have easily been able to handle this is federal law didn't prevent us from taking the appropriate action.


More crap, I'm afraid. Texas couldn't handle hurricanes without federal intervention, couldn't handle housing people from elsewhere without federal intervention, and couldn't handle an outbreak without federal intervention.

in other words, Texas is pretty much just like any other state.


You don't know Texas very well do you ?
But right now only one state I think has opted for state ran health care. Seems the reverse of your scenario is more correct.

I know Texas well enough to know that - if 49 states went single payer, Texas would, too.

You say that so confidently.

On the other hand, as examples of abandoning babies clearly illustrate, the only 'right' you are born with is the 'right' to die in a dumpster, unless someone ELSE protects you.

So, whence cometh these 'rights'?

You are correct. There are no intrinsic rights inherent to the human condition. aAl rights are those that we have been give, or taken for ourselves.

You are correct. There are no intrinsic rights inherent to the human condition. aAl rights are those that we have been give, or taken for ourselves.
Which means that might makes right. It's that simple.

Nonsensical. Unless you mean that Texas was going to close ALL of it's borders.

The virus is IN the US, that's why closing the borders is useless.

The Virus is in the US because the borders were not closed at first sign of this disease.

More crap, I'm afraid. Texas couldn't handle hurricanes without federal intervention, couldn't handle housing people from elsewhere without federal intervention, and couldn't handle an outbreak without federal intervention.

Stop federal taxation of US citizens, and Texas would easily have the resources to handle these on its own issues, with a discount compared to federal tax rates.


in other words, Texas is pretty much just like any other state.

Like any other Tax donor state, except our economy didn't take a nose dive like California did.


I know Texas well enough to know that - if 49 states went single payer, Texas would, too.[/QUOTE]

Just like the US would certainly adopt a government ran health care system when every other developed country did ???

The Virus is in the US because the borders were not closed at first sign of this disease.


Rubbish. By the time the disease became obvious, it was ALREADY too late, because a virus doesn't send out warning letters telling you it's going to arrive in your neighborhood sometime soon.

By the time it starts manifesting, it's long past present, and - in mmost cases - it's well into the active transmission stage.


Stop federal taxation of US citizens, and Texas would easily have the resources to handle these on its own issues, with a discount compared to federal tax rates.


Stop federal taxation of US citizens and Texas would still be dust and dirt.


Like any other Tax donor state, except our economy didn't take a nose dive like California did.


Sure it did. Just not as much. But then, California was more profitable than all but half a dozen nations.


Just like the US would certainly adopt a government ran health care system when every other developed country did ???

Who said that?

Strawman.