Crony Capitalism

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."

That's not what happened in the U.S., nor in Anglo-American common law, nor in equity. The quoted passage could have been Obama, an individual right to health care, housing, schools, cellphones, voting, legal representation, USDA food inspection, an endless list of individual rights subordinating society (i.e., taxpayers).

[BaalChatzaf]

8 hours ago, anthony said:

And yet. You say on another thread: "He who refused to think allowed it [evil] to occur. Allowance can be by action or omission". Well spoke, but now you contradicted yourself.

Man's nature is the capacity to think. By his thinking and non-thinking he can create good and evil. So - morality (good or evil) is inextricably part of man's nature. A = B, B = C, therefore, C = A. How then, by your first statement, is morality a "human made law" and a "human artifice"?

Man's nature is morally neutral.  Humans can be good or not good as circumstances and decisions apply.  Once again evil as a property of actions, does not flow from any physical law of nature.  Nature does not care or know of good and evil.  Nature just does what it does and it is what it is.

[Brant Gaede]

On 1/9/2017 at 7:58 PM, Samson Corwell said:

I don't belief in rights as important components of a moral theory.

So? This is low hanging fruit but not deserving of eating.

I could also say this is an ideological bowling ball, but I'm not a bowling pin.

--Brant

[jts]

13 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Man's nature is morally neutral. 

What happened to humans are the smartest and baddest apes in the monkey cage?

 

[Brant Gaede]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Moral Law is human made law.  It's only external constraint  is that a Moral Law with internal contradictions  cannot operate in the real world.  Other than that it is human artifice  therefore accidental  (i.e. not logically necessary).  No system of morality  logically flows from the physical laws of nature (insofar as we know these laws).  Perhaps some day a new physical law may be found which has moral import. 

You are not talking about morality. As for "Moral Law" I don't get it whatever it is. I suppose I'd have to read up on my Wolf.

As for the flow of morality from here to there or wherever, it comes from the human organism--it's nature. Those physical laws made man. You are like the guy who claimed on autopsy no rights were found only you implicitly carry it over to no morality was found. Since you are admittedly purblind to much of human nature you should have the grace not to lecture on a subject you have such poor introspective access to.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

32 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Man's nature is morally neutral.  Humans can be good or not good as circumstances and decisions apply.  Once again evil as a property of actions, does not flow from any physical law of nature.  Nature does not care or know of good and evil.  Nature just does what it does and it is what it is.

You don't know man's nature. That's a curse of being as Aspie. (You know your nature.) Rand herself had a poor general grasp of it for much the same reason.

You are even suggesting man is outside or not part of nature. If a man cares then nature cares.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

12 minutes ago, jts said:

What happened to humans are the smartest and baddest apes in the monkey cage?

 

a bit of rhetorical excess.  Humans are neither wholly good or wholly evil.  Generally, circumstances will produce what they produce.  Humans are capable of mischief  and damage.  that is for sure. And goodness has multiple definitions.   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

56 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

The quoted passage could have been Obama...

Wolf,

Of course, if you're into a floating definition of moral law.

I'm pretty sure that was not the definition Rand was using at the time.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Okay, let's say I'm stupid, good place to start. Can you name an individual right for me? Just one is cool. Something simple.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, wolfdevoon said:

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."

That's not what happened in the U.S., nor in Anglo-American common law, nor in equity. The quoted passage could have been Obama, an individual right to health care, housing, schools, cellphones, voting, legal representation, USDA food inspection, an endless list of individual rights subordinating society (i.e., taxpayers).

Those are called "positive rights" which is deeply ironic as they have basically negative consequences.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

20 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Okay, let's say I'm stupid, good place to start. Can you name an individual right for me? Just one is cool. Something simple.

The right to act.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

8 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Those are called "positive rights," which is deeply ironic as they have basically negative consequences.

--Brant

Okay. So, a better class of individual rights would be negative, then?

 

2 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The right to act.

--Brant

Let me noodle on that a minute or two. Interpreting it as a moral right, okay?

Not immediately obvious how that will or could subordinate society.

[Brant Gaede]

4 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Okay. So, a better class of individual rights would be negative, then?

 

Let me noodle on that a minute or two. Interpreting it as a moral right, okay?

Not immediately obvious how that will or could subordinate society.

All I can say is all rights are moral rights. (Positive rights are phoney rights.)

They should subordinate society. If they don't it's the fault of the citizenry, not the theory.

They use the theory or they don't. The theory itself has no forceful import.

--Brant

use it or lose it

[Wolf DeVoon]

5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

All I can say is all rights are moral rights.

Well, uh, let's say that constitutional rights are not being discussed, no need to, because the question was moral rights.

Lincoln said:

Quote

two hands with which to do work, one head with which to choose and direct the work
done by his hands, and one mouth to feed by the results of that endeavor

and I said:

Quote

Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?"

So Honest Abe and I are on the same page with "the right to act" -- but I don't see how that subordinates society (yet)

[anthony]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Man's nature is morally neutral.  Humans can be good or not good as circumstances and decisions apply.  Once again evil as a property of actions, does not flow from any physical law of nature.  Nature does not care or know of good and evil.  Nature just does what it does and it is what it is.

Now you are equivocating. You said it truly in the first statement when you linked man to volition, to thought, and so to morality, and now you're backing off, with "morally neutral" and "circumstances".

Happens, there IS something in Nature which does "care" and "know of good and evil", it's called man.

Do you claim perhaps that man and his mind are not part of nature (and possessing a nature) and emergent from nature?

But yes, man is the only organism in nature who can see and conceive of good and evil, identify and judge each, make/permit them to happen in action, and "be" moral or immoral. Nothing else has that choice or knows of 'choice'. (And without alternative options, no morality is possible of course)..

(It's that friggin' David Hume, I tell ya, Bob. Not just anti-mind, if that's not bad enough, I'm thinking he was anti-reality.)

[Brant Gaede]

19 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Well, uh, let's say that constitutional rights are not being discussed, no need to, because the question was moral rights.

Lincoln said:

and I said:

So Honest Abe and I are on the same page with "the right to act" -- but I don't see how that subordinates society (yet)

People subordinate society or society subordinates people. Rights' theory is the primary weapon, but is not a soldier. The subordination occurs in the theoretical context of abstraction only. The comportment of the Founding Fathers was not sustained and ended with the Administration of Andrew Jackson and the country went to hell with Abraham Lincoln. The primary problem was the Constitution itself, I think and imagine, as it gave grace to forgetting about rights as they were supposedly taken care of by that.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

People subordinate society or society subordinates people. Rights' theory is the primary weapon.

--Brant

Okay. How does an individual right to act subordinate society? -- and there's the age of majority to consider. Worse: sharia partisans, terrorists

[Brant Gaede]

It 

9 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Okay. How does an individual right to act subordinate society? -- and there's the age of majority to consider. Worse: sharia partisans, terrorists

It doesn't.

Like I said, people do that not a political theory.

Do you want a theoretical discussion only--no actual society? That's demonstrable. If that's done then get physical, so to say.

But I'm not going to do it. That's not my interest enough. I'm ready to rumble.You have not indicated it's your interest either. Quite the contrary.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

6 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Do you want a theoretical discussion only--no actual society?

Maybe you trust me enough to take me at my word. I agree with you on the right to act as a moral principle.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/12/passing-driver-kills-man-attacking-arizona-trooper-on-road.html

We all have to make decisions, do this, that, or nothing at all (temporarily). Don't see how that restrains anyone else (morally, legally)

[anthony]

On 2017/01/12 at 1:21 PM, merjet said:

Since the topic has drifted to utilitarianism ...

{quote}

"The greatest good for the greatest number" is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.

This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions. Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 119 

{end quote}

Really? It can't make good sense ever in any context?

Suppose a CEO of a large business knows that one division of his business makes products that generate a small fraction of the company's revenues. Also, the division's revenues have been falling, it hasn't made a profit in years, and the outlook for the division is poor. If the CEO decides to shut down or sell that division, it will result in most employees of that division being laid off. On the other hand, the company as a whole, including stockholders, will be better off. It sounds to me like the greater good for the greater number outweighs any detriment to a lesser number (the employees in said division).

I'd guess one definition of employment is a contract of mutual gain, by which the employee sells his ~utility~ to a business employer in return for pay. Because of the nature of business he has to accept in advance that there's always a slight risk that his usefulness to a company can end, like you say because of falling profits, for one cause.

In an open and unregulated market nobody loses, since there's nearly always employment elsewhere, and while you raise an interesting context, I can't see the "utilitarianism" in any single business reducing its staff for its self-interest, when each employee has tacitly or explicitly consented to grant his "utility" to the firm, by choice. (And negotiated a severance package for this possibility).The greater good for the greater number - would be the State taxing the hell out of Business and Industry (so killing off entrepreneurial initiative). Self-interest and sacrificial utilitarianism must morally clash.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, wolfdevoon said:

Maybe you trust me enough to take me at my word. I agree with you on the right to act as a moral principle.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/12/passing-driver-kills-man-attacking-arizona-trooper-on-road.html

We all have to make decisions, do this, that, or nothing at all (temporarily). Don't see how that restrains anyone else (morally, legally)

That attacker was restrained.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Okay, let's say I'm stupid, good place to start. Can you name an individual right for me? Just one is cool. Something simple.

Wolf,

Let's say I stupider. That's a better place to start. 

   

But before we get into a misunderstanding, maybe what you call rights is different than what I do. I don't want to run from your question, though, so I can give you three rights right off the top of my head, not just one. And they're unalienable. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (I'm a simple man.  )

Since you have employed a lot of thought about the nature of law, would you tell me what your meaning of rights is?

Thanks.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

Hmm, wanting to add to the discussion... rights are normative, and so the subordination.  The quote says rights are a means to subordinate, it doesn't say they necessarily do, they ought to, though.

[Samson Corwell]

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Samson,

That's quite an opinion.

Do you think the situation of people living in a community (two people on up) belongs in a moral theory?

Michael

I don't know to answer that any way other than, yes, I do. But, it doesn't need to be expressed in rights, which are a very specific moral concept. Sacred texts such as the Bible and the Torah never used rights talk, for instance. One of the comments made by the YouTube user SisyphusRedeemed under his take down of Stefan Molyneux's "philosophy" said that he rejected rights (in this case meaning "natural rights") in favor of virtue ethics and made the distinction that ancient civilizations like Rome had property but not property rights? i don't know if you are having trouble understanding that rights are only one type of moral theory. I've met quite a few libertarians who couldn't understand that.

[Wolf DeVoon]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Since you have employed a lot of thought about the nature of law, would you tell me what your meaning of rights is?

I am much taken with Brant's moral principle, the right to act. That includes the right to associate, to form marriages, defend loved ones, etc. My thoughts on law are very simple, that lawyers have the right to associate for the purpose of electing judges, and that law-abiding persons have the right to obey and execute court orders. Pretty skimpy legal system. Whether petitioners and respondents use it is up to them. Whether the dominant armed association (a government) is subordinated to due process of law depends on the constitution of that government, which in turn depends on how a majority of men choose to associate for that purpose. The Founding Fathers did what they thought was prudent, and we owe them our admiration and thanks for the Declaration of Independence ("life, liberty, pursuit of happiness") and their courage to fight for it. Unfortunately the exigencies of foreign intrigue, war debts, inter-state tariffs, and unresolved state boundaries led to a new federal Constitution that resulted in the current state -- a sovereign with arbitrary unchecked power to regulate and command private action, no different than the British Empire we fought in 1776.