Standing naked on my property

[Samson Corwell]

Samson:

"Alimony" which is generally referred to as "maintenance," either interim, or, a specific amount of years, or, lifetime.

These are put into a Stipulation which, for example, in NY is "incorporated by reference" and not "merged" into the Judgment of Divorce.

This is referred to as a stand alone contract which can be enforced in a Court of "competent" jurisdiction.

So, I am not sure what you mean by "it's not a contract."

A...

If you're going to argue that all agreements are contracts, then sure, it's a "contract". As are treaties. I'm just anticipating and countering the idea that marriage is really some form of contract that government has usurped or whatever.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Right. It's voluntary in the sense that what you do is entirely up to you...so long as you follow our rules! There's is no such thing as a "voluntary society" and there never can be such thing as a "voluntary society". It's warping of words to be sure and can be done with any system. Let's say we have Libertopia or Ancapistan and fast forward a hundred years. The region has centralized and is now governed by Megacorporation, Inc. The people born there sure as hell didn't choose their circumstances. So, what are you going to say? "Don't like it, then move."? Great, we're back where we started!

Taxes are voluntary...youl'll just be thrown in jail if you don't pay!

Paying back your debts is entirely up to you...you'll just have your home confiscated if you don't!

The fundamental rule of the free society is not to violate anyone's property or to use force to compel him to act against what he explicitly chooses with regard to his person and property. Yes, this concept certainly goes against the desires of the predator who would like to murder, say, every redhead or albino he can find. But for a society to indulge such a killer would result in a net reduction of voluntaryism, for the multiple murders would cancel out any benefit of granting the predator his way.

"voluntary: done or given because you want to and not because you are forced to."

If I have warped this word, you are free to show how.

As to your example of Megacorporation, Inc., if such a corporation is a coercive monopoly (i.e. uses force or the threat thereof) to gain exclusivity in the provision of a good or service, then the society it rules is most assuredly not free. Taxes are certainly not a feature of a freedom.

Whether a portion of mankind will ever arrive at a perfect, force-free society is not something we can project with accuracy. But it is not because any part of laissez-faire theory is self-contradictory or impractical.

[Darrell Hougen]

With the exception of a parent's obligation towards his or her child, obligations arise as a matter of trade for mutual benefit.

Well, no, not all of them. You have the obligation to serve on jury duty when summoned, comply with search warrants, comply with child support payments, alimony (it's not a contract!), damages, serve jail time when convicted, and, last but not least, pay your taxes.

Let's not confuse legal obligations with moral obligations.

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

Right. It's voluntary in the sense that what you do is entirely up to you...so long as you follow our rules! There's is no such thing as a "voluntary society" and there never can be such thing as a "voluntary society". It's warping of words to be sure and can be done with any system. Let's say we have Libertopia or Ancapistan and fast forward a hundred years. The region has centralized and is now governed by Megacorporation, Inc. The people born there sure as hell didn't choose their circumstances. So, what are you going to say? "Don't like it, then move."? Great, we're back where we started!

Taxes are voluntary...youl'll just be thrown in jail if you don't pay!

Paying back your debts is entirely up to you...you'll just have your home confiscated if you don't!

The fundamental rule of the free society is not to violate anyone's property or to use force to compel him to act against what he explicitly chooses with regard to his person and property. Yes, this concept certainly goes against the desires of the predator who would like to murder, say, every redhead or albino he can find. But for a society to indulge such a killer would result in a net reduction of voluntaryism, for the multiple murders would cancel out any benefit of granting the predator his way.

"voluntary: done or given because you want to and not because you are forced to."

If I have warped this word, you are free to show how.

Then it's not "voluntary"! I just wish people would stop touting laissez-faire like it's got some particular quality that other systems don't have.

As to your example of Megacorporation, Inc., if such a corporation is a coercive monopoly (i.e. uses force or the threat thereof) to gain exclusivity in the provision of a good or service, then the society it rules is most assuredly not free. Taxes are certainly not a feature of a freedom.

Whether a portion of mankind will ever arrive at a perfect, force-free society is not something we can project with accuracy. But it is not because any part of laissez-faire theory is self-contradictory or impractical.

Uh, "monopoly"? Where does that even enter into what I was saying. Megacorporation, Inc. in my scenario grew over time in the amount of territory it controlled, absorbing surrounding areas. Monopoly, "coercive" or not, has got nothing to do with it. It's a corporatocracy, a corporate republic now. See this or this (two links to TVTropes that explain my point).

[Samson Corwell]

With the exception of a parent's obligation towards his or her child, obligations arise as a matter of trade for mutual benefit.

Well, no, not all of them. You have the obligation to serve on jury duty when summoned, comply with search warrants, comply with child support payments, alimony (it's not a contract!), damages, serve jail time when convicted, and, last but not least, pay your taxes.

Let's not confuse legal obligations with moral obligations.

Darrell

I don't think that makes any sense. Legal obligations are a subset of moral obligations.

[Mikee]

Your existence is an accident of nature. You have no intrinsic value. You have no value to another lifeform except via the contracts and agreements for mutual defense and life support you make with others. Your rights are simply the expectation that these agreements be honored by others as long as you honor them yourself. Constant vigilance is a requirement of nature. There is no right to passivity and living in ignorance or the expectation that someone will be there to protect your rights without any effort on your own.

<sarcasm>Lovely.</sarcasm> To have only value as a tool is just disgraceful and undignified.

It would be hard to construct a more nonsensical and bizarre sentence.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Your parents have an obligation to take care of you until you reach adulthood.

cops, courts, teachers, power utilities, doctors, and grocery stores don't have any obligation to do anything for you

200 million orphans worldwide

120,000 abortions per day worldwide

3 million U.S. abuse/neglect cases per year

1.5 million U.S. juvenile offenders in 2012

43 million U.S. children receive free medical care, food, housing

[Francisco Ferrer]

The right to life, like all rights, refers to the right to engage in some action. It means the right to take those actions necessary to stay alive. If you want to put it negatively, it means the right not to be killed or enslaved. A slave cannot always take those actions necessary to stay alive. He can only take those actions which is master permits him to take. I should add, as I have said before, the right to life also means the right to take those actions necessary to thrive or flourish --- that is, to put distance between oneself and the immediate needs of survival.

To say a person has the right to life doesn't imply that he has a right to obtain anything that he needs for survival. He merely has the right to attempt to obtain those things. He has the right to take those actions necessary to obtain the things that he needs to survive. He doesn't have a right to demand that anyone else provide them for him. To do so would undermine the ability of the latter person to pursue the things that the latter needs to survive, or thrive, or flourish.

The notion that all human interactions should be voluntary is implicit in the right to life, but we have to back up in order to understand where the right to life comes from.

A right is a moral principle. It is right (used as an adjective) for people to act in a certain way. It is right for them to act in their own self interest. And, it turns out that it is in the self interest of people to live in peace with other people and trade with them. That is, a person benefits much more from living peacefully with other people, acquiring knowledge from them and engaging in voluntary trade with them than he does by attempting to steal from or enslave other people. Therefore, it is right for him to live in peace with other people and engage in voluntary trade with them. Therefore, living in peace with other people and engaging in voluntary trade with them is his right. The last two sentences are equivalent. In the first, the word "right" has been used as an adjective and in the second it has been used as a noun, but the sentences have exactly the same meaning.

In one says that man has a right to life, the meaning is that it is right for man to live in peace with other men and engage in voluntary trade with them. The notion that all human interactions should be voluntary is implicit in the right to life.

Note, that it is not just right for some people to live in peace and engage in voluntary trade with other people, it is right for all people to do so. It is not just in the self interest of some people, it is in the self interest of all people. Therefore, a society in which people live in peace and trade with each other voluntarily is possible. The right to be free of violence and force is a reciprocal right. It is an implicit agreement. "You don't mess with me and I won't mess with you." The statement, though never spoken, acknowledges the equal and reciprocal nature of the right to live at peace with other people. The reciprocal nature of the right to life encompasses all people.

Darrell

Right to life means the right to take "actions necessary to stay alive"? Then surely Pauper X has the right to take some of Cattle Baron Y's longhorns in order to feed himself.

The longer you avoid what property should be accorded to X and what property should be accorded to Y, the more you're going to encourage public takings to satisfy the "right to life."

If a man "doesn't have a right to demand that anyone else provide" the necessities of life, then why not simply say that each man is entitled only to the property of his own body, what he has created with it, and what he has gained voluntarily from others?

Why not say everyone has a right to _____________(fill in the blank), provided that he does not violate anyone else's property or to use force to compel another to act against what he explicitly chooses with regard to his person and property?

That way you can fill in the blank with life, death, heroin, fast cars, unprotected sex--or anything else you like.

"The notion that all human interactions should be voluntary is implicit in the right to life." No, it is not. If a constitution says, "Every person has a right ot life, and this government will enforce that right," you won't need any convoluted interpretations for lawmakers to start taxing the citizenry to pay for food stamps, free health clinics, and public housing.

[Wolf DeVoon]

A right is a moral principle.

This is doubly embarrassing, not only because it's wrong-headed, but it's also sophomoric second-handing.

Try to think a little.

Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Then it's not "voluntary"! I just wish people would stop touting laissez-faire like it's got some particular quality that other systems don't have.

Uh, "monopoly"? Where does that even enter into what I was saying. Megacorporation, Inc. in my scenario grew over time in the amount of territory it controlled, absorbing surrounding areas. Monopoly, "coercive" or not, has got nothing to do with it. It's a corporatocracy, a corporate republic now. See this or this (two links to TVTropes that explain my point).

Preventing mass murder restricts voluntary action? Then Hitler must represent the height of volunteerism!

As for Megacorporation, you wrote, "The region has centralized and is now governed by Megacorporation, Inc." Government--corporate or otherwise--by definition is a monopoly on force. Coercion contradicts volition.

[Mikee]

Ha! You call that a ad hominem? Keep searching under that lamppost Brant.

I didn't say argumentum ad hominem. There is a slight difference. (Not sarcastic.)

Anyway. Let's call a truce before we fire any more rockets and drop any more bombs.

--Brant

"Can't we all get along?"

why ya beatin' up on a helpless old man? (The world wants to know.)

________

it's time for Adam . . .

I'm not looking for a fight. But who's beating up on whom? How old are you anyway? I'm 66 (birthday was this month).

Respectfully: In my opinion it was not Ayn's intention to replace "God" with "everyone is God". Reason is primary.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Legal obligations are a subset of moral obligations

Defined by what? Every fourth sura? a show of hands?

[Brant Gaede]

Ha! You call that a ad hominem? Keep searching under that lamppost Brant.

I didn't say argumentum ad hominem. There is a slight difference. (Not sarcastic.)

Anyway. Let's call a truce before we fire any more rockets and drop any more bombs.

--Brant

"Can't we all get along?"

why ya beatin' up on a helpless old man? (The world wants to know.)

________

it's time for Adam . . .

I'm not looking for a fight. But who's beating up on whom? How old are you anyway? I'm 66 (birthday was this month).

Respectfully: In my opinion it was not Ayn's intention to replace "God" with "everyone is God". Reason is primary.

70.

--Brant

creak, creak

[Samson Corwell]

Then it's not "voluntary"! I just wish people would stop touting laissez-faire like it's got some particular quality that other systems don't have.

Uh, "monopoly"? Where does that even enter into what I was saying. Megacorporation, Inc. in my scenario grew over time in the amount of territory it controlled, absorbing surrounding areas. Monopoly, "coercive" or not, has got nothing to do with it. It's a corporatocracy, a corporate republic now. See this or this (two links to TVTropes that explain my point).

Preventing mass murder restricts voluntary action? Then Hitler must represent the height of volunteerism!

Touché. I didn't word my objection clearly enough. I'm objecting to the representation of laissez-faire as embodying a unique type of voluntariness.

As for Megacorporation, you wrote, "The region has centralized and is now governed by Megacorporation, Inc." Government--corporate or otherwise--by definition is a monopoly on force. Coercion contradicts volition.

I don't find Weber's definition of government as a "monopoly" as accurate. Megacorporation, Inc. arose spontaneously through the accumulation of hundreds of deals, none which involved twisting arms or breaking knees.

[Samson Corwell]

Legal obligations are a subset of moral obligations

Defined by what? Every fourth sura? a show of hands?

Okay, maybe I'm being a little imprecise. But I don't see what's wrong with it unless you subscribe to legal positivism.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't see what's wrong with it unless you subscribe to legal positivism.

Go ahead, lay it on me. What is legal positivism?

[Darrell Hougen]

With the exception of a parent's obligation towards his or her child, obligations arise as a matter of trade for mutual benefit.

Well, no, not all of them. You have the obligation to serve on jury duty when summoned, comply with search warrants, comply with child support payments, alimony (it's not a contract!), damages, serve jail time when convicted, and, last but not least, pay your taxes.

Let's not confuse legal obligations with moral obligations.

Darrell

I don't think that makes any sense. Legal obligations are a subset of moral obligations.

So there are no unjust laws?

Legal obligations are orthogonal to moral obligations. At best, we try to make our laws consistent with objective morality, but don't always succeed. I'd say there are a lot of unjust laws on the books today.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Your parents have an obligation to take care of you until you reach adulthood.

cops, courts, teachers, power utilities, doctors, and grocery stores don't have any obligation to do anything for you

200 million orphans worldwide

120,000 abortions per day worldwide

3 million U.S. abuse/neglect cases per year

1.5 million U.S. juvenile offenders in 2012

43 million U.S. children receive free medical care, food, housing

So?

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

A right is a moral principle.

This is doubly embarrassing, not only because it's wrong-headed, but it's also sophomoric second-handing.

Try to think a little.

Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs.

Let's see. Just because someone else first pointed out the principle, it's "sophomoric second-handing"? So, if someone else invented most of the rules of mathematics, I'm a sophomoric second-hander if I show the solution to a math problem.

I'm not trying to invent something new here. I'm just trying to explain what other people don't seem to understand.

Maybe you should try to engage your brain.

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

I don't see what's wrong with it unless you subscribe to legal positivism.

Go ahead, lay it on me. What is legal positivism?

The view that the validity of a law depends upon its source.

[Darrell Hougen]

Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs.

To what end? What is the purpose of legal philosophy? Just telling us what it addresses doesn't tell us what it's useful for.

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

With the exception of a parent's obligation towards his or her child, obligations arise as a matter of trade for mutual benefit.

Well, no, not all of them. You have the obligation to serve on jury duty when summoned, comply with search warrants, comply with child support payments, alimony (it's not a contract!), damages, serve jail time when convicted, and, last but not least, pay your taxes.

Let's not confuse legal obligations with moral obligations.

Darrell

I don't think that makes any sense. Legal obligations are a subset of moral obligations.

So there are no unjust laws?

Legal obligations are orthogonal to moral obligations. At best, we try to make our laws consistent with objective morality, but don't always succeed. I'd say there are a lot of unjust laws on the books today.

Darrell

I should've been more clear. Yes, they're can be bad laws (a law to turn Jews over to the SS is not a good one), but good laws are still normative in nature.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs.

To what end? What is the purpose of legal philosophy? Just telling us what it addresses doesn't tell us what it's useful for.

Darrell

Are you really that dense?

Morality = personal

[Darrell Hougen]

The right to life, like all rights, refers to the right to engage in some action. It means the right to take those actions necessary to stay alive. If you want to put it negatively, it means the right not to be killed or enslaved. A slave cannot always take those actions necessary to stay alive. He can only take those actions which is master permits him to take. I should add, as I have said before, the right to life also means the right to take those actions necessary to thrive or flourish --- that is, to put distance between oneself and the immediate needs of survival.

To say a person has the right to life doesn't imply that he has a right to obtain anything that he needs for survival. He merely has the right to attempt to obtain those things. He has the right to take those actions necessary to obtain the things that he needs to survive. He doesn't have a right to demand that anyone else provide them for him. To do so would undermine the ability of the latter person to pursue the things that the latter needs to survive, or thrive, or flourish.

The notion that all human interactions should be voluntary is implicit in the right to life, but we have to back up in order to understand where the right to life comes from.

A right is a moral principle. It is right (used as an adjective) for people to act in a certain way. It is right for them to act in their own self interest. And, it turns out that it is in the self interest of people to live in peace with other people and trade with them. That is, a person benefits much more from living peacefully with other people, acquiring knowledge from them and engaging in voluntary trade with them than he does by attempting to steal from or enslave other people. Therefore, it is right for him to live in peace with other people and engage in voluntary trade with them. Therefore, living in peace with other people and engaging in voluntary trade with them is his right. The last two sentences are equivalent. In the first, the word "right" has been used as an adjective and in the second it has been used as a noun, but the sentences have exactly the same meaning.

In one says that man has a right to life, the meaning is that it is right for man to live in peace with other men and engage in voluntary trade with them. The notion that all human interactions should be voluntary is implicit in the right to life.

Note, that it is not just right for some people to live in peace and engage in voluntary trade with other people, it is right for all people to do so. It is not just in the self interest of some people, it is in the self interest of all people. Therefore, a society in which people live in peace and trade with each other voluntarily is possible. The right to be free of violence and force is a reciprocal right. It is an implicit agreement. "You don't mess with me and I won't mess with you." The statement, though never spoken, acknowledges the equal and reciprocal nature of the right to live at peace with other people. The reciprocal nature of the right to life encompasses all people.

Darrell

Right to life means the right to take "actions necessary to stay alive"? Then surely Pauper X has the right to take some of Cattle Baron Y's longhorns in order to feed himself.

The longer you avoid what property should be accorded to X and what property should be accorded to Y, the more you're going to encourage public takings to satisfy the "right to life."

If a man "doesn't have a right to demand that anyone else provide" the necessities of life, then why not simply say that each man is entitled only to the property of his own body, what he has created with it, and what he has gained voluntarily from others?

Why not say everyone has a right to _____________(fill in the blank), provided that he does not violate anyone else's property or to use force to compel another to act against what he explicitly chooses with regard to his person and property?

That way you can fill in the blank with life, death, heroin, fast cars, unprotected sex--or anything else you like.

"The notion that all human interactions should be voluntary is implicit in the right to life." No, it is not. If a constitution says, "Every person has a right ot life, and this government will enforce that right," you won't need any convoluted interpretations for lawmakers to start taxing the citizenry to pay for food stamps, free health clinics, and public housing.

If you like, the right to life means the right to take the actions necessary and proper for staying alive. The last clause is really redundant in the context of the current discussion. I argued what man's self interest consists of, e.g., living in peace with other people and voluntarily trading with them. So, that is what the right to life refers.

Property rights are not sufficient to describe all of man's rights. What about the right to liberty? What about the right to move about? Is it ok for one person to buy a piece of property that lies along the well worn path that others travel and to then tell them that they must pay a toll in order to cross? What if a person were to buy up the ring road --- the highway that surrounds many metropolitan areas --- and tell people that they can't cross without paying a toll? Should a person have a right to effectively imprison an entire city? If not, why not? How can you get from property rights to the argument you want to prove?

I contend that you have to back up and look at the nature and origin of rights to answer a lot of questions.

Darrell

Edited August 29, 2014 by Darrell Hougen

[Darrell Hougen]

Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs.

To what end? What is the purpose of legal philosophy? Just telling us what it addresses doesn't tell us what it's useful for.

Darrell

Are you really that dense?

Morality = personal

Are you really that rude?!?

Of course, I know that morality is personal. However, rights provide the extension from personal morality to life in society.

From VOS:

“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

Darrell