I would recommend a small parliament which sat on a part-time basis, on the back of a democratic mandate to,

a) Oversee the police, foreign policy, prisons and judicial system
b) Maintain working specifics of the definition of a property right, particularly with new technology considered such as computing & the internet, in accordance to the broader principles as to what a property right is named in a constitution.

...also... what orathaic said.

@ dexter morgan, I probably won't be debating on the forum for a while in a month's time, but will be delighted to have you learn about free markets and when fully convinced you can sit in for me when I'n busy doing my exams :P

I've appreciated it too (do you still think I'm totally bonkers?)

Well at least these two ended on a good note.

@TheGhostmaker, you're a bit idealistic to my mind... but that is a good thing in some ways. Cheers.

"Well at least these two ended on a good note."

Yeah, I don't think Jamiet likes me :P

Yeah. I don't mean to be too personal, but it's true - I don't like you, Ghost.

I respect you for having the patience and the intellectual calibre to argue your case in such detail, but I think it's almost impossible for someone with my views about society to be friends with someone who holds the kind of views you hold.

Well because usually when I see debates on any other site (especially Youtube) there's always name calling and no point gets across. It's nice to see some mutual respect every once in a while.

TMG never responded to my insult/compliment package. I am disappointed.

TGM!=TMG

And I did Iceray. It's in my profile comment.

"but I think it's almost impossible for someone with my views about society to be friends with someone who holds the kind of views you hold."

Wow, i entirely disagree, even if i don't agree with TGM, i don't see why little political differences would prevent me from being friends with him. (TGM i'm afraid to tell you we are not friends, merely aquaintances from the interent)

I have really enjoyed this debate - I have actually been convinced that there is some merit to the idea of privatising the roads (and have for ages been arguing for government investment in infrastructure)

I think there may be economic benifits for privatised infrastructure (if done correctly)

However in principle when starting an economy off you want to see investment in infrastructure - there are two ways to go about this Private and Public - For all private investment you need the investor to have something to lose and something to gain (you can't simply print money and give it to every person who wants to try something - simply printing money (generating credit) for people who oculdn't afford to pay it back was instrumental in the recent crisis) basically if the money isn't there to begin with you can't just fake it.

If you do have the money to build the infrastructure which bussiness will need to grow then that's all well and good. IF you don't the public option definitely seems like it simpler and easy for people to get onboard with... (though that doens't mean it is the best option)

TGM we are still at odds i think over the question of health care - if i'm not mistaken - you don't think someone should be forced to pay for another person health care (which is protecting their right to life, a property right over their own body) and yet you do think someone should be forced to pay for a militrary (which is protecting a citizen's right to life...)

I don't see the difference.

"TGM i'm afraid to tell you we are not friends, merely aquaintances from the internet"

Quite true. "Friend" takes a totally different meaning when it's over the internet.

"I have really enjoyed this debate - I have actually been convinced that there is some merit to the idea of privatising the roads (and have for ages been arguing for government investment in infrastructure)"

"TGM we are still at odds i think over the question of health care - if i'm not mistaken - you don't think someone should be forced to pay for another person health care (which is protecting their right to life, a property right over their own body) and yet you do think someone should be forced to pay for a militrary (which is protecting a citizen's right to life...)

I don't see the difference."

Ok, there are three major claims I make about healthcare:

1. A genuine free market approach would be more effective for all but the bottom few percent in the medium-term (i.e. post transition) than state care.
2. A genuine free market approach would be more effective for all in the long-term (more drug development)
3. There is no moral mandate to take someone's money to protect yourself from disease.

Now to address the precise point you make:

Its positive and negative freedoms. I have the freedom not to be harmed by my fellow man, but not the right to not be harmed by nature. The difference between paying for healthcare and paying for defence is that in the one case, the payment is made in order to just support the life, and the other is made to protect the person's life.

There is no "right to live" unless you can support your life yourself, in which case it isn't really a right to life, just property (that right to life is impossible to fulfill in a necessarily mortal population anyway). Paying for healthcare is part of supporting yourself.

I do believe that there is a right to property, so I can conceive of an argument that states that it is valid to defend the property right, even if it involves breaking the property right elsewhere. Here we are trading like with like- property right with property right- rather than trading a genuine right (property right) for a non-existent right (right to healthcare).

I can explain my view here. To take an example I was once asked, suppose a Japanese man (never knew why he was Japanese) is coming to London from Tokyo to kill me, and is at Tokyo airport. I have a Nuclear warhead, and the only way I can thwart him is to fire the warhead at Tokyo, and blow up all of Japan, as well as raining radiation on all of SE Asia, killing approximately 1 billion people. Would I be morally justified in firing the warhead.

My answer is yes, because I have ownership of my body, and so may protect myself. When I fire it, who is to blame? The man trying to kill me.

Now suppose (this is my own addition) that the warhead wasn't actually mine, so I'd be 'stealing' the warhead. Yes, but again, I am not blameworthy for this collateral damage either.

Equally, the billion people in SE Asia have a right to defend themselves against the Japanese man (who is causing/blameworthy for their impending deaths). They can do this by killing me if they want, even though I am innocent, because it would be collateral damage just the same as my killing them is. Of course (as is true in this situation and in almost all realistic situations too) they are better off killing the Japanese man so that I have no reason to fire the Nuke than by killing me.

"I have really enjoyed this debate - I have actually been convinced that there is some merit to the idea of privatising the roads (and have for ages been arguing for government investment in infrastructure)"

Yay

^that was missing

Ok, but the people in SE Asia don't neccesarily know the man is trying to kill you. In fact how do you know he is coming to kill you?

It is possible that the people in SE Asia only know you are firing a nuke at them - thus from their prespective you appear to be blame worthy.

It doesn't matter what justification you use because you are not infallible and thus your knowledge that the Japanese man is coming to kill you can be questioned (you may be confident of it but that doesn't mean others will be) but say you are 99% confident, then you are 99% justified - but with a 1% chance you are wrong * 1 billion lifes in SE asia = 10 million to 1 ratio outweighing your decision. (i don't know how to apply mathematics to moral situations like that but i do that in the real world the percentage certainty of information is important for this problem without questioning your moral system)

You lead me back to a previous question - if i am to protect/support myself and it is justified for me to violate the property rights of others to achieve this then is it not appropriate to steal food when hungry? I mean The shop owners are actively not giving me food, there may be a clear line here bettwen actively trying to kill someone and actively ignoring the plight of others but in the REAL WORLD that line may be harder to see.

"Ok, but the people in SE Asia don't neccesarily know the man is trying to kill you. In fact how do you know he is coming to kill you?

It is possible that the people in SE Asia only know you are firing a nuke at them - thus from their prespective you appear to be blame worthy."

Indeed, and in that circumstance, they should try to kill me. I don't accept a situation where anyone is morally required to accept being murdered either directly (as in me) or by proxy (as in the SE Asians)

"It doesn't matter what justification you use because you are not infallible and thus your knowledge that the Japanese man is coming to kill you can be questioned (you may be confident of it but that doesn't mean others will be) but say you are 99% confident, then you are 99% justified - but with a 1% chance you are wrong * 1 billion lifes in SE asia = 10 million to 1 ratio outweighing your decision. (i don't know how to apply mathematics to moral situations like that but i do that in the real world the percentage certainty of information is important for this problem without questioning your moral system)"

You've kinda begged the question here. I am an egoist, so the fact that there is a 10million:1 against on a kind of utilitarian calculation is irrelevant. I have a right to defend myself, and this right can't just disappear with imperfect information (we almost always have imperfect information). I can't be required to just let my murder happen.


This argument only applies when you are defending a human right. Since being fed or given healthcare are not human rights, to steal food etc. is not defending them.

@TheGhostmaker, You have an odd (extremist) view of what a human right is. You have a right to kill huge numbers of innocents to get one bad guy... but you don't have a right to steal a loaf of bread. Why not kill everyone who might pose a threat to you (i.e. everyone) then you can take their loaves of bread without it being wrong. Just saying... When you talk in absolutes, you can always follow the logic to a ridiculous conclusion.

Question: Does a child have the right to health care and food from the parent? Does that right exist?

"You have a right to kill huge numbers of innocents to get one bad guy"

no, he was killing billions of people as the only way to survive. I have to say that his story is highly improbable though, and would never actually be put into practice. As much as I might agree with you TGM, the way you phrased it makes you sound like someone with psychological issues. :-D

@TheGhostmaker, an alien has abducted you and after the obligatory anal probing is over, he puts a raygun to your head and says - press that button over there on the console... it will result in the utter destruction of Earth. If you don't press I will kill you. If you do press it I will accept you as a fellow highly evolved creature who understands what rights are and let you live... and enjoy endless non-stolen loaves of bread from the vanquished Earthlings. :-) You may not trust the alien... so you notice a second button labeled "self-destruct" (thanks to the brain scan that happened earlier you now read alien). What is your choice? Do you: refuse and get killed, destroy Earth, or destroy yourself and the aliens?

Ok, so ignoring the utilitarian is fine - should you fire the nuke?

Assuming, as i have, the 1 billion know your actions are going to kill them (and they don't know about one Japanese man whose intentions may justify your actions) so in your words "they should try to kill [you]."

Then by your actions (the collateral damage you allow) you are creating a situation where 1 billion people are justified in killing you (even if their information is limited - they like you are doing their best with the information which they do have) Then you by your actions have effectively given up your claim to the right to your property (as the original Japanese man did when he got on a plane intending to kill you)

Not from the perspective of someone who has the information relating to your motive for launching the Nuke, but from the perspective of someone with perfect information your actions may no be justified either (though in your scheme it seems that since no person with perfect information exists this is not of concern, right?)

The point was to put beyond doubt the fact that the numbers are not an issue, and of course its improbable, it wasn't an eventuality I've been preparing for or anything.

I have a right to property. Any right implies the right to do whatever it takes to maintain that right. I do not have a right to just kill anyone though. If there is no reason to kill them in terms of protecting my property, it would be morally wrong to do so.

I have no right to bread, therefore it is not true that I can kill someone to get a loaf of bread, because the justification isn't there.

"When you talk in absolutes, you can always follow the logic to a ridiculous conclusion."

Who are you it is ridiculous without showing it to be illogical? Indeed, no one can criticise any moral theory properly on the grounds they don't like the conclusion. In ethics, just as in any logical subject, you must criticise the arguments made, not the outcome itself, to prove the fallacy, or demonstrate an inconsistency. It may not be the societal norm, but that doesn't make it ridiculous.

Basically my point is that you cannot say that I am wrong without showing where the fallacy in my reasoning is. I have not provided my reasoning for an absolute property right, is that what you are questioning?

"@TheGhostmaker, an alien has abducted you and after the obligatory anal probing is over, he puts a raygun to your head and says - press that button over there on the console... it will result in the utter destruction of Earth. If you don't press I will kill you. If you do press it I will accept you as a fellow highly evolved creature who understands what rights are and let you live... and enjoy endless non-stolen loaves of bread from the vanquished Earthlings. :-) You may not trust the alien... so you notice a second button labeled "self-destruct" (thanks to the brain scan that happened earlier you now read alien). What is your choice? Do you: refuse and get killed, destroy Earth, or destroy yourself and the aliens?"

I don't think I'd want to live having destroyed the earth, in which case I could perfectly selfishly decide to commit suicide. I am not, and this is important, a materialist/hedonist, so there are principles that I would want to defend even if it required my death.

hunter said: "TGM, the way you phrased it makes you sound like someone with psychological issues." - no his statement was about a hypothetical situation. What hypothetically he would consider justified.

Any lack of realism is not important for the purposes of this illustrative example.

orathaic, I really don't understand what point you are trying to make, however, I think I can respond somewhat at least:

I don't give up my right to property, I just realise that I am now in a position where it has no weight over those people who are about to get killed when I fire the warhead.

If I survive and have fired the warhead, I emphatically do still have a full right to property afterwards.

"hunter said: "TGM, the way you phrased it makes you sound like someone with psychological issues." - no his statement was about a hypothetical situation. What hypothetically he would consider justified.

Any lack of realism is not important for the purposes of this illustrative example."

Yes, though you have to be careful about constructing examples and claiming that they 'prove' something because the people would prefer a particular outcome. You can only disprove a theory in an example if it illustrates an internal contradiction, the rest of the time, it is just explanation.

I didn't say you were illogical... I said your conclusion was ridiculous. My view is that all premises are less than perfect. There will always be at least theoretical exceptions. Given all premises being less than perfect, conclusions will be similarly flawed. The logic getting from point A to point B was fine... I just am less than happy with both point A and B. And yes, I am disputing that there is a right to property that trumps all else. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems come to mind.

@TGM you said:"orathaic, I really don't understand what point you are trying to make..."

i think i'm having a problem with the idea that multiple different sets of rights are valid at the same time - ie the SE Asian population are justified in killing you to protect their lives, while you are justified in launching the nuke to protect your own.

The major issue i think being not any inconsistency in your logic but the lack of perfect information in the real world - the conclusion is that it would be unwise for you to risk your own life by launching the nuke because it could lead to others to justify taking your life in self-defence.

@ orathaic

In any relation of theoretical discussion of rights to the real world, you always temper your actions with egoism. In any situation you take the course of action that is permissible which is most beneficial to you.

@dexter morgan, I'm afraid organising & writing up all of the argument for property rights would take more time than I have available to me right now, hence my taking the property rights as axiomatic for the purposes of this discussion.

I'll see if I can't write it up later.

"I'm going to have to simply give this more thought and step out of this conversation at this point. I apparently don't understand the intricacies of the various free market ideas. I'll probably join in the next time there is a conversation like this (you know, in a month or so :-) and I'll be better informed at that point. I have appreciated the interesting conversation."

I always love debating with you Dexter. You always keep it civil and don't go for cheap shots. :D

If you are looking for some info on Capitalistic ideas, you might want to look into Peter Schiff. He is the most intelligent advocate for the free market that I have heard, and is much more educated in it then either TMG or I am [no offense TMG :-)]. He predicted almost everything that has happened with our economy, and has stated that the only way to correct it is to remove the government from the market.