E-conservatives and libertarianism

[jmervyn]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Remember where that thread is? I can't remember what we chatted about, I'm kind of tempted to check it again. You know that feeling how what you type dates and kind of gets embarassing and you just want to chalk it up to youth? I'm fully expecting to see some of that.

This one.

As for embarrassing recollection, try Gulf War Syndrome! You'll never be bothered by memories again!

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

And where did Kant authorise fighting fire with fire? I.e. where in Kant's moral dissertations is it said you can repay injustice and unfairness with another?

Not saying your reasoning is wrong (while I do not indeed agree with it), but it seems Kant reference is superfluous, as I don't seem to recall him backing up your position.

i was referring to him on the basis of setting universal maxims that you would want upheld for yourself...
i was saying the lord's doing in this case is unjust...

surely you can't refute that?

the moment i mentioned kant i was using it for the lord injustice statement, not also linking it to robin hood's behaviour.

THEN you look at robin hood, how he steals money that wasn't justly obtained anyway and therefore has no moral backing in the way of staying in the lord's pocket
so he gives it to the poor and needy

if you want to apply kant here, you might say: the maxim here would be that those in need should get what they need while those living with unnecessities surely can spare what they can spare anyway
it's what he would've wanted applied to himself.

what's your take?

 

[Dondrei]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

I forgot about this thread. All the way back on page 3 now.

I'm pretty sure if you come across someone being robbed, you're under no obligation to "help" the victim. It's called "being the hero" and it'll just get you injured or killed.

You are required to report a crime to the police though, so you are definitely required to take an action.

Dondrei:

Please tell me that this is one of those times that you are attempting to be funny!

You claimed that you "could design a negative right to serve the same purpose as any given positive right". So when Yaboosh mentioned a 'duty to rescue' law, you just converted it into an implied double-negative and called it a law based on Negative rights --- "You do NOT have the right to NOT give [refuse] assistance to a person being robbed". Let me put this in terms you should understand as a mathematician. Changing the value '1' to '(-(-1))' does NOT make your value a negative.

Do you want to try again?


Only to a person that thinks that all you have to do to make a right Negative is to use the word “not” in its description. If my explanation wasn’t satisfactory, try one of these:

Incorrect, refusal is the action which you are not permitted. There is no "not" in my sentence.

“ Rights claims may be classified according to whether they make ‘positive’ demands on another’s actions, or – in case of ‘negative’ rights – merely require others to abstain from harmful interference.”

Harmful - subjective.

“ A negative right concerns prohibiting others from interfering with one's actions, property, life, liberty and so on--e. g., the right to property means others have no authority to use one's belongings without one's permission. A positive right concerns the requirement to being provided by others with what one needs--e. g., the right to health care or education.”

By refusing them aid then you are certainly interfering in their life. You are chosing definitions of action and interference that are convenient to you.

No, the tangent is your initial statement that libertarians limit their discussion of rights to the human species, as if this is a characteristic unique to them. Care to show me where other political philosophies such as socialism, oligarchies, dictatorships, true democracies, monarchies, etc., refer to animal rights? If not, then your initial comment was tangential. If you really want to discuss animal rights, start a new thread.

You were the one who leapt to defend an anthropocentric view of rights. Ever since then you've been trying to shift the focus of the conversation, because it's indefensible with the arguments you put forward.

It should be noted that even though these are laws based on positive rights, libertarians have no trouble with them since they were created by either an implied or explicit contract.

Ah, implied contracts, now this is interesting. Very handy, I can excuse anything with an implied contract. Makes the entire rest of your philosophy completely pointless.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

By refusing them aid then you are certainly interfering in their life.

Dear Dondrei,

I have not received a phone call from you recently, nor mail of again kind (including email). Please stop your interference with my life or I shall have to report you the the appropriate authorities for harassment.

Sincerely,

Saro

 

[WildBerry]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Ah, implied contracts, now this is interesting. Very handy, I can excuse anything with an implied contract. Makes the entire rest of your philosophy completely pointless.

I think he is referring to familial ties et al., not implied contracts as in "you hinted you wanted to die so I chopped off your head and I'm home free".

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Ah, implied contracts, now this is interesting. Very handy, I can excuse anything with an implied contract. Makes the entire rest of your philosophy completely pointless.

The law recognizes implied contracts. But only in some cases. Why can't that work here?

 

[BobCox2]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Harmful - subjective.

Harmful = Coercion
Even a masochist like you can be coerced, it just takes a different input.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

AeroJonesy:

The law recognizes implied contracts. But only in some cases. Why can't that work here?

Yes, the implied contracts I was referring to was the ones that fit the legal definition. As you well know, the contracts that most people are familiar with are express contracts; those that directly have all the requirements of a legal, binding contract.

Dondrei:

An implied contract is "an agreement which is found to exist based on the circumstances when to deny a contract would be unfair and/or result in unjust enrichment to one of the parties".

An example is the following: One of the requirements for a legal contract is an acceptance, which is usually oral or written. 1). I ask you to cut my lawn for $10. You say yes. We have a legally binding express contract. 2). I ask you to cut my lawn for $10. You turn away without saying anything and start to cut my lawn. There is a contract here, but it is implied. If you finish the lawn, I have a legal duty to pay you no less than $10 and you cannot claim any amount more than $10.

Here's a related example. Another requirement is there must be an offer. In both situations above, I made an expressed offer. But let's say that you and I make the same agreement for ten straight weeks. You cut the lawn; I sit in my lawn chair watching you; when you're done, I give you $10. After the fifth week, we don't talk at all: you cut the lawn, I watch, I hand over $10 when you done. On the eleven week the same thing happens except I refuse to pay you, arguing that I never asked you to cut the lawn that week. The courts would rule that we had an implied contract, pointing out the historical pattern, the fact that I could have easily stopped you from cutting the lawn, and, most importantly, that I was unjustly enriched by getting a free freshly mowed lawn.

-

Now, both 'implied contracts' and 'negative rights' are accepted terms used throughout the philosophical and legal worlds, respectively. An implied contracts requires more than just an implication and a negative right requires more than just the use of a 'negative' in it's explanation.

If you want to attempt to refute what I just said about implied contracts by using a similar approach to what you did when you went through those tortured gyrations trying to refute the accepted definition of a negative right, feel free and go ahead. I find it amusing as hell to see the lengths you will go to in order to not have to admit that you made a mistake.

You can either (1) forget about your post count and only post on points that you actually know something about; (2) research the topic point at hand before you type on your big, fat, keyboard; or (3) you can continue to be an endless source of amusement.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

You can either (1) forget about your post count and only post on points that you actually know something about; (2) research the topic point at hand before you type on your big, fat, keyboard; or (3) you can continue to be an endless source of amusement.

Well, #1 and #2 contain elements that are beyond rational possibility. :whistling: