• Benkei
    4.2k
    I don't realize that because the state also denies rights, or otherwise granted themselves selectively: to nobles, the wealthy, members of certain races, members of certain sexes, and so on. The examples are myriad and not worth repeating.

    I also grant rights, as can anyone else, and we don't need any legislation to do so. Should someone infringe on your rights I'll be right there defending you.
    NOS4A2

    But this raises the question; what rights exists without the State? Only moral rights. But moral rights will be ignored by most people if they can get away with it. It's quite obvious from history that rights are best preserved and protected in a civilised society. Human rights, unfortunately, really are a luxury not available to most and a recent invention.

    I would therefore argue that rights are only meaningful, if they are legal and therefore protected by the legal order and organisation of a State. Morality still informs us about the content of what those legal rights should be. The "I can grant rights" doesn't exist - it's merely a sentiment. You're not capable of protecting me from Russian or Chinese interference, or indeed Facebook's abuses, or enforce a contract for me against an unwilling counterparty. Your "granted rights" are in that sense worthless and in any case a contradiction in terms if your position is that I have intrinsic rights (who are you to grant me my rights?).

    My point is it doesn’t matter if the confiscation is legal or not; it is still theft. If someone confiscates my resources without my permission and for their own use, whether state or man on the street, it’s theft. I don’t excuse someone for theft because he makes the laws or claims a right to my income.

    I can’t see why it would matter if the income is fair and equitable. What matters is that someone is confiscating what another has earned.
    NOS4A2

    It's not confiscation if you don't have a claim to the income.

    The reason why it matters whether it's fair or equitable is that if your morality is merely procedural, then obviously the legal procedure creates the moral basis for taxes. If you want to have a moral claim to income, you need to prove your claim to specific income is fair and equitable. But this isn't "priced" into markets, so the income paid is not a reflection of moral worth but happenstance.
  • Benkei
    4.2k
    Social power is often contrasted with state power. It’s wherever the locus of power is in society or the community and not in the government. It might be an outdated term but I couldn't think of a better one.NOS4A2

    You cited writers and philosophers before that I have read a long time ago but I'm not familiar with this. What is this "outdated term" based on?
  • Tzeentch
    1k
    I think it was Benkei who pointed out that individual rights tend to diminish with government reduction.praxis

    Individual rights do not diminish. One right is exchanged for another. In the discussion between big vs. small government, the trade off is between freedom and security. Where security is given to one, freedom (in essence also a type of security) is taken away from another, which is why I don't see the extension of individual rights by governments as a more = better type of deal.

    Further, I believe governments and the type of individuals that lead them end up undermining the individual rights they claim to uphold, due to the corrupting nature of power.

    So using government as a tool to contiunously attempt to expand individual rights is a self-defeating ideal.
  • NOS4A2
    4.5k


    I don't know about that. Private people, organizations, charities etc. are quite capable. You yourself are as well, but you'd rather beg the state to do it for you. So much for concern.
  • NOS4A2
    4.5k


    But this raises the question; what rights exists without the State? Only moral rights. But moral rights will be ignored by most people if they can get away with it. It's quite obvious from history that rights are best preserved and protected in a civilised society. Human rights, unfortunately, really are a luxury not available to most and a recent invention.

    I would therefore argue that rights are only meaningful, if they are legal and therefore protected by the legal order and organisation of a State. Morality still informs us about the content of what those legal rights should be. The "I can grant rights" doesn't exist - it's merely a sentiment. You're not capable of protecting me from Russian or Chinese interference, or indeed Facebook's abuses, or enforce a contract for me against an unwilling counterparty. Your "granted rights" are in that sense worthless and in any case a contradiction in terms if your position is that I have intrinsic rights (who are you to grant me my rights?).

    It’s true. Rights are best secured by those in power. But those rights, whatever form they may take, are subject to their whim and can disappear with the scribble of the pen. History also shows that the state routinely denies human rights, even after they’ve been secured.

    I don't believe in intrinsic rights because rights are man made, but I believe everyone is deserving of rights. Anyone can grant rights, king or commoner, because a right is little more than the promise of an obligation. When I grant you free speech I take it as an obligation to refuse censoring you; when I grant you the freedom of religion I take it as an obligation to refuse interfering in your religious customs; and I take it as my duty to defend your rights because I believe in your rights and freedoms as I do mine. This occurs with or without your consent or knowledge. Perhaps that’s worthless to you, and you would have no legal recourse if I violate the obligation, but to me it means a great deal.

    It’s not confiscation if you don't have a claim to the income.

    The reason why it matters whether it's fair or equitable is that if your morality is merely procedural, then obviously the legal procedure creates the moral basis for taxes. If you want to have a moral claim to income, you need to prove your claim to specific income is fair and equitable. But this isn't "priced" into markets, so the income paid is not a reflection of moral worth but happenstance.

    I don’t understand the fair and equitable part or how it relates to the state’s claim to my money. If I want to prove a moral claim to the fruits of my own labor I need only refer to the consensual agreement between myself and whomever I’m doing business with. The state cannot refer to any such agreement.
    The state doesn’t have a claim to my income as far as I’m concerned, nor does it have any claim to any other kind of tax: capital gains tax, property tax, federal and provincial sales tax, inheritance or estate tax, and on and on. I consider it confiscation because it takes it without my permission, without asking, without my input. I consider it forced labor because a portion of my labor is spent providing for the state.

    You cited writers and philosophers before that I have read a long time ago but I'm not familiar with this. What is this "outdated term" based on?

    I believe it is a term of sociology, but I do not quite know what it is based on.
  • praxis
    3.5k
    using government as a tool to contiunously attempt to expand individual rights is a self-defeating ideal.Tzeentch

    I'm not sure what you mean or if anyone has claimed otherwise.
  • Fooloso4
    1.5k


    Typically wealthy people and organizations generally work together and coordinate with government agencies. At the very least they do not regard all government as the enemy as you seem to. No private entity has the ability to organize and implement on the massive scale of countries like the US.
  • Harry Hindu
    4.1k
    So what, then, is the problem with individualism?NOS4A2
    Nothing, as long your individualism doesn't trample on another's right to be an individual. In this sense, you cease being pro-individualism the moment you think your individuality trumps someone else's. The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian.

    It's really that simple. All the other complaints in this thread aren't about individualism, but about authoritarianism - when an individual ceases to recognize the individuality of others and impose their way of life on others, or when an individual thinks that they are the only individual.

    The problem is that people in this thread that are complaining about individualism are actually complaining about people that believe that individualism entails only believing that you are the only individual. Individualism doesn't only entail that you are an individual, but others are too. Authoritarianism is the idea that you are the most important individual, not individualism.
  • Tzeentch
    1k
    What part don't you understand?

    ... you cease being pro-individualism the moment you think your individuality trumps someone else's. The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian.Harry Hindu

    Well said!
  • praxis
    3.5k
    The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian.Harry Hindu

    Ohhhhh, I thought the whole point was freedom or personal liberty. Boy did I have it all wrong. :yikes:
  • Harry Hindu
    4.1k
    Ohhhhh, I thought the whole point was freedom or personal liberty. Boy did I have it all wrongpraxis
    Not all wrong - half wrong. Freedom and personal liberty for not just one individual, but all individuals. Seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp to me.
  • praxis
    3.5k


    Sure, anyone in a weak socioeconomic position is entirely free to fuck-off and die, for instance. The problem, as stated from the beginning, is responsibility. Generally speaking, being responsible can result in increased stability and sustainability. Not exciting goals, and being responsible is a big bummer, but cooperation for mutual benefit has its benefits. It can be a more meaningful way of life. A rat race is for rats.
17891011Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.