1. A human is born with a citizenship.
2. A citizen has a set of rules he need to follow
3. Every person have to have the right to chose their own set of rules they want to follow
4. Not having the right to chose the set of rules you want follow is unethical.
Therefore is unethical to get a citizenship at birth? — Be Kind
Individuals born to a model of governance that they did not accede to are unethically imposed upon . . . — JosephS
A person has a right to live under the set of rules that they find fair. — JosephS
1. What is your definition for fairness. And why it is only narrowly applied in this argument?
2. What do you think is the objective of a nation/country/government ?
3. Your conclusion was that a man should not just be able to create his own nation but should also get a land to do that? How did you get there from the fact that he should be able to negotiate the rules he wish to follow? I'm trying to think of some suppressed premises that will make this argument reasonable but I can't think of any. — Be Kind
1. A human is born with a citizenship.
2. A citizen has a set of rules he need to follow
3. Rules that one person may find fair another person might not find fair.
4. A person has a right to live under the set of rules that they find fair.
5. Since rules of governance are rules between people, that right is a right of negotiation.
6. It is unethical to force someone to live under rules that they did not have an opportunity to negotiate.
Therefore, it is unethical to not give a person (adult) an opportunity to create a sovereign territory and negotiate rules of governance with bordering territories. — JosephS
The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of[1] the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. — Thomas Jefferson
That can't work for similar reasons. If we have 100 people and they find 100 different things fair, what do we do? You can't have a functioning, interactive society if each person is effectively their own country and there's no overarching "international" law. If Country Joe thinks it's fair to rape Country Jane, but Country Jane doesn't think that's fair, what do we do? — Terrapin Station
3. Rules that one person may find fair another person might not find fair.
4. A person has a right to live under the set of rules that they find fair.
5. Since rules of governance are rules between people, that right is a right of negotiation. — JosephS
In reading the letter, I'm unclear as to how it succeeds in what it aims -- "that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof" — JosephS
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The underlying premise (it's not anarchy) is that absent agreement, action taken by one individual against another is de facto prohibited. — JosephS
But how do you get that agreement? If I didn't agree to allow others to take action against me just in case I rape someone, what do we do? You're saying that absent my agreement to let others take action against me, you'd prohibit that action against me. — Terrapin Station
In absence of an agreement, all force necessary to mitigate the violation of rights is permissible — JosephS
Also you keep on talking about rights but say nothing about obligations. — Be Kind
What is my duty to the individual and how does my duty impact how we deal with that person when they are an adult? To say they can vote for change does not provide much solace to somehow who has an unpopular, but deeply held, conviction on how they want to order their life -- and their objection that they didn't agree to put this conviction up to a popular vote cannot be easily dismissed. — JosephS
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.