The utilitarian lure and trap of political argument (esp. within libertarianism)

So then you do not have freedom to do what you wish with your body, thus undermining the sovereignty over ones body. Either we have complete control of our sovereignty or not surely?

Stuck records tend not prove much. I don't care that life's your moral choice. Tell me why ownership should be considered a right, then we can get somewhere.

No you can't, the state will stop you. Ownership is a legal notion, not a right, unless you can prove otherwise.

Who's forcing you to leave? That's like saying that I am forced to buy another product because I don't like one a company sells. No one's forcing me to buy anything. No one's forcing you to leave your "home".

And you could set up your own society somewhere else, where exactly that is doesn't really concern me. Why should it?

This is not proving that property is a right. You are mixing up morality and immorality as a way of determining a right. Lots of people have different definitions of what is and what isn't moral. I might think murder is moral. In which case, should it be my right to murder? Of course not.

Ok, so what happens if my actions of free speech incite violence? Surely that infringes upon the rights of others? How about if I commit suicide? People might feel depression. That is infringing upon their "right" not to people feel pain (depression has physical manifestations).

That assumes people want fairness, and depends on what fairness exactly is.

What evidence do you have that law merchants worked in the Middle Ages?

Fair enough, a state of perpetual "self defense", great.

The individual exists because of his relationships. Without these relationships, he could not have existed, and would not be the person he is. Therefore, this implies that the individual has duties and roles not chosen by the individual by their very virtue of existing in that society. If the individual renegades on this agreement then they cease to exist in the manner that they once did. Whether or not the relationship is oppressive or not depends on the society itself.

No we don't. We act because of an infinite cause and effect chain which stretches back far into the past. We cannot control the past. So therefore, how can you say we act in a way that shows we have free will? Either we act randomly, or we act in a way predetermined. Either way, we do not have free will, and do not act in a manner that shows we have free will.

 

You still have the freedom to do what you want, but it's not possible to sell what you inalienably own.

I've already told you. The most basic of all moral choices is between life or death. If you choose life, you must support anything that supports life, but doesn't violate the rights of others. This includes a right to property.

Also, all actions undertaken between people of free will are necessarily reciprocal. If you can do something to me, then I can do it to you. If you can roar abuse at me from the street, I can do it to you. If you steal my car, I am entitled to my car back, as well as the value of the car from you. And so on.

If it doesn't, then there is nothing wrong with my actions.

You're basically saying "accept it or get out". No, I will not accept it, and no, I will not leave. The government is stealing, and this is immoral.

Rights are what I am morally entitled to. Morality is objective, and rights are objective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Those who commit the violent acts are responsible for their own actions.

An act of suicide is not an act against somebody. It's not taking away their food, or land, or harming them. It's their own fault if they're depressed over it.

People want fairness, by and large. Fairness would be a general sort of common-sense thing: Not being scammed or stolen from, no fraud, a fair value for your money, etc.

Their common usage in a free market is good evidence, as free markets tend to weed out inefficiency, corruption, etc.

Ok, so a contract exists, but what does it consist of? I say that it consists of reciprocating respect for rights back towards others, as in not stealing from them, not killing them, etc.

When I go about my day-to-day routine, I make choices about what to do. This seeming ability to choose is probably just an illusion, but it is still there. I am still held responsible for my actions. I am still able to "decide" whether to work or sleep.

 

Why not? What gives you the right to tell me that I can't sell my own body? I want freedom.

I don't accept that there is this choice between life and death. I choose not to die. And yet I don't see the evidence that the right to property exists. This is not proven by this alledged choice, and nor do I accept the existence of this choice. Nor do I accept that choosing life equates to believing that one must accept to support anything that supports life, "but doesn't violate the rights of others". I might have chosen life for myself, not for others.

I reject the notion that free will exists in any real sense; I don't see how you have evidented this assertion.

This eye for an eye doctrine doesn't work very well though does it? If someone rapes another person, should the second then be allowed to rape the first?

By remaining to live in a society you are consenting to actions by that society, just as if you bought a product from the high street, you would be accepting the way it is made. You can still complain about the way the product is made all you like, but until you do something about it (ie by not buying the product) there would be no reason for the company to change what it is doing, even if it was acting immorally (by using slave labour for example). Why not make a stand and leave? Then you wouldn't be subject to the thieving government at all.

Oh come on, you can't really believe that can you? Are you really as arrogant as to suggest that your idea of morality is by definition right?

And frankly, linking to an unsourced Wikipedia article does not really help prove anything, other than the fact you either can't be bothered, or simply can't, use the internet to back up your assertion.

Not always. What happens if they were mentally ill for example? Are they then full responsible for their own actions?

This proves a much wider point actually - the idea of blame and fault. Actually, I would suggest that depression is not the fault of the sufferer, any more than catching a virus is the "fault" of the sufferer. How exactly can one stop oneself being depressed? I'm sure the medical community would like to hear from you.

I clearly am more cynical about humanity than you. I don't think people want fairness at all - why do you assume they do?

You think the Middle Ages worked on the principle of free market economies? You are sadly mistaken if so.

Of course, even your own definition depends on you proving property as a right for me to accept your arguments.

The "contents" of this contract actually depend upon what the society itself is like, rather than it being for every society. Your relationship with the society you live in depends as much on the society as it would do yourself, just like any relationship.

Those choices are illusionary, based on events that happened prior to your existence.

That decision however is only made on what has gone previously, and so it is difficult, in some cases, for you to have acted any differently. To determine whether or not we have could have acted differently one must take this into account:

The subject acted freely if they could have done otherwise in the right sense. This means that they would have done otherwise if they had chose differently and under the impact of other true and avaliable thoughts or consideration, they would have chosen differently. True and avaliable thoughts and considerations are those that represent their situation accurately and are ones that they could have reasonably expected to take into account.

With this in mind, some of the cases in which you have claimed one has free will are in fact situations where the subject could not have acted freely. The choice was illusionary, and they could not have acted differently. Can we be held accountable for actions which we had no control over?

 

You cannot sell your body into slavery because due to your consciousness, you own it. You can work for somebody all you want, but if you ever change your mind, he doesn't have a valid right to "own" you.

If we want to be consistent in our logic and beliefs, the choice must be made. You choose life (by not choosing death), yet you don't fully choose life. You support the ability of certain people to take your property, yet not the ability for reciprocated action. This is a contradiction. Are the victims any less of a human being? Do they not have the same rights?

I used to reject "an eye for an eye" completely, but recently, it made sense. If somebody violates my right not to be raped, they lose their right not to be raped.

I live in a society that takes my property. I should not have to leave.

Of course. Morality is objective, and follows from logic.

Wikipedia is not for use as an academic source, yet I use it as just a springboard, were you interested in exploring the issue further.

It depends on whether or not they are rational beings. If they are, then they are responsible for their actions. If they're a vegetable, then they have no rights, and no responsibilities.

"Fault" was the wrong word to use. Let me say instead that it is not the fault of the person who commits suicide that somebody close to them becomes depressed. It is not an aggressive action against anybody else.

If you've ever heard of game theory, or the prisoner's dilemma, you'll see that the cooperation of both parties is a generally more stable than both sides trying to undercut each other. So too is the situation with free market justice. Both parties won't agree on a DRO who's obviously biased, but they will agree on one who has a reputation for being fair-minded.

On the large scale, no, but in villager to trader interactions, you exchanged a few coins for a product, and that was that.

Of course, even your own definition depends on you proving property as a right for me to accept your arguments.

Then it's the law, not an unwritten social contract. The social contract I have agreed to is one in where I will not kill everybody.

Yes, I know. But, I can't help it. I act as if I had free will, as does most of the planet.

I might well argue that I have no control over punishments dealt out. The prisoner pleads innocent on the basis that he has no control, well, the judge sentences him to 20 years because he has no control, either.

 

Essentially then, I do not have freedom. I cannot sell myself. You argue that I own my body. Well then, I want property "rights" to what I own. Therefore, I should be able to sell it. I do not have the right to sell what is mine. Therefore, all other notions of property are undermined.

I support no particular human being to take my property. It is not a contradiction therefore.

The fact that you think this doctrine makes sense tells me a lot about your so called capability for logic.

Stuck records don't win arguments.

You don't have to leave, no one is forcing you to do so. We've been through this.

I would like evidence that morality is objective.

To be honest, your claims make it obvious that you are quite the genius. For thousands of years, the most brilliant thinkers have battled to determine what is morality. And yet you come along and with this brilliant proof of yours you have shown them they've all been wrong. It's quite amazing.

Ah I see, so we should kill all those who are not rational? Right alright then.

I would challenge the notion that most, if any, of the human race are "rational beings". My view is they are not.

And so the doctrine breaks down. When you have to define aggressive action, surely the whole notion of your horrific utopian vision breaks down?

Sadly, game theory might show that co operation is beneficial to both parties, it does not mean that both parties will co operate. You have this wonderous faith in human kind which I partly envy.

As well as this, will these law courts dole out the laws you want them to dole out? Maybe the most successful law courts will be the ones that are lenient towards those who steal property in the form of taxation. What then?

Indeed, but this is doing nothing to illustrate we act as if we have free will, which is surely what you must do.