Fundamental Question #4

[Hugo]

But why shouldn't I be allowed to do it? It doesn't violate my morality, just yours. Why do you get to make the rules for me to live by?

I have not made rules for you to live by. I have made rules for myself, and you have broken them. If you make rules for yourself I won't break them. However, this rule that you can steal what belongs to me is not a rule for yourself, it's a rule for me, and you are not my moral agent - I am.

Your argument, in reductio ad absurdum, basically means that the strongest person in society - a Hitler or Stalin - will have everything, and everybody else shall have nothing, and this will be morally correct and just. So I assume that you have no objection to the Holocaust, or the Great Terror, or the Cultural Revolution, or the Iraq invasion, or anything else like that. After all, the strong can do what they want, right?

[I Miss Trudeau]

I have not made rules for you to live by. I have made rules for myself, and you have broken them.

How can I possibly break rules that you've made for yourself?

[Hugo]

Because you do not make rules for me. If you presume to transgress against my person or property, then it is my rules that are in play, not yours. Your rules only apply to your things.

Illustration: if I am a guest in your house, do I have to obey your rules of the house on pain of ejection, or do you have to obey my rules?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Because you do not make rules for me. If you presume to transgress against my person or property, then it is my rules that are in play, not yours. Your rules only apply to your things.

What I do with my body is my "thing," as per your previous argument.

[Digby]

Maybe there is times a democracy will not work . The idea of a democracy i admit sounds good ,you know we all get an opinion on who governs us .

But what happens if 50% of your population became fools ? What happens if 50% or more are brainwashed with falsehoods ?

What we all don't want to admit some are smarter and wiser then others .Some are evil ,some are good . What if the majority becomes fools or evil?

In some places at times i suspect over 50% become corrupted with falsehoods and false education . When this happens a democracy becomes dangerous .

I really beleave the secrets to a long liveing society that lives in peace and prosperity is Keeping your Judges judgeing fair something we are loseing . Keeping our Goverment full of men of honour something now i think is impossible as now days they would trade the man of honour in for someone who will say what ever needs to be said to get elected .

I am loseing hope myself for this country haveing real prosperity in the future as i think the real secret to a country prospering is to put God in their decision making . Let real prophets speak . We are so far gone that we now have chosen Godlessness over the many false prophets that are walking amonst us . We have probly been distroyed by a large number of false prophets riseing in our midst and the result being people throwing out God .

That would not be a bad deal if No God exist , But i Beleave one does . And if a real God exist his word predicts the times we are in . Isaiah 3 tells how distruction will come upon us in the end of this age . Its exsactly what i see happening , We lose our mighty men ,the man of war ,the judge ,and the prophet,and the prudent and the ancient, the captain of 50 ,and the honourable man,and the couciler,and the cunning artiicer,and the eloquet orator.

The only chance we got to survive in prosperity as a nation is to return to good goverent ,To get good goverment we have to return to our God . I beleave this will be next to impossible as our land now is full of false prophets and most could not find the real road to God even if they did decide to return .

This democracy is now sick , we got a parliment building full of Fools and corrupt men . Our churches have lead us to Godlessness . We will shortly see the results of all this .

[The Terrible Sweal]

Morally? What the hell does tha have to do with it?

What the hell does anything have to do with anything, Sweal? You're the one who thinks that arguments ought to take into account points of insane solipsism such as the possibility that the entire physical world does not actually exist.

Crap.

Remember how I said I could demolish all your previous arguments using your own words? That's an example.

Indeed. Well, then I am cut to the quick! Alas alack! Hugo imagines my blood on the floor and LO! though there is no mark on my vest, his honour is won.

Anyway, I know that you are feigning ignorance for the sake of petty argument. ... I am also aware that you will argue that morality is important and should guide at least some human actions - so don't even bother pretending the opposite now.

Not so. What I am implying is that if your position on the nature of rights is premised on a moral argument, then your position is in fact a normative/policy argument. On the other hand, I am taking a descriptive/explanatory position. I.E. you are prescribing principles on how rights might be best formulated, I am demonstrating how we find rights to be in our environment/experience.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Because you do not make rules for me. If you presume to transgress against my person or property, then it is my rules that are in play, not yours. Your rules only apply to your things.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Your rule says you own the orchard. My rule says I own the orchard.

So now what?

[Hugo]

Crap.

Yes, it was crap. I don't know why you said it. Considering how much you profess a devotion to scientific method in other threads it baffles me why you would want to discard all evidence that shows the world exists.

What I am implying is that if your position on the nature of rights is premised on a moral argument, then your position is in fact a normative/policy argument.

That's right.

On the other hand, I am taking a descriptive/explanatory position. I.E. you are prescribing principles on how rights might be best formulated, I am demonstrating how we find rights to be in our environment/experience.

Then why have you, in the past, argued rights from a normative position?

Your rule says you own the orchard. My rule says I own the orchard.

So now what?

Negotiate with me, go to arbitration, or go to war.

[The Terrible Sweal]

On the other hand, I am taking a descriptive/explanatory position. I.E. you are prescribing principles on how rights might be best formulated, I am demonstrating how we find rights to be in our environment/experience.

Then why have you, in the past, argued rights from a normative position?

I don't see any problem with making either kind of argument, as long as it's clear that they are different arguments.

Your rule says you own the orchard. My rule says I own the orchard.

So now what?

Negotiate with me, go to arbitration, or go to war.

I'm too self-righteous to negotiate, and war would destroy the orchard. So, you and I agree* to an arbitration**.

For all intents and purposes we have: formed a social contract*, and constituted a state.**

[Hugo]

I'm too self-righteous to negotiate, and war would destroy the orchard. So, you and I agree* to an arbitration**.

For all intents and purposes we have: formed a social contract*, and constituted a state.**

We have formed a contract, but not a social contract. The social contract is an impossible construct, as it is basically an excuse for government like Divine Right and is equally invalid. It is not a contract because it has no clearly defined terms, it is not between clearly defined people, and it is not agreed to by any consensual act. We may well have constituted a state by your definition, but we know how useless that definition is, and we definitely have not formed a state by my definition since the monopoly on law and justice and the exclusive use of coercion is not present.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We have made a contract which forms the basis of our asSOCIAtion -- hence, it is a social contract.

[Hugo]

We have made a contract which forms the basis of our asSOCIAtion -- hence, it is a social contract.

Then the social contract that supposedly justifies government is actually no such thing at all, because in that "social contract", there is no "we", there is no "basis of association" and there is no "made" - the parties are not defined, the terms are not defined, and the contract is not expressly consented to.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We have made a contract which forms the basis of our asSOCIAtion -- hence, it is a social contract.

Then the social contract that supposedly justifies government is actually no such thing at all, because in that "social contract", there is no "we", there is no "basis of association" and there is no "made" - the parties are not defined, the terms are not defined, and the contract is not expressly consented to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The parties are defined, the terms are determinable, and the contract need not be expressly consented to.

[Hugo]

The parties are defined

Who are they?

the terms are determinable

What are they?

the contract need not be expressly consented to.

How does that not completely destroy the very idea of contract law?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The parties are defined

Who are they?

To take the Canadian social contract as an example, the citizens of Canada principally, and residents of Canada secondarily.

the terms are determinable

What are they?

Why don't you guess.

the contract need not be expressly consented to.

How does that not completely destroy the very idea of contract law?

I'm sorry I can't respond because I don't even comprehend the premise of your question. How would it do that at all?

[Hugo]

To take the Canadian social contract as an example, the citizens of Canada principally, and residents of Canada secondarily.

Invalid because the definition is too inclusive. "Citizens and residents of Canada" includes many people who reject the social contract, and you can't include people who reject something in a group who supposedly accept something, so your definition needs to be tighter and more exclusive.

Why don't you guess.

Because I want you to tell me.

I'm sorry I can't respond because I don't even comprehend the premise of your question. How would it do that at all?

Because a contract is an agreement between two or more parties. Agreement is express consent. Without a need for express consent, "contract" is basically defined as "agreement without agreement", which is an oxymoron. Nor is it the case that agreement is implied, because the legitimacy of the government must be a prerequisite for that, and that legitimacy depends on the validity of the social contract, which depends on the legitimacy of the government, ad infinitum - an invalid, circular argument, because it assumes the conclusion as a premise.

[The Terrible Sweal]

To take the Canadian social contract as an example, the citizens of Canada principally, and residents of Canada secondarily.

"Citizens and residents of Canada" includes many people who reject the social contract,

I know of no such people. To be legally resident in Canada is to accept the social contract.

Why don't you guess.

Because I want you to tell me.

I am disinclined to go over something both so extensive and so obvious.

I'm sorry I can't respond because I don't even comprehend the premise of your question. How would it do that at all?

Because a contract is an agreement between two or more parties. Agreement is express consent.

Ah, well, I think that definition is too exclusive. I see no reason that agreement/consent cannot be infered.

[Hugo]

I know of no such people. To be legally resident in Canada is to accept the social contract.

That is a circular argument, because acceptance of the social contract has to depend upon the legitimacy of the state (or it would have no right to make such a contract), and the said legitimacy rests upon acceptance of the social contract!

I am disinclined to go over something both so extensive and so obvious.

Why so evasive? I stated that the terms of the social contract are not defined. You argued that they are. I can't prove a negative, so the onus is on you to prove the opposite.

Ah, well, I think that definition is too exclusive. I see no reason that agreement/consent cannot be infered.

It can, but that depends upon having a legitimate claim over the goods which inferred agreement is supposed to affect. For instance, if you eat at a restaurant, it is inferred that you will pay the bill, because the restauranteur owns the establishment and the food you consume. He has legitimate authority to do that.

The case does not apply to the government, because as I have said, the legitimacy of the government to impose an inferred contract depends upon the validity of social contract theory, and that theory depends upon an inferred contract, which only a legitimate government could impose - you see? The argument assumes its conclusion as an essential premise and is therefore invalid.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... acceptance of the social contract has to depend upon the legitimacy of the state

Mutual acceptance of the social contract creates the legitimacy of the state.

I stated that the terms of the social contract are not defined. You argued that they are.

No, I said definable, I believe. Or maybe determinable? Anyway, I'm not evading, it's just too big a job to take on here.

Ah, well, I think that definition is too exclusive. I see no reason that agreement/consent cannot be infered.

It can, but that depends upon having a legitimate claim over the goods which inferred agreement is supposed to affect.

I have no idea why you insist on this 'legitimate claim over goods' stuff. It makes no sense in this context.

... the legitimacy of the government to impose an inferred contract depends upon the validity of social contract theory,

In social contract theory the government does not impose the contract, the contract 'imposes' the government.

and that theory depends upon an inferred contract, which only a legitimate government could impose - you see?

No. The citizens implicitly agree with eachother to conduct themselves according to the prevailing custom/law/norms which comprise the society.

[Hugo]

Mutual acceptance of the social contract creates the legitimacy of the state.

It remains a circular argument. In order for the social contract to be acceptable, the contract has to be legitimate. For the state to be a party to a legitimate contract, the state must be legitimate. But you say that the legitimacy of the state rests upon the social contract. So once again, the argument assumes its conclusion as its most vital premise and is therefore completely invalid.

I have no idea why you insist on this 'legitimate claim over goods' stuff. It makes no sense in this context.

Because you cannot make a contract that attaches terms and conditions to the use or possession of goods or people you have no legitimate claim over. I cannot, for instance, draw up a contract with Theloniusfleabag stating that when he is in your house he is entitled to help himself to whatever is in your fridge. I have no claim over your house or your fridge.

In social contract theory the government does not impose the contract, the contract 'imposes' the government.

That cannot be. A contract is not an acting agent and cannot impose anything. If the government does not impose the social contract, somebody else does. Who is that?

No. The citizens implicitly agree with eachother to conduct themselves according to the prevailing custom/law/norms which comprise the society.

What of the citizens who reject the prevailing custom/law/norms?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Mutual acceptance of the social contract creates the legitimacy of the state.

It remains a circular argument. In order for the social contract to be acceptable, the contract has to be legitimate.

No. For the contract to be legitimate it must be accepted.

For the state to be a party to a legitimate contract, the state must be legitimate.

The state is not a party.

In social contract theory the government does not impose the contract, the contract 'imposes' the government.

That cannot be.

It is.

A contract is not an acting agent and cannot impose anything. 

Cut the sophistry. The contract is the means by which the agents impose the government.

No. The citizens implicitly agree with eachother to conduct themselves according to the prevailing custom/law/norms which comprise the society.

What of the citizens who reject the prevailing custom/law/norms?

Under truly consensual social contracts, they are free to absent themselves from the obligations and benefits of the contract.

[Hugo]

No. For the contract to be legitimate it must be accepted.

Therefore I can draw up a contract which states that Theloniusfleabag is allowed to come into your house any time he likes and help himself out of your fridge. I accept it, he accepts it. It's legitimate.

According to you, it doesn't matter that neither of us has any rightful claim on your house, your fridge or its contents.

The state is not a party.

Yes, it is. You can identify the individuals who make up the government. There are almost three million of them in Canada. You can also include those who are net recipients of state largesse as well. Those people are acting agents. They are also capable of taking collective action, much like a private company.

Cut the sophistry. The contract is the means by which the agents impose the government.

What agents? Who is this who imposes government by way of the social contract?

Under truly consensual social contracts, they are free to absent themselves from the obligations and benefits of the contract.

Go ahead and try. You'll be arrested, tried and imprisoned for tax evasion. There isn't a country in the world where this is not the case.

[The Terrible Sweal]

No. For the contract to be legitimate it must be accepted.

Therefore I can draw up a contract which states that Theloniusfleabag is allowed to come into your house any time he likes and help himself out of your fridge. I accept it, he accepts it. It's legitimate.

Obvioiusly I would disagree about your agreement, but in concept, yes, the two of you have established between you that Thelonius has a "right" to do that. Your only problem is that I will slit your throats while you sleep. But wait...maybe I won't do that if toYOU, if you'll agree with me that Thelonius doesn't have that right.

According to you, it doesn't matter that neither of us has any rightful claim on your house, your fridge or its contents.

It matters to me, but since you and Thelonius have decided that he DOES have a 'right' to do that, pragmatically, only my ability to apply force creates a reason for my objection to matter to you.

The state is not a party.

Yes, it is.

No. It isn't.

Cut the sophistry. The contract is the means by which the agents impose the government.

What agents? Who is this who imposes government by way of the social contract?

The individuals comprising the society. (Duh!)

Under truly consensual social contracts, they are free to absent themselves from the obligations and benefits of the contract.

Go ahead and try. You'll be arrested, tried and imprisoned for tax evasion.

Tax evasion!?!? No, as a Canadian, I'll be given my passport and wished well by the govt. whereever I should choose to try my luck.

There isn't a country in the world where this is not the case.

Canada does not impose taxes on income earned outside of Canada.

[Hugo]

Obvioiusly I would disagree about your agreement, but in concept, yes, the two of you have established between you that Thelonius has a "right" to do that. Your only problem is that I will slit your throats while you sleep. But wait...maybe I won't do that if toYOU, if you'll agree with me that Thelonius doesn't have that right...

It matters to me, but since you and Thelonius have decided that he DOES have a 'right' to do that, pragmatically, only my ability to apply force creates a reason for my objection to matter to you.

Then you are apologising for the Holocaust, since the state granted the right to murder Jews to the SS, and the Jews failed to defend themselves. Either that, or you think the Holocaust was wrong, in which case you agree that there are rights which exist irregardless of the state. You're also saying that it would be just fine if I took a rifle, went on to my rooftop and shot cops.

But what you basically seem to be saying is that people can do whatever they want and their 'rights' are defined by the force they are willing and able to apply for others, in which case, there's really no justification for the state, is there? In this situation, the state has no right to exist, it's just one more gang trying to impose its will on others by force.

No. It isn't.

You think that's an answer? I said this to you:

You can identify the individuals who make up the government. There are almost three million of them in Canada. You can also include those who are net recipients of state largesse as well. Those people are acting agents. They are also capable of taking collective action, much like a private company.

And your response is "no it isn't"? Why even bother? You just look stupid.

The individuals comprising the society. (Duh!)

If all the individuals in society could impose that then we would not have a government at all, since government is a means for making people do what they won't do of their free will - yet you have just told me that government is formed and acts according to the will of all the people! In this case, it really makes no sense for people to be forming an institution that forces them to do what they want to do anyway, does it?

The alternative is that the 'social contract' and government are actually imposed by less than all the people, so I'll ask you then, by what right do they do this to their fellow men?

Tax evasion!?!? No, as a Canadian, I'll be given my passport and wished well by the govt. whereever I should choose to try my luck.

You wish! Section 239 subsection 1 of the Income Tax Act states that upon conviction for tax evasion, you will be fined between 50% and 200% of the amount sought to be evaded and imprisoned for up to two years.

Under Section 239 subsection 2, you can be prosecuted by indictment, which carries a penalty of 100%-200% of the amount you sought to evade and up to five years in prison.

You seem to think that tax evasion is punishable by exile. It's been a long, long time since anybody in Western civilization was punished by exile. The Tsars used to do it, but that was a long time ago, in a faraway land.

Canada does not impose taxes on income earned outside of Canada.

Completely irrelevant to my point.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Obvioiusly I would disagree about your agreement, but in concept, yes, the two of you have established between you that Thelonius has a "right" to do that. Your only problem is that I will slit your throats while you sleep. But wait...maybe I won't do that if toYOU, if you'll agree with me that Thelonius doesn't have that right...

It matters to me, but since you and Thelonius have decided that he DOES have a 'right' to do that, pragmatically, only my ability to apply force creates a reason for my objection to matter to you.

Then you are apologising for the Holocaust, ...

You know, that is a really really really annoying lie you keep spouting. I've told you before what I am saying does not involve an ethical analysis.

But what you basically seem to be saying is that people can do whatever they want and their 'rights' are defined by the force they are willing and able to apply for others, ...

I am saying, that in practice, the only rights that you'll ever benefit from are those that your society extends to you. Whether you ought to have more or less or different is not part of my point.

No. It isn't.

You think that's an answer? I said this to you:

You can identify the individuals who make up the government. There are almost three million of them in Canada. You can also include those who are net recipients of state largesse as well. Those people are acting agents. They are also capable of taking collective action, much like a private company.

Your memory is very selective.

I said "the state is not a party".

You said, "Yes, it is." and added the above paragraph apropos of nothing.

I replied "No it isn't."

In this context, my reply is sufficient.

The individuals comprising the society. (Duh!)

If all the individuals in society could impose that then we would not have a government at all...

The individuals in society HAVE done that and the RESULT is government.

, since government is a means for making people do what they won't do of their free will -

Your endless recitation of this is truly boring.

yet you have just told me that government is formed and acts according to the will of all the people! [/qoute]

Read your proposition there again and maybe you'll see how embarrasingly illogical it was.

Tax evasion!?!? No, as a Canadian, I'll be given my passport and wished well by the govt. whereever I should choose to try my luck.

You wish! Section 239 subsection 1 of the Income Tax Act states that upon conviction for tax evasion, you will be fined between 50% and 200% of the amount sought to be evaded and imprisoned for up to two years.

Canada does not impose taxes on income earned outside of Canada.

Canada does not impose taxes on income earned outside of Canada.

Completely irrelevant to my point.

What the f***? How can that be irrelevant to your point. Your point is that Canada will charge me with tax evasion if I leave Canada and the facts utterly refute that.