Originally posted by FMFThis is Debates - on what grounds do you disagree? Do you also disagree with the reasoning in the link I gave? Do you disagree that even primates recognize ownership of property? Do you disagree that sharing and gift giving, basic human actions which long predate governments, necessarily indicate a belief in ownership? What is it you disagree about and what evidence do you have to support your position besides asserting it?
What attitude is it you require of me? I disagree with you. Is that in some way unacceptable to you?
Originally posted by no1marauderI disagree with you. I am unconvinced by your cut & paste. I am unable to convince you of my view. This is Debates, as you say. And our debate seems to have run its course.
This is Debates - on what grounds do you disagree? Do you also disagree with the reasoning in the link I gave? Do you disagree that even primates recognize ownership of property? Do you disagree that sharing and gift giving, basic human actions which long predate governments, necessarily indicate a belief in ownership? What is it you disagree about and what evidence do you have to support your position besides asserting it?
And to be brutally frank, you've become a bit creepy in your last 2 or 3 posts.
Originally posted by FMFTo be brutally frank, you're an imbecile.
I disagree with you. I am unconvinced by your cut & paste. I am unable to convince you of my view. This is Debates, as you say. And our debate seems to have run its course.
And to be brutally frank, you've become a bit creepy in your last 2 or 3 posts.
4 edits
Originally posted by WajomaLocke argued that we gain a right to property by "mixing our labour" with natural objects, as long as we leave "enough and as good" for others. If I carve wood into something then it becomes mine - as long as there is still wood for others to do the same. But why does "mixing my labour" with something that was not mine, make the entire object mine? Might not mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?
The concept of contracts does not require guvamint, nor does the concept of property rights.
There is no good answer to this challenge to Locke - or at least, none that shows a natural right to property. Nor is the requirement that when we appropriate objects from nature, we leave enough for others... this is a requirement that cannot be satisfied in the real world.
The best justification of a right to property is that we will all be better off if we recognize such a right. So it is the common good that justifies the recognition of the right to private property. That's why I argue that 'ownership' is a social convention, enshrined and protected by a legal system. Similarly, for contracts to be binding in reality, they must be legally enforceable, otherwise they are merely transactions that may or may not happen. The laws that enable these things to work cannot exist without a system of government.
Originally posted by FMFAre you serious with the last sentence of your first or second paragraphs? Do you think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being? Or is it more realistic to suppose that the sentient being gains ownership of the piece of wood that he has made into a spear by his labor? And how can you possibly assert that the requirement that we leave sufficient resources for others "cannot be satisfied in the real world"?
Locke argued that we gain a right to property by "mixing our labour" with natural objects, as long as we leave "enough and as good" for others. If I carve wood into something then it becomes mine - as long as there is still wood for others to do the same. But why does "mixing my labour" with something that was not mine, make the entire object mine? Might not mix ...[text shortened]... The laws that enable these things to work cannot exist without a system of government.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf that's what you think I meant, then that is your right. You're interpretation seems very odd, however. Almost like a contortion.
Are you serious with the last sentence of your first [paragraph] ... ? Do you think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being?
Originally posted by no1marauder
And how can you possibly assert that the requirement that we leave sufficient resources for others "cannot be satisfied in the real world"?
Well I have asserted it. Or is this another case of you not being able to understand (or desperately wanting to disagree with) something what I have written?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFDo you think simply asserting something and then refusing to justify that assertion by reference to any facts or supporting evidence is "debating"? It seems you just like to hold yer breath until you turn blue.
If that's what you think I meant, then that is your right. You're interpretation seems very odd, however. Almost like a contortion.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]And how can you possibly assert that the requirement that we leave sufficient resources for others "cannot be satisfied in the real world"?
Well I have asserted it. Or is this an ...[text shortened]... able to understand (or desperately wanting to disagree with) something what I have written?[/b]
Your critique of Locke was:
FMF: I carve wood into something then it becomes mine - as long as there is still wood for others to do the same. But why does "mixing my labour" with something that was not mine, make the entire object mine? Might not mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?
What exactly does that mean? Do you think people use their labour to just lose it for no purpose whatsoever?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderDebate what? Debate with whom? Do me a favour! You vastly overestimate how compelling you are.
Do you think simply asserting something and then refusing to justify that assertion by reference to any facts or supporting evidence is "debating"?
I said this: According to Locke, if I carve a lump of wood into something it becomes mine - he called it "mixing my labour" with a natural object. But why does "mixing my labour" with a thing that was not mine, make the entire object mine? Might not mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?
And your retorts are:
Do you think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being?
And:
Do you think people use their labour to just lose it for no purpose whatsoever?
What is it about these facetious, flippant questions of yours that somehow compels me to answer? It is quite clear that you are being willfully obstreperous and disingenuous.
No I don't think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being. There. In fact I'll go further. A piece of wood cannot gain ownership rights over a sentient being.
I wonder what your follow up retort to that is going to be? Perhaps you are going to absolutely insist that what I meant was that a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being. Then we will really be debating, is that how it works?
Your priggishness is not engaging. Your pointlessly exaggerated propriety does not motivate me to indulge you, as you seem to assume. Parsing words, pretending to misunderstand, and extrapolating contorted meanings from others' words in order to maintain some sort of argumentative velocity is not real debating. Now you may argue that my refusal to cut and paste things to provide so-called 'supporting evidence' for my opinions is not real debating either. Fine.
But if someone - like you - asks me something like 'Do you think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being?', then what? Am I supposed to admit that I have 'met my match' and say excellent point? Do I really have to provide 'supporting evidence' to prove that I don't think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being?. Well I don't believe I do.
If I am. as you say, an imbecile: then why are you still arguing with me? I'm trying to work out what kind of kick you get out of all this.
Originally posted by RetrovirusIt depends. If the government is founded and run by normal, sensible people who think marriage between one man and one woman, with the point of raising children in a secure environment, is the bedrock that any decent society should be built upon, then the answer is "yes". If, however, you have a government where legalism has run amuck and the judges have a broken moral compass and believe that the individual should have any right they so desire without any responsibilities, then the answer might be "no".
Is it constitutional for the government to grant married couples any sort of benefit at all (Joint tax filing , tax deductions, ect. ect. )?
Shouldn't marriage be just between private, adult individuals? What does the government has to do with it?
In a socialist government the government provides for people if they can not provide for themselves and the government itself is provided for by people who are able to provide for themselves and a little extra: they pay taxes.
If in a married couple one provides for the other then they are entitled to tax breaks. The same goes for couples living together in a registered partnership. Parents providing for kids are entitled to even bigger tax breaks. Single mothers providing for kids hardly pay tax at all.
I'm not sure what constitutional rights have to do with it. It's just right.
Originally posted by FMFA complete load of hot air. Your critique of Locke is as moronic as this post. People use their labor in order to improve their situation not to worsen it. Yet you stated:
Debate what? Debate with whom? Do me a favour! You vastly overestimate how compelling you are.
I said this: According to Locke, if I carve a lump of wood into something it becomes mine - he called it "mixing my labour" with a natural object. But why does "mixing my labour" with a thing that was not mine, make the entire object mine? Might not mixing what is m ...[text shortened]... ing with me? I'm trying to work out what kind of kick you get out of all this.
Might not mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?
No, it wouldn't for a rational being which you clearly are not.