Originally posted by no1marauderForget the dictionary. What definition will be used in a court of law?
That's A definition, not THE definition.
Merriam Webster says:
a: a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contract
Originally posted by no1marauderThese counterexamples show that mixing one's labor with some element of the natural world is insufficient to render that element property, even if the Lockean proviso is met.
Mixing tomato juice with the ocean does not create anything nor is it something a rational person would do. Sure it is possible to construct examples of lunatic behavior that are purposeless, but what does that prove? That said, the concept of personal ownership is pretty much universal and according to anthropological evidence has been as long as there ...[text shortened]... 't need a God to believe in Natural Rights that stem from human nature and reason.
I understand that the concept of property is universal, but that is irrelevant. The concept of deception is universal too, yet its universality does not explain when/whether/why deception is wrong. The story that one tells to answer these questions will be a normative story, and that is exactly the sort of story that I wanted provided in regard to the original acquisition of property.
Of course it is unsurprising that the content of rights are constrained by reasonableness, or what is often called 'moral judgment'. We will never be able to codify the content of rights into some set list of claims, because the ethical life is too complex.
I see no difference between the claim "you are failing to respect the various rights all of us inherently possess", and the claim "you are failing to abide by decisive moral reasons to accord all of us various rights". In both cases the entailment is that the state is violating a moral obligation with regards to rights, but in the latter claim no presumption is made that rights are ours just by virtue of our nature. Natural rights locutions may nowadays work to stress the fundamental equality of humans, but that has not always been the case and it is a relativity recent development (this is just a sociological point). Claiming that there are decisive moral reasons to accord rights to all humans carries the same practical entailments, though I admit that the recent and ongoing interest in Human Rights as such weighs in favor of your way of putting the point. But this difference is philosophically irrelevant; it is a (admittedly very important) rhetorical point. I certainly was not conceiving of the second claim to be read as asking for rights. Rather, it is a demand that the state live up to their moral obligations. It is, in this respect, just as strong as the demand couched in terms of natural rights.
One reason why I prefer the second way of talking about rights is that it focuses our attention on the reasons why rights are so important, and hence leaves open the question whether other entities should be protected by according them rights. Presumably there is no necessary connection between being human and having rights, since non-human entities psychologically similar to us should be protected as well. Of course, one could advocate a Natural Rights view that takes rights to inhere in any entity with the requisite psychology, regardless of species membership, but this point is obscured by talk of natural human rights. But, again, this is rhetorical point about conversational implicature.
Originally posted by no1marauderI presumed that you might be able to give the legal defination. Are you an attorney at law?
If it's in a court of law, it would presumably be of the "legally enforceable" kind. That does not mean that every contract is legally enforceable.
Originally posted by bbarr(Shrug) I'm a practical man and Natural Rights theory is a practical philosophy. Nozick can score his rhetorical point, but it remains true that people act as if the fact that their labor creates something entitles them to ownership of that created thing. This belief is universal and so is the belief that is desirable from our point of view so long as the Lockean rules barring excessive ownership which disadvantages others is met. Deception, like greed, is generally disfavored in every culture, while I have yet to hear of a culture that believes that the ownership of individual personal property is wrong (this is not a discussion of ownership of the means of production; Marxist policy prescriptions don't seem incompatible with the Lockean exceptions).
These counterexamples show that mixing one's labor with some element of the natural world is insufficient to render that element property, even if the Lockean proviso is met.
I understand that the concept of property is universal, but that is irrelevant. The concept of deception is universal too, yet its universality does not explain when/whether/why dece ...[text shortened]... human[/i] rights. But, again, this is rhetorical point about conversational implicature.
The "story" that Locke told regarding the original acquisition of property seems extremely plausible to me; Man started creating things using nature for his own use and/or enjoyment. This was beneficial to him and beneficial to the group (Man is and always has been a social animal); 10 men with spears were more efficient hunters than 1 with a spear and 9 with their hands. Deception within the group would be detrimental to survival and also no one likes to be deceived, but everybody likes a nice new spear or other gadget or toy. So acquisition of property serves individual and group goals whereas deception does not.
Even were I to accept your reasoning (which I don't) that there is:
no difference between the claim "you are failing to respect the various rights all of us inherently possess", and the claim "you are failing to abide by decisive moral reasons to accord all of us various rights"
I would still say that the rhetorical advantages of Natural Rights theory is a good reason to use it in debates of this sort. The State has no moral obligations of course (that is fetishism); the individuals who comprise the ruling authority of the State do. And reminding them of the fundamental equality of Man is a good idea as most of them have a rather inflated view of their own worth. You are probably right (aren't you always? 😉) that Natural Rights theorists didn't always stress the fundamental equality of humans; however. you would have to concede that that concept is utterly essential to Locke.
I see no reason why other entities, including those which lack a psychology similar to humans, couldn't possess Natural Rights based on their natures.
Originally posted by no1marauderFair enough.
(Shrug) I'm a practical man and Natural Rights theory is a practical philosophy. Nozick can score his rhetorical point, but it remains true that people act as if the fact that their labor creates something entitles them to ownership of that created thing. This belief is universal and so is the belief that is desirable from our point of view so long as th ...[text shortened]... sychology similar to humans, couldn't possess Natural Rights based on their natures.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut that's not what I said. And you know it. And your claim that "just about everybody on the planet" agrees with you and disagrees with me is so funny! What a dufus! You keep misrepresenting what I say in order to be argumentative. Your main line of attack there for a while was Do you think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being?
your counter idea that "oh well maybe we just waste our time for no purpose" is absurd.
Looks like Locke has been shot to pieces, and rightly so. Fmf, you yourself point out how vague "enough and as good to be left to others" is. There's more substance in a handful of smoke. Locke can blow it out his.
I appreciate through-out history that this is not a maxim taken seriously because we'd all be much worse off. Man has adapted the environment to improve his life i.e. his life, not mine. That my life has been improved is a consequence not the primary motivation.
Next, this business of mixing labour with a piece of wood = ownership: The only question here is that of initial aquisition. There is a piece of wood that has the potential to be turned into a spoon. It has not been initially aquired, and so, it is free to be claimed. The wood carver assigns it a value (whether he invests labour or not) and makes the claim, it is his. There is no magical mix, the raw material + the wood carvers labour (mental or physical) = the final product, not ownership, and so alot of other problems disappear. Like the shoe sewer having some claim on the product (I see now the influence of Locke on the thinking of Shav, Redmike and the trade unionists)
The worker rightfully owns their time (we'll disregard for now the states claim on an arbitrary percentage of that workers time when they are engaged in certain voluntary value for value exchanges)
I will reassert that the concept of contract exists independant of the state, No1 has provided numerous examples, another example is that when two parties wish to enter a contract, a bond is agreed on and held by a mutually agreed upon third party(no need for the state) The idea of limited liabilty can also be privatised. So many possibilites unless you're a devout state worshipper. I will concede that there is such a beast as a state endorsed contract. An apt analogy would be state sponsored health care available in some countries, does this mean that health care cannot exist without the state? Health care, the concept of contract, education and much more predate the state and can exist independant of it.
Originally posted by FMFWhat, you don't have child support in Indonesia?
Legally recognized marriages offer some degree of protection and security to women here in Indonesia. It's only really men who might sit around wondering about how nice it would be if government had nothing to do with it and if they could just walk away - after there are kids and everything - without any legal responsibilities.
Originally posted by WajomaI agree that a contract can exist without the state, but there's a number of considerations to qualify this with in terms of whether such a contract is a fair one. Firstly, for a contract to be fair there need to be no externalities, i.e. detrimental effects to a third party. Polluting the environment is one such example. On a large scale, widening the gap between the rich and poor beyond a certain point may be another such example. Large corporations merging to form monopolies is another potential example.
Looks like Locke has been shot to pieces, and rightly so. Fmf, you yourself point out how vague "enough and as good to be left to others" is. There's more substance in a handful of smoke. Locke can blow it out his.
I appreciate through-out history that this is not a maxim taken seriously because we'd all be much worse off. Man has adapted the env ...[text shortened]... pt of contract, education and much more predate the state and can exist independant of it.
Secondly, there are some conditions under which a contract between two parties can be unfair to one party, such as force, fraud, or bargaining power differentials due to desperation. For example, offering water to someone in the desert in return for the bag of gold they're carrying isn't a fair contract.
There's the concept of blocked exchanges. Certain types of commodities should not be available at all, such as child prostitution or anthrax, or bribing a government official.
Whilst the state is not strictly necessary for the concept of a contract to exist, the state serves a function of regulating what types of contracts are permissible with a society. Ideally, the government should interfere only to the minimum degree required to prevent social ills such as blocked exchanges, externalities, certain types of unfair contracts, etc. It is a good sign when the government is only regulating to protect the interests of a vulnerable party, rather than protecting its own interests.
Arguably, the very process of agreeing to participate in an economic system with a medium of exchange is a social contract. When someone engages in economic behaviour within a society, they're entering a contract with the society as a whole as well as the individual, due to the potential for externalities. On a small scale externalities are trivial but they add up when you consider the overall effect of transactions in a complex economic system. For example, whether Microsoft, Google and Yahoo merge with one another has noticeable externalities for other parties, whereas a private individual buying a bottle of milk from a store has such a tiny effect on bargaining power in a large society that the externalities are trivial and not noticeable.
Bargaining power differentials are one reason why the government needs to set regulations. For example, Nike pays its workers about eight cents per pair of shoes in countries where there is no minimum wage law. The health and safety conditions are also lacking.
People are more free to enter contracts when their basic needs are not at stake. For example, someone who needs food or shelter right away is less free to negotiate a fair contract for themselves than someone who has food, clothing and shelter but wants to purchase something they don't need, e.g. just for recreation.
Another thing to consider is that people who use collective resources in a society such as money as a medium of exchange, driving on roads, etc. are entering into a contract with that society to pay a reasonable amount of tax to support the infrastructure of the society that has enabled them to earn money in it. For example, Rupert Murdoch benefits heaps more from participating in society's system of collective resources than if he had to build his own roads to drive on.
Looks like another headbutting match that ends with me calling you a control freak and you calling me nasty things like that-guy-that-believes-the-individual-is-the-owner-of-their-own-life. We've got the scatter gun approach with so many different points.
What determines fair is that all effected parties are voluntary. With that in mind we'll skim through your list.
Pollution: Clearly pollution is having an effect on a third involuntary party. That party needs to identify themselves and how they are effected. This is not a matter of contract but how the contract is carried out.
Large scale gap widening past a certain point: Frankly, I don't care, but we can play with it if you like. What is the 'certain point'? How did you arrive at it? Through precise calculations or is it just, like, you know, a feeeeling? Does it take into account that every minute there is untold wealth added to the world?
Force, fraud and bargaining power: An odd grouping. The two 'F's involve involuntary parties and do not pass the fairness test. The gold for water exchange does pass. The state has no business interfering in that exchange. Part of owning something is being able to assign it a value to yourself and being able to dispose of it as you wish. Maybe they want to give the water or gold away for free. You would like to send police to stop that happening? On what basis? That the person giving the water away cannot afford to do so? You wish to price fix the value of gold and water or limit the exchange to certain environments i.e. Gold for water exchanges are banned in deserts.
Child prostitution: We need an age of consent, it's a grey area what that age should be. But this exchange would involve involuntary parties and does not pass the fairness test. Same for rape and torture vids.
Anthrax: Catergory: Objective threat. However if a chemical company needs it for research and can prove they have the safegaurds to remove it from 'objective threat' then they should be able to trade.
Bribery: Involuntary parties. Didn't you admit recently to bribing guvamint types for building approval?
Monopolies. This is almost entirely the realm of guvamint, who regularly use force and threats of force to limit competition. And it is only through force and threats of force that one can establish a true monopoly. If microsoft, google and yahoo merge they would not be a monopoly.
Nike 8 cents: Back to bargaining power again. Not happy earning 8 cents for sewing shoes? Find another job.
Health and Safety: I have seen bureaucracy due to OSHA ballon out of control in NZ, Aus and Guam. I can easily give examples of jobs that now cost 20 tiimes more due to un-neccessary reg. Privatise OSHA, let them sell their services on the open market, employees can then choose to work for an OSHA certified company or not.
"...basic needs are not at stake." We return to bargaining power for a third time. Is Nike responsible for people who need shelter, food or a playstation? Is it the fault of Nike that people find themselves in that situation? What they do do, and it's much much more than all the first world whiners, is provide an 8 cents per shoe alternative to the previous 7 cents for harvesting rice. Are all participants voluntary? Yes. Then is it fair? Yes