New face of capitalism

Originally posted by karnachz
The obligation to provide water to the person dying of thirst comes from the fact that the other person is present and has water that they don't need for themselves, in other words that they can save the person's life at no cost to themselves except a trivially small one.

You haven't answered my question. You've merely described your position, rather th ...[text shortened]... del of property rights should apply regardless of whether it's better for society? Or both?

Re the water. We now need a third party to assign the value of the water to the person that has it, if it crosses some arbitrary line from 'trivially small' into 'not so trivial now' then the person with the water is no longer obligated?

Your comments about some one else having to supply the water is exactly what I asserted in my previous post, that you then went onto say was a personal attack, and that it seems I was on the money originally.

I would say that strong property rights lead to a healthier, wealthier, more benevolent, more prosperous society. But I avoid that line, better to stick with what is right, correct, true. What is right is that you are the owner of your own life, it is from your self ownership, your sovereignty over your life, that the concept of property rights is derived.

There are going to be some who do not handle freedom well, they will destroy their own lives but their wrecklessness is no reason to bring down the heavy hand on all others.

Originally posted by karnachz
Circular reasoning. You're presupposing that rights should be understood in the way described. My question is why this should be the case in the first place.

What? I don't agree. Why do you think that?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What? I don't agree. Why do you think that?

Okay, how are you defining coercion? I'm saying it's circular reasoning because coercion means going against someone's rights, whereas my question is why property rights should be assigned based on a libertarian model in the first place.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Re the water. We now need a third party to assign the value of the water to the person that has it, if it crosses some arbitrary line from 'trivially small' into 'not so trivial now' then the person with the water is no longer obligated?

Your comments about some one else having to supply the water is exactly what I asserted in my previous post, that you t ...[text shortened]... r own lives but their wrecklessness is no reason to bring down the heavy hand on all others.

The value of the water doesn't have to be assigned; it can be measured. Market forces aren't always the best way to measure value, due to the declining marginal utility of money. In any case, in the example described it's clear that one person's life is worth so much more than the value of the water to the person who doesn't need it.

Your charge was that I'm a hypocrite who wants other people to be more generous with their money than I am with mine. That's the part that was the personal attack. You can't infer anything about my personal financial generosity from a theoretical discussion and it's a dishonest debating tactic to make claims of that nature.

Are you suggesting that taking money from taxpayers is "bringing down the heavy hand"? How about President Clinton's economic reforms in 1993, which greatly improved the economy by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans whilst providing most people with a tax break? (Clinton also fixed the deficit by reducing military spending, as I've covered elsewhere). Are you saying that he somehow violated the rights of those wealthy few, even though they could easily afford the taxes they paid and the economy worked better as a result?

Your lofty ideals about self-ownership sound good in theory, but in practice money doesn't grow on trees and people don't just need autonomy from government interference in order to make ends meet. They also need fair opportunities, and some people (e.g. many of the homeless in the US) are impaired due to factors like mental illness. If potential employees have much lower bargaining power than employers then that's likely to lead to exploitation, too.

Originally posted by karnachz
Okay, how are you defining coercion? I'm saying it's circular reasoning because coercion means going against someone's rights, whereas my question is why property rights should be assigned based on a libertarian model in the first place.

I didn't use the word coercion. Did I?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I didn't use the word coercion. Did I?

You talked about people getting their wealth taken away from them by gunmen.

Originally posted by karnachz
You talked about people getting their wealth taken away from them by gunmen.

That's correct. Why am I defining the word "coercion"?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's correct. Why am I defining the word "coercion"?

Because you're talking about the use of some form of coercion when you refer to "gunmen". Would you rather define a different word instead?

Originally posted by karnachz
Because you're talking about the use of some form of coercion when you refer to "gunmen". Would you rather define a different word instead?

I'd be happy to define any word I use. Why do you want me defining words I don't use? This seems to be a strange direction to take this discussion in.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'd be happy to define any word I use. Why do you want me defining words I don't use? This seems to be a strange direction to take this discussion in.

Okay, what do you mean when you talk about people having their wealth taken away from them by gunmen?

Originally posted by karnachz
Okay, what do you mean when you talk about people having their wealth taken away from them by gunmen?

The government protects it's citizens' rights. If people have a "right" to food, then they can sit on their lazy butts and demand I feed them, assuming I can feed myself through my own labor. If I don't feed them then I am violating their human rights and the police - the men with guns - come put me in jail and take it anyway or kill me if I try to violently resist.

That's exactly why rights are NOT defined in such terms. Rights do not mean you can take from other people through violence. If you change that, you're claiming anyone can take things violently and the law has no authority to stop them. That's what we mean when we talk about inalienable rights. If I have a right to food, I can take a pistol and walk down to the store and take food at gunpoint, just like if I have a right to life, I can take a gun and force an attacker to flee at gunpoint (or be apprehended).

Wow, apprehension...so if I have a right to food, I can take a gun and take food and if the person with food resists I can have the police arrest them!

That's what a right is. Of course rights get violated; for example, the right to pursue happiness is trampled all over in the US. But we still recognize that you can use violence to escape being locked in a cellar...but not to take things!

Originally posted by karnachz
The value of the water doesn't have to be assigned; it can be measured. Market forces aren't always the best way to measure value, due to the declining marginal utility of money. In any case, in the example described it's clear that one person's life is worth so much more than the value of the water to the person who doesn't need it.

Your charge was tha ...[text shortened]... bargaining power than employers then that's likely to lead to exploitation, too.

Your charge was that I'm a hypocrite who wants other people to be more generous with their money than I am with mine.

I never said who was more generous than who. Just pointed out you wanted someone else to supply the water. Are you now saying we should all be as generous as you, or as generous as the most generous? A word about charity - It can only ever be voluntary. Anything else is just humans responding to a threat of force, much like when the mugger points a gun at you.

The number of truly helpless is small and voluntary charity can cover their needs. Charities were once numerous in the UK but the welfare state has all but wiped them out. What was once a caring society is reduced, when some one is down and out more and more the response is "Awww gummint will look after them" "Awww I already gave at the IRD."

The value of the water doesn't have to be assigned; it can be measured.

Oh really? Please explain, the process of measurement without assigning value.

No one owes you anything simply on the basis they have more than you, or because they happen to be of the same species. No one owes you a job, nor a job with certain conditions. No one owes you an artificial bargaining position. The employer/employee relationship is one of mutual exploitation.

Your claims about Clintons reforms are completely unverifiable, the economy is effected by millions of factors. Without an identical situation to make comparisons with your assertions mean nothing. When things go bad the control freaks cry cry "Not enough tax, regulation, control." When things go good they cry cry "That's because of all our tax, regulation, control."

You see rich folk don't just build a swimming pool full of money like scrooge McDuck and splash about in it. Most rich folk got where they are by investing in things that provide good returns (those that aren't good, don't hold their wealth for long). So when the gummint takes money off them their ability to invest is stifled. The factory doesn't get built, the property isn't developed, the new technology doesn't happen.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The government protects it's citizens' rights. If people have a "right" to food, then they can sit on their lazy butts and demand I feed them, assuming I can feed myself through my own labor. If I don't feed them then I am violating their human rights and the police - the men with guns - come put me in jail and take it anyway or kill me if I try to ...[text shortened]... that you can use violence to escape being locked in a cellar...but not to take things!

No, a private citizen doesn't have the right to take food from another private citizen by force. Only the government has the right to say that IF you want to participate economically in this society then you're required to pay some tax to maintain infrastructure, which includes protecting the poor from starvation and homelessness.

In a society at the level of technological advancement that our society enjoys, it is very easy for high income earners to afford to pay tax in order to support the poor, and the poor still have an incentive to work so that they can buy non-essential goods such as computers, TVs, CD players etc.

Originally posted by karnachz
No, a private citizen doesn't have the right to take food from another private citizen by force. Only the government has the right to say that IF you want to participate economically in this society then you're required to pay some tax to maintain infrastructure, which includes protecting the poor from starvation and homelessness.

In a society at the le ...[text shortened]... ntive to work so that they can buy non-essential goods such as computers, TVs, CD players etc.

No, a private citizen doesn't have the right to take food from another private citizen by force

Then a private citizen does not have a right to food.

Only the government has the right

Governments don't have rights! People have rights.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Your charge was that I'm a hypocrite who wants other people to be more generous with their money than I am with mine.

I never said who was more generous than who. Just pointed out you wanted someone else to supply the water. Are you now saying we should all be as generous as you, or as generous as the most generous? A word about charity - It can ...[text shortened]... n't get built, the property isn't developed, the new technology doesn't happen.

I'm not saying anything about myself, except that of course I should be expected to pay the same amount of tax as someone else with equivalent circumstances in terms of income etc. It's only semi-voluntary, because my willingness to pay tax is conditional upon other people having to pay their share as well. I wouldn't want to be a "sucker" who pays more than others of my income level. I'd also dislike it if I had to abide by a lower speed limit than all the other drivers, for example.

If you think that voluntary charity is sufficient to cover those in need, then how do you explain the fact that the US's epidemic homeless problem greatly worsened after Reagan cut spending to domestic infrastructure such as housing?

I agree that the govt shouldn't take so much tax from the rich that their ability to invest is stifled, but right now that's not a concern. The rich's ability to invest wasn't stifled at all when President Clinton raised taxes on the highest 1.2% of income earners whilst giving most people a tax cut.