Topic: Socialism - page 6. (Read 7997 times)

I'm hardly being pedantic, considering that homosexuality is still outlawed in many parts of the world. Add to that women's rights, political oppression... and you see why 'values' are a sticky subject.

In my opinion, laws shouldn't be based on any particular system of values, other than what is equitable between the parties at hand. Of course you can call that a value system in itself (nice circular argument), but I believe it's the only one which is consistent and fair.

Oh come on. Don't be pedantic. I never said the transient values. Even the people who believe that homosexuality is wrong understand and approve of a system that preserves individual rights against the tyranny of the majority. Even if they are too narrow-minded to apply it to a specific case, they will almost all tell you that they defend the right for others to say and do things they disagree with. That's the whole reason the United States has a democratically-elected republican system of government instead of a democracy.

But for pete's sake, if the laws aren't a reflection of the beliefs of the people who are alive and part of a society now, then whose beliefs should they be a reflection of? Should people in Argentina make the laws for the people in Canada? Do we all get our laws handed down from visitors from another planet? Or maybe you get to be the dictator? Completely absurd!

The very idea you're talking about—that the majority shouldn't be permitted to trample the rights of a minority—that is a value. It is a part of the set of values that laws are founded upon. As values change, so too do the laws. If you have a better way, I'm all ears.

I don't know what kind of narrow definition of 'values' you think I'm using to think it is dangerous for laws to be based on values, but laws ought to be about right and wrong. Those sorts of beliefs are referred to in most of the English-speaking world as "values."

I completely disagree with this. It's dangerous to think that law should be a reflection of the transient 'values' of 'society'.

If 51% of people agree with slavery, does that make it OK?
If 51% of people think homosexuality is wrong, should it be illegal?

Yes.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/

I could go on and make a list, but it only takes one counter example to refute your point.

To give a broader perspective, an eighth of the world's protected nature reserves are privately owned (http://www.economist.com/node/748602). This is in spite of government interventions.

People don't need to be coerced into doing good things.

I fully agree that law should be and to a large degree is a reflection of a society's values. The people who break the law are more likely to be dissuaded by threat of violence and imprisonment than by peer pressure. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that we need to work on consensus about things like environmental impact before making laws about it. I assert that for much of it there is consensus, except for the minority who wishes to continue doing the things that the rest of us have deemed harmful. There are edge cases and points of controversy, of course, but pretty much everyone agrees that toxic sludge shouldn't be poured into the reservoir.

I know that's speaking in horribly general terms but in order to get more specific we'd really have to veer off topic further than we already have.

I can surely see this happening; however, I believe this is more an effect of society frowning upon violence and murder, than there being a law; to take this a step further, I would say that people do not frown upon violence because there is a law, but that there is a law because people frown upon violence; it is because the to-be killer is connected with his fellow people that he is less likely to kill, for the same reason why he is less likely to go out in public naked--he feels connected with other people and we generally agree that we can settle our conflicts without violence.  Ergo, society first had to make the decision that they didn't like this, or at least their totalitarian leader decided it was bad (but of course, he's not typically going to stop himself.)  What may be interesting to see is, if a society agreed that killing was always legal, would murders go through the roof?  And would this be because there was no law against it, or because the citizens loved to kill?  If it's the former, it seems, death rates would go no higher; if it's the latter, they would've already been doing it to begin with.

Anyway, we're drifting; my initial point was, if government is the centralization of man's power, could he not make a conscious decision to how he would like himself to devote that power?  Must that power be taken from him for us to get anything done?  My only complain would be that we would be much too disconnected from one another to ever pull such a reality off--this is where centralization is the only way we could coordinate ourselves.  However, we are now so connected, we can freely talk to anyone in the world if we wanted, not to mentioned people in our very countries, states, neighborhoods; we're not at all disconnected anymore.  We can plan and plot by ourselves, now, from our very own homes.  I think we have the ability to reason and agree on the best way of running the general area in which we live, or at least find places we would enjoy better; I don't believe we must be forced, especially when the forcers are a minority of us (like PETA, or the hooded order, or corporations in the case of America), to better ourselves as another sees fit.  I believe, if a method of living is truly exceptional, it will stand out.  I argue that it is only through reason and peace that we will see an improvement in our conditions, as opposed to propaganda and violence; we did not achieve the idea of evolution by allowing the creationists to forever propagandize, ignoring calls of reason to state otherwise, and I do not believe we'll find peace and security through inherently violent governance, with a blind eye to attrocities.  I argue that government does not allow man to function, but man who allows government.

I get that, and I agree that the reason most people don't kill has nothing to do with the law but you're overlooking a few very important points. First, that we have a mechanism in place to prevent people from killing again if we catch them. Second, that that mechanism is overseen by everyone who lives under that system, and each of those people has a voice in changing that system. I don't mean to be pollyannaish about government, but we truly do have safeguards in place in many parts of the world. The legal disincentive regarding killing prevents many forms of organized murder, for the simple reason that someone might fink you out. Murder is something you pretty much have to do alone or with very close and trusted conspirators. Even that is a huge gamble.

Finally, here's another correlation that I won't pretend is the whole story. Where (and when) the likelihood of being caught and imprisoned is higher, the murder rate is lower. People do, at least sometimes, consider consequences before engaging in violence.

thanks 'for' the clarification.

[y]es.

That is somewhat the point I want to make.  There is a law everywhere in this nation against killing, and yet murder rates are all over the place in every city.  It seems to me that a law against killing, despite having much the same consequences, does not stifle murder.  Rather, I don't want to kill you because I have food, and water, and all the things I could ever hope for (chiefly, a computer with Internet access.)  If, however, it was a life and death sort of thing, and you had food and water, or the thing which could get me food and water, that being money, I would kill you if it meant my own survival.  Violent crime, it appears to me, is spawned from necessity, and there is a lot of that going on even in this nation, but violent crime is even more prevalent in places where one's survival is threatened.

Anyhow, if we made a law that said, "If you kill someone, we will kill your entire family," murder rates could still be high or low, depending; I don't think history has shown this has ever stopped crime, which would imply that crime is not affected by law.  But in the case of murder specifically, the solution isn't to change someone's mind; the solution is for them to not have a reason to murder, which is essentially what we're all driving for, I believe, whether we're socialist or not.  This, of course, does not apply to organized crime, but the mafia isn't that much different than government in this respect.  Anyway, for now, until we get this mess sorted out, trying to change a murderer's mind isn't going to help the position he is in.

Comparing murder to ideologies is a bit different, though; murder isn't something we do because we believe in it, except for the tiny amount of sociopaths among us who don't care how they get their way, and I believe it's clear what jobs they prefer and what positions they strive for, but when it comes to global issues, such as saving the animals or killing all the blacks, it's really not something we should force on people, for we would all be saving the animals or killing the blacks if it was something we all believed in.  I'll be honest, I don't give a fuck about the animals, and I'd rather not kill all the blacks, I like some of those fellas, but I don't think I should force people to believe in the same things I do.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Apply that to other sorts of things that there are laws against. Do you say, "you can't stop people from killing each other. No, you can't. You have to change people's minds or else there is no purpose passing a law against murder."

Yes, I'm well aware of the straw man I've just built. I think it's a rather nice straw man.

That's kind of the point. The EPA, among others, can force them. You know, that whole coercion thing you're against? If you don't want to, then tough shit, you do need to be coerced.

You fail to recognize that we already live in a world where you can sue and engage in private arbitration. We already have class action lawsuits. We already have demonstrators. We already have conservation groups.

You need to understand how property owners seek near term profits. Property owners do not seek alignment with neighbors to decrease or eliminate edge effects. Property owners do seek to create fences. Read the long post I made which I provided a link to a few posts back. Argue against it to make your point.

If people don't want to conserve the environment without government, why would they want to with?  If the point is not ultimately, "I don't care because I want to force people to do X instead of doing Y", then I'm not following; PETA could also make this argument; the hooded order could make this argument; anyone with any ideology at all could make this argument.  Yes, we can use government for any purpose we so desire; we could even kill all the Jews because fuck all, if we think it's right, we think everyone should think it's right--am I right?  Is it simply an unfortunate truth that preservation of the environment can only be achieved through force, or are we turning a blind eye to alternative methods of changing people's minds?

Further, isn't privately owned land technically the same as publicly owned land if it is owned by government?  And if the government is merely a collection of people who decide, invariably, what they will do on their private land, then the initial question is presented again: If people don't want to conserve the environment without government, why would they want to with?  For, it would seem to me, if we truly wanted to, we would be doing so right now, without need of government intervention, and the business owners who, of course, rely on our business, refuse to help us in our cause, would go swiftly out of business without our help--that is, except if there's still swathes of people who don't believe in your cause, which would be the case if the environment is still in extreme danger.  Therefore, your problem is still there: your problem is to change minds.  Without this, government or not, you can expect to achieve nothing, no matter what you fight for.


Don't we know where fluoride comes from? 

dominicus, in a theoretical perfect world where we could track every molecule we might have success tying ecological health to property rights. "Waitaminnit, that's my water you're poisoning. I'm taking you to court, buddy."

And if someone gets poisonous chemicals into your food at home? Castle doctrine. Time to get your gun.

Yes...yes it does follow.

Your statement only occurs in exceptional small-scale cases where preservation of the ecosystems happens to be vital to the economic activity within the private property.  These two conditions are rarely aligned, and never over any significant land area.  RARELY.

The inevitable scenario is: individual property owners engaged in economic activity will have little incentive to learn or value what aspect of the ecosystem they could potentially impact.  These owners typically figure out the cause-effect of their actions once it's irreversibly impacted...if ever.

This goes on now even under the most intense regulatory regimes and in the face of evidence and enforcement.

Will you please state any example, anywhere in the world, where significant swaths of privately-held, economically-productive land have resulted in long-term preservation of the inherent ecosystems in the absence of intervention from regulatory action?

You know, just anywhere in the world?

To come in again: I respect your expertise in environmental issues, but it simply does not follow that a system based on private property rights in place of government regulations and coercions would result in ecosystem destruction. Loggers and poachers are not the only actors in the system - conservationists would be free to 'homestead' the forests and take ownership of protected zones. With people such as yourself making decisions in the private courts, those rights would be respected and protected.

In the system we have now, governments make regulations in the name of environmental protection, while giving exceptions to certain well connected parties.

the quotation marks are throwing me off, is that a joke at my expense?

Mainly 'readers'.

wowowow so many strawmen and herrings guys come on.

Of course things are missing from the example. i could write a 10,000 page book and things would still be missing. the purpose is to demonstrate a problem that exists when individuals are forced to share the products of their labor with people who did not aid in the creation of those products.

wow guys, wow.

anyway i hope my comment helped to answer some of the OP's questions, that was its intent, not to outline a grand universal theorem of the universe.