@VoluntaryExchange You say a Voluntary Agreement. The Confederates were the first Americans to conscript. First in Militias that chased runaway slaves in the middle of the night, then of course the Mandatory draft during the Civil War. The Northerners started the draft much later. Voluntarism is a pick and choose thing by elites when it becomes necessary to support their cause. They stop at nothing short of force to protect their own moral govts rather then protecting liberty,
I'm still not convinced the Civil War was an unjust war by Northerners. I'm waiting for Rothbards silver bullet to prove it. Seems that the south ignored the rights of American citizens such as the 2nd amendment. People were trying to escape slavery, and the south like the soviet union and china had a wall, although not physical to force them to stay. Didn't the slaves by their actions show a declaration of independence? Rebellion to support injustice.
'Ourselves alone. We want to enforce our rights, we should do it ourselves.'
What about those who aren't in a position to enforce their own rights? Can elderly people in a nursing home be expected to enforce their rights to decent care (which they paid for) if they're not receiving it? Or is that just another case of "Look, that's too bad, their natural rights are being violated, but that doesn't mean anybody else should leap in and do something about it"?
They don't have a "right" to "decent care" any more than you have a "right" to a good meal at a restaurant. If the meal stinks, you don't go back. If the care of a home or hospital stinks, you take your business elsewhere. It is not in the interest of a home or hospital to treat you like garbage. It is, like every other service, a business. If your business conduct stinks then you don't get rewarded with patronage. Family and concerned folks have every right to leap in. Government doesn't
This lecture is of course dealing with war, however. Are you arguing that the government has a right to draft your son to go get maimed or killed for a Georgian or an Afghani? I find that logic impossibly hard to swallow.
It's dealing with war but his argument uses a general premise: "It is always wrong to enforce another's rights." I was giving a counterexample to that claim.
If, on the other hand, you think he's arguing on the premise: "The state is never justified in coercing its citizens except when it comes to protecting an individual's life, liberty and property" then his argument simply begs the question against statists. I took him to be arguing *for* libertarianism on the basis of ... (cont.)
the immorality of intervention. But if he assumes the truth of libertarianism in order to argue for the immorality of intervention, then the argument doesn't have much weight. A statist will surely agree, *if* libertarianism is true, then intervention is immoral. But they will simply deny the antecedent.
Then I simply don't understand your notion of "right". A right is simply a valid claim (or potential claim) against another. If I pay you for a certain good or service, then I have a right to that good or service, and (equivalently) you have a duty to provide that good or service. Contracts bind the parties to the terms of the contract, certainly morally and in most cases legally. Even *libertarians* would agree that contracts should be legally enforced by government, and a payment ... (cont.)
is a form of contract. The issue I was raising is that some people are simply not in a position to enforce their own rights. What if the elderly person is half-senile, has no family, no friends, and is too frail to move. Are you going to tell me that she should just find another nursing home?! Of course the state has an obligation to enforce her rights to the care she paid for, i.e., to enforce her contractual rights. No one else will and she simply can't!
The State does not have a obligation because that obligation involves taxing someone else. That is saying B attacks A so I need to take X's money to stop B. They have a right to a service that they payed for, sure, but that right cannot intrude on another's. In her case she is stuck unless someone helps or she does something for herself, eg sue. A point I would like to stress is contractual rights are not always legitimate. They must respect other more important rights or the contract is invalid
'If, for example, Tutsis are slaughtering Hutus in Rawanda, or vice versa, natural laywers would have said, "Look, it's too bad, it violates the natural rights of the Hutus or Tutsi, but that doesn't mean anybody else should leap in and do something about it. Quite the contrary.'
So if person A is being beaten to the point of death by person B, then persons C, D and E shouldn't leap in and do something about it? They should just look on and say, "That's too bad, but who are we to intervene?"
In your example of one individual assaulting another individual, intervention may be warranted. There's no argument being made against police work and enforcement of law.
The argument is foreign military intervention which is an entirely different ball game. Again, are you arguing that your son should be conscripted into the military and killed and your income robbed from you to settle border disputes in Africa?
As an individual, if you believe intervention is morally justified then you are free to catch the next flight over there and join the cause. But your government does not have the right to make that decision and conscript and tax those who want nothing to do with it.
The question isn't whether intervention is justified, it's whether it is obligatory. Let me clarify my argument, using the same example:
Do you think persons C, D and E are morally obligated to intervene on behalf of person A? In other words, would it be morally wrong for them to look on while saying, "It's too bad that A's rights are being violated, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it"?
If you say, "No, they have no such obligation, it wouldn't be wrong for them ... (cont.)
... not to intervene", then you and I just have conflicting moral intuitions, because I think it would be wrong for C, D and E not to intervene on A's behalf. They have a moral obligation to do so.
If you agree with me on that point, then why would it be obligatory for C, D and E to intervene, but it would be not only right but *obligatory* for a nation with sufficient resources *not* to intervene on behalf of a people facing genocide? ... (cont.)
I think your argument would be, "Because if the nation intervenes, that would necessitate conscripting people into the army and funding the effort through taxation, both of which are exercises of state power against individual liberty."
First of all, since we don't at present have a draft, then conscription isn't an issue. At worst it would involve sending voluntary soldiers on a mission they don't like. But since you seem to think it's OK for the state to use police action on ... (cont.)
occasions, that too could involve forcing a police officer to do things he doesn't want to do (maybe he doesn't want to intervene in some domestic dispute; should the state force him to?)
But there's still the issue of taxation, and let's even say we do have a draft. What then? Can the state ever override the will of the individual and force the individual to do things he/she doesn't want to do, especially when that might cost the individual his life or property?
let's return to our example. If you agree that C, D and E have a moral obligation to intervene, even though they could get hurt in doing so (who knows, the attacker may be stronger than they thought and could do some damage before being taken down), then why does not a nation with sufficient resources have an obligation to intervene on behalf of a people facing genocide, even though it may cost that nation pain (loss of life, loss of property) in the process? ... (cont.)
The two examples seem to me strictly analogous. If you think otherwise, then you need to point out why there's an obligation to intervene on the one hand and an obligation *not* to intervene on the other.
lol, I loved his quick plug against environmentalists
HapaLife 1 year ago
@VoluntaryExchange You say a Voluntary Agreement. The Confederates were the first Americans to conscript. First in Militias that chased runaway slaves in the middle of the night, then of course the Mandatory draft during the Civil War. The Northerners started the draft much later. Voluntarism is a pick and choose thing by elites when it becomes necessary to support their cause. They stop at nothing short of force to protect their own moral govts rather then protecting liberty,
dons123111 1 year ago
I'm still not convinced the Civil War was an unjust war by Northerners. I'm waiting for Rothbards silver bullet to prove it. Seems that the south ignored the rights of American citizens such as the 2nd amendment. People were trying to escape slavery, and the south like the soviet union and china had a wall, although not physical to force them to stay. Didn't the slaves by their actions show a declaration of independence? Rebellion to support injustice.
dons123111 1 year ago
"spokesman for the merchants of death"
chocobosage420 2 years ago
Slaughtering Indians is not "JUST"
odin422 3 years ago
'Ourselves alone. We want to enforce our rights, we should do it ourselves.'
What about those who aren't in a position to enforce their own rights? Can elderly people in a nursing home be expected to enforce their rights to decent care (which they paid for) if they're not receiving it? Or is that just another case of "Look, that's too bad, their natural rights are being violated, but that doesn't mean anybody else should leap in and do something about it"?
caelarent 3 years ago
They don't have a "right" to "decent care" any more than you have a "right" to a good meal at a restaurant. If the meal stinks, you don't go back. If the care of a home or hospital stinks, you take your business elsewhere. It is not in the interest of a home or hospital to treat you like garbage. It is, like every other service, a business. If your business conduct stinks then you don't get rewarded with patronage. Family and concerned folks have every right to leap in. Government doesn't
CauseAndEffectPost 3 years ago
This lecture is of course dealing with war, however. Are you arguing that the government has a right to draft your son to go get maimed or killed for a Georgian or an Afghani? I find that logic impossibly hard to swallow.
CauseAndEffectPost 3 years ago
It's dealing with war but his argument uses a general premise: "It is always wrong to enforce another's rights." I was giving a counterexample to that claim.
If, on the other hand, you think he's arguing on the premise: "The state is never justified in coercing its citizens except when it comes to protecting an individual's life, liberty and property" then his argument simply begs the question against statists. I took him to be arguing *for* libertarianism on the basis of ... (cont.)
caelarent 3 years ago
the immorality of intervention. But if he assumes the truth of libertarianism in order to argue for the immorality of intervention, then the argument doesn't have much weight. A statist will surely agree, *if* libertarianism is true, then intervention is immoral. But they will simply deny the antecedent.
caelarent 3 years ago
Then I simply don't understand your notion of "right". A right is simply a valid claim (or potential claim) against another. If I pay you for a certain good or service, then I have a right to that good or service, and (equivalently) you have a duty to provide that good or service. Contracts bind the parties to the terms of the contract, certainly morally and in most cases legally. Even *libertarians* would agree that contracts should be legally enforced by government, and a payment ... (cont.)
caelarent 3 years ago
is a form of contract. The issue I was raising is that some people are simply not in a position to enforce their own rights. What if the elderly person is half-senile, has no family, no friends, and is too frail to move. Are you going to tell me that she should just find another nursing home?! Of course the state has an obligation to enforce her rights to the care she paid for, i.e., to enforce her contractual rights. No one else will and she simply can't!
caelarent 3 years ago
The State does not have a obligation because that obligation involves taxing someone else. That is saying B attacks A so I need to take X's money to stop B. They have a right to a service that they payed for, sure, but that right cannot intrude on another's. In her case she is stuck unless someone helps or she does something for herself, eg sue. A point I would like to stress is contractual rights are not always legitimate. They must respect other more important rights or the contract is invalid
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago 2
'If, for example, Tutsis are slaughtering Hutus in Rawanda, or vice versa, natural laywers would have said, "Look, it's too bad, it violates the natural rights of the Hutus or Tutsi, but that doesn't mean anybody else should leap in and do something about it. Quite the contrary.'
So if person A is being beaten to the point of death by person B, then persons C, D and E shouldn't leap in and do something about it? They should just look on and say, "That's too bad, but who are we to intervene?"
caelarent 3 years ago
In your example of one individual assaulting another individual, intervention may be warranted. There's no argument being made against police work and enforcement of law.
The argument is foreign military intervention which is an entirely different ball game. Again, are you arguing that your son should be conscripted into the military and killed and your income robbed from you to settle border disputes in Africa?
CauseAndEffectPost 3 years ago
As an individual, if you believe intervention is morally justified then you are free to catch the next flight over there and join the cause. But your government does not have the right to make that decision and conscript and tax those who want nothing to do with it.
CauseAndEffectPost 3 years ago 3
The question isn't whether intervention is justified, it's whether it is obligatory. Let me clarify my argument, using the same example:
Do you think persons C, D and E are morally obligated to intervene on behalf of person A? In other words, would it be morally wrong for them to look on while saying, "It's too bad that A's rights are being violated, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it"?
If you say, "No, they have no such obligation, it wouldn't be wrong for them ... (cont.)
caelarent 3 years ago
... not to intervene", then you and I just have conflicting moral intuitions, because I think it would be wrong for C, D and E not to intervene on A's behalf. They have a moral obligation to do so.
If you agree with me on that point, then why would it be obligatory for C, D and E to intervene, but it would be not only right but *obligatory* for a nation with sufficient resources *not* to intervene on behalf of a people facing genocide? ... (cont.)
caelarent 3 years ago
I think your argument would be, "Because if the nation intervenes, that would necessitate conscripting people into the army and funding the effort through taxation, both of which are exercises of state power against individual liberty."
First of all, since we don't at present have a draft, then conscription isn't an issue. At worst it would involve sending voluntary soldiers on a mission they don't like. But since you seem to think it's OK for the state to use police action on ... (cont.)
caelarent 3 years ago
occasions, that too could involve forcing a police officer to do things he doesn't want to do (maybe he doesn't want to intervene in some domestic dispute; should the state force him to?)
But there's still the issue of taxation, and let's even say we do have a draft. What then? Can the state ever override the will of the individual and force the individual to do things he/she doesn't want to do, especially when that might cost the individual his life or property?
But then ... (cont.)
caelarent 3 years ago
let's return to our example. If you agree that C, D and E have a moral obligation to intervene, even though they could get hurt in doing so (who knows, the attacker may be stronger than they thought and could do some damage before being taken down), then why does not a nation with sufficient resources have an obligation to intervene on behalf of a people facing genocide, even though it may cost that nation pain (loss of life, loss of property) in the process? ... (cont.)
caelarent 3 years ago
The two examples seem to me strictly analogous. If you think otherwise, then you need to point out why there's an obligation to intervene on the one hand and an obligation *not* to intervene on the other.
caelarent 3 years ago
Again.. Thanks.
csason 3 years ago