Do these people never learn?! Frist backs Ban on Gay Marriage.

[Drake Tungsten]

It has become another liberterian thread thing.

Ahh, one of those. I can see why Berzerker and Floyd are in here, but how'd you get roped in?

[GePap]

Well, I got in on a discusion on the nature of property rights with berz, and got sucked recently into Templar v DF's arguement about jesus's politics. Not really interested in that line. But it is easy for me to get ropped in, since liberterianism is one of my pet peeves.

As for the original discussion, DD's thread continues it nicely.

[Drake Tungsten]

As for the original discussion, DD's thread continues it nicely.

I don't really care about the original discussion; I'm just annoyed because I keep clicking on this thread because of the black dot on it, only to remember that I want no part of the parsed-post orgy going on in here. I've clicked on and quickly exited this thread so many times now that I think I'm starting to lose it.

[GePap]

Yeah, the whole chop-suey style of debating annoys me too, but I guess some people like it...

[David Floyd]

GePap,

You might very well think you have accepted Jesus and salvation, but that does not make it true: it is only after death that you can know if you trully did what was necessary, unless some Heavenyl agent comes down to tell you before hand.

Fortunately, I do have such an agent.

But the are not independent of the realm of man. If you say that his teachings were utterly apolitical, then his saying "don't steal" means little. After all, the Romans had laws against theft as well. He might as well be saying :"follow the LAW", which is is anyway.

You're trying to use my argument in reverse. My point is that if all he meant was "follow the law", that's all he needed have said. However, specific admonitions against things such as stealing, murder, etc., indicate to me that these are major moral crimes, regardless of the law.

What does morality have to do with competing land claims?

Well, the person with the correct claim is the party with the moral claim. If there is not malevolence on either side, then you're quite right, that is where the judicial system should arbitrate matters. But this has nothing to do with the fact that no matter what either party thinks, one of them has the correct moral claim.

And what decides righteousness?

God, naturally.

[Berzerker]

GePap -

I am truly amazed at your intepretation of the theater example. I really am. I thought it was a simple one...

I thought it was silly.

The point is Berz. that property, as Templar said, is a LEGAL concept, and the feeling of territoriality has little to do with it.

The point is your hypothetical was shown to be flawed, and of course property is a legal concept, Templar and I were debating whether or not government invented the concept of property, not if property has been enacted into law.

The societal understanding is in place simply to avoid possible conflict, which may spring from the feeling of territoriality. BUt again,this has no bearing on the notion of property.

No, the "societal" understanding emanates from the concept of property. If you walked in and sat down in an empty seat and someone showed up claiming they had that seat, a conflict is created. That conflict doesn't arise if property - the coat - is left on the seat by the first person there. I see you didn't answer my question about how your sense of territory is effected if you walk into a theater and see someone's coat on a seat.

This old canard? Newsflash Berz, there is more than one code of law, and at this stage in mans hisotry, there are many old codes of law, many of which cut across state borders. Nazi killings were illegal, as were Nazi actions. Get over it.

You didn't answer my question, but I see why you want to avoid it. Why were Nazi murders of Germans illegal? Oh yeah, because millennia of legal history shows that prior governments didn't murder citizens.

Incorrect. If you went out and shot a man wanted by the state for the crime of robbery, you have shot someone who is not innocent, but you have still commited murder, since you did not have the lawfull authority to do it.

That once again leaves you in the position of arguing that the Nazis never murdered Germans because their actions were "legal". That's the problem with trying to argue that murder is entirely a construct of government. If you hunted down a murderer and killed him, would that be "murder" because a politician said so? No, the killing was justified and that's what matters.

Only to a limited extent can it recognize the notion of property, and sicne custom and norm are both human products that vary with time, this in no way helps you little theory.

You said custom and norms pre-date the law, so if property is one of those customs or norms, then property pre-dated laws.
That certainly does help "my little theory".

As for the second part: what you seem not to admit is that not all killing is murder

Where exactly did I say that?

Norms and customs and then the state defined murder (as they did manslaughter, another felony about killing people, but not murder) as a way to establish and keep social order.

Why states outlawed murder is irrelevant, only that the act of murder - the unjustified and intentional taking of innocent life -pre-dates the law.

Yes I am. A brand new chemical reaction can;t not grant rights.

Strange, you claim the chemical reactions leading to people and their creation of government can grant rights.

If you believe rights coem from a "creator", that can only work if said creator is sentient

Why? I make no assumption about the identity of the creator, you do make assumptions - the absence of sentience. It doesn't matter to me if the creator is sentient or not, only that we were created as individuals.

Actually, anything inherent to man can be measured or tested, one way or another.

Is homosexuality inherent to homosexuals? We don't know. Can we test to see if certain desires are universal? Sure.

As for people wanting to be murdered? Would that not be another form of suicide? People do commit suicide.

You think murder = suicide? Hell, I don't know of one state that tries to make that equation.

Human legal history, as the modern state is itself a legal definition that does not have absolute sovereignty.

So this means you aren't reaching beyond the German government under the Nazis to declare their actions "illegal"? Btw, much of that legal history is marred by states that slaughtered people without justification, so how does that help your argument?

Both, depending on how you care to define either of those ideas.

So you believe morality pre-dated government? Based on what?

man has a universal desire for power, which human history clearly shows. Does man have a universal right to it?

Depends on what this "power" means.

For every slaev that wanted to go free, there was a slavemaster who wanted to keep is slaves.

Enslaving others is not a universal desire.

What you fail to provide is a reason why the salve is correct and the slavemaster wrong, if all rights are simply manifestations of universal desires.

I don't need to, the former is universal, not the latter.

[Berzerker]

Yeah, the whole chop-suey style of debating annoys me too, but I guess some people like it...

You happen to be debating that way too.

[Berzerker]

GePap -

If you claim that the prohibtion of theft predates government, obviously it can not come from the Ten Commandments,since government already existed at that point.

Moses on the mountain receiving the 10 Commandments was "government? There was no Jewish "government" at that time, just a bunch of people waiting in the desert for Moses to return from the mountain. Notice that the Jewish legal code was created after Exodus, not before it. Did God pre-date "government"? Did God pre-date the 10 Commandments? Are we to assume, by your argument, that God simply came up with a brand new and contrary idea when issuing the commandments or that the idea already existed in God's mind and was being given to the newly freed "chosen" people?

Btw, when God told the Adam to not eat of a specific tree but that he could eat from the others, was that not a claim of property? And when God kicked Adam and Eve out of his garden, was that not a property claim being enforced against people who didn't own that property?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GePap -

I thought it was silly.
The point is your hypothetical was shown to be flawed, and of course property is a legal concept, Templar and I were debating whether or not government invented the concept of property, not if property has been enacted into law.

The point was not shown flawed: you failed to understand it: vast difference.

No, the "societal" understanding emanates from the concept of property. If you walked in and sat down in an empty seat and someone showed up claiming they had that seat, a conflict is created. That conflict doesn't arise if property - the coat - is left on the seat by the first person there. I see you didn't answer my question about how your sense of territory is effected if you walk into a theater and see someone's coat on a seat.

BUt the dispute is oevr the seat: any item left in the seat is at most a marker, a way fo someone showing they consider it thier territory (the seat), but if it is not their property then anyone else has the right to take it by moving the item off it. The sense of territoriality is expressed in the feeling the person who put the coat down has that by haing marked it, no one else will take it: but he has nothing but a claim based on custom on that seat. In this time of LAW, anyone else can coem, move whatever item they left there, and sit in that seat, and the first individual has NO recourse, since they are nOT the oweners of the seat.

You didn't answer my question, but I see why you want to avoid it. Why were Nazi murders of Germans illegal? Oh yeah, because millennia of legal history shows that prior governments didn't murder citizens.

Actually, for the most part state can NOT muder citizens, since it is assumed that the state has the legitimacy to kill people, if it can give a reason for it. Only if the state itself has laws that limit what the state can do are killings by the state considered murder. Why did the nazi's attempt to hide their killinga? Becuase they had not gone out and changed the law and made them legal to commit. They his their acts, as all dictatorships do, precisely becuase most of them do have in thier books laws forbidding what they are doing, specially in modern times. The Soviet constitution guaranteed as many rights as the US one: certainly the government did not follow them and by the very act of not following the very rules they had on paper they showed the ilegitimacy of thier actions. Whihc is why, for example, you could try Nazi's in Germany for murder even without too large a change in the legal code. Now, that yo do not care to study the laws as existed because it does not fit your ideological conventions, well, that is your issue.

That once again leaves you in the position of arguing that the Nazis never murdered Germans because their actions were "legal". That's the problem with trying to argue that murder is entirely a construct of government. If you hunted down a murderer and killed him, would that be "murder" because a politician said so? No, the killing was justified and that's what matters.

Actually, no, if you hunt someone down, as a non-deputized invididual then you are guilty of murder in the case you showed above. Your killing was mallicious, it was premeditated, and it was unlawfull. And it is muder becuase the LAW says so.

You said custom and norms pre-date the law, so if property is one of those customs or norms, then property pre-dated laws.
That certainly does help "my little theory".

NO, becuase custom is still a creation of man, and a variable one. If propeerty comes from cstom, it does not come from any absolute source.

Where exactly did I say that?

You have not said it, which is the problem.Exlain manslaughter to me? You keep talking about muder, muder, well, in this moral world of your, what is manslaughter?

Why states outlawed murder is irrelevant, only that the act of murder - the unjustified and intentional taking of innocent life -pre-dates the law.

It can not, given its very definition. A t most, it can go back to custom, which again is a human social construct.

Strange, you claim the chemical reactions leading to people and their creation of government can grant rights.

Chemical reaction lead to men, men create the notion of ogvernment, and with that the notion of rights. Rights are an idea, and NOT a universal one, certainly not an absolute or natural one.

Why? I make no assumption about the identity of the creator, you do make assumptions - the absence of sentience. It doesn't matter to me if the creator is sentient or not, only that we were created as individuals.

All creatures are indidivuals. What is the difference between you as an idvidual and a chimp? Both are born as individuals, even ants are. That does not mean that ants, while born indvidually, function individually.

You think murder = suicide? Hell, I don't know of one state that tries to make that equation.

If the erson "murdered" wanted to die, it might be suicide on the part of the person who allowed themselves to die.

So this means you aren't reaching beyond the German government under the Nazis to declare their actions "illegal"? Btw, much of that legal history is marred by states that slaughtered people without justification, so how does that help your argument?

That people do not follow the law does not mean the law does not exist. That is why crime exists. That seems rather obvous.

So you believe morality pre-dated government? Based on what?

That human beings are social animas, and thus social norms are needed to govern behavior within the community, to avoid too much dangerous internal strife. All social animals have hierarchies and structures and norms, without them they could not function as groups. Simple evolutionary necessity.

I don't need to, the former is universal, not the latter.

You ar in no possition to make that claim. If you believ the feeling of porperty is universal, and we can define peoiple as chattel, then taking someones's slaves, hence thier property, is an attack on universal rights as you define them. And what about wanting to kill your spouse if you see them with someoen else? That is a extreemly common reaction: does that make killing your spouse a universal right?

As for chop-suey style: Sometimes Berz a single paragraph is one entire point, with one senetnce supporting another and so forth, making the entire paragraph a single unit. Break it up willy nilly and you are looking for arguements were statements reside, and there is a vast difference between a statement and an arguement.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

The point was not shown flawed: you failed to understand it: vast difference.

Hardly, I pointed out that the actual owner has the territorial claim and that in his absence, the first one there had the claim IF they left a marker to denote their presence in the vicinity. If they didn't leave a marker, the second person has the rightful claim. So where is this territorial dispute you claim exists? I see you still didn't answer my question. If you walked in and saw someone's coat on a seat, would you feel a territorial claim to that seat and simply remove it? I wish you'd just answer the question...

BUt the dispute is oevr the seat: any item left in the seat is at most a marker, a way fo someone showing they consider it thier territory (the seat), but if it is not their property then anyone else has the right to take it by moving the item off it.

That's ridiculous, virtually no one (except maybe you) would walk in and remove a coat from a seat and sit down as if the seat was unclaimed.

The sense of territoriality is expressed in the feeling the person who put the coat down has that by haing marked it, no one else will take it: but he has nothing but a claim based on custom on that seat.

So what is the custom based on? A recognition of territory AND property (the coat)! You offered this hypothetical to ostensibly show a territorial dispute in the absence of property, but property - the coat - is the key to recognising the valid territorial claim in your example.

In this time of LAW, anyone else can coem, move whatever item they left there, and sit in that seat, and the first individual has NO recourse, since they are nOT the oweners of the seat.

Why are you bringing the law into this? And you're now arguing that if the second person was enough of an a$$ to move the coat and sit down, a territorial dispute is created. That doesn't answer the question as to whom has the rightful claim, only that someone is ignoring another's rightful claim. If that's your argument, then a trespasser has created a valid territorial dispute when trespassing.

Only if the state itself has laws that limit what the state can do are killings by the state considered murder.

Then states without these restrictions can kill with impunity and not be guilty of murder?

Why did the nazi's attempt to hide their killinga? Becuase they had not gone out and changed the law and made them legal to commit. They his their acts, as all dictatorships do, precisely becuase most of them do have in thier books laws forbidding what they are doing, specially in modern times.

They hid their crimes to delay or prevent US entry into the war. After the US entered the war, the slaughter escalated and the US leaders did know what was happening. Can you cite some law under the Nazis forbidding them from murdering people during wartime?

Whihc is why, for example, you could try Nazi's in Germany for murder even without too large a change in the legal code.

Not before removing the Nazis from control of the government, but at least you acknowledge a change in the law was needed.

Now, that yo do not care to study the laws as existed because it does not fit your ideological conventions, well, that is your issue.

You haven't cited any laws.

Actually, no, if you hunt someone down, as a non-deputized invididual then you are guilty of murder in the case you showed above. Your killing was mallicious, it was premeditated, and it was unlawfull. And it is muder becuase the LAW says so.

Then legalised murder isn't murder, true? Is that really your position? My point about murder being the intentional taking of innocent life was to show that murder can occur with or without government and you're still using the definition of murder that came to exist after governments more or less outlawed the act. What happened to your "customs" and "norms" that pre-date laws? Don't you think one of those customs would have involved such a serious matter as murder?

NO, becuase custom is still a creation of man, and a variable one. If propeerty comes from cstom, it does not come from any absolute source.

That's another matter, Templar and I were debating which came first - government or property. Now, will you answer my question? If property was one of those customs that pre-dated laws, does that mean property pre-dated government? Answer that and we can discuss the "absolute source" of property.

You have not said it, which is the problem.Exlain manslaughter to me? You keep talking about muder, muder, well, in this moral world of your, what is manslaughter?

That's right, I didn't say it. Now, do you want the "legal" definition or what I believe to be the origin - the "custom" - of the act? Manslaughter is the unintentional taking of innocent life resulting from reckless behavior. Now, I don't want to get into a debate about every criminal act, so let's stick with murder. You really shouldn't complain about non-issues when you keep introducing non-issues.

It can not, given its very definition. A t most, it can go back to custom, which again is a human social construct.

You aren't using the definition, you are using ONE definition. The definition contains a broader context which you keep ignoring. As for customs, where do you think they came from? And why does it matter as long as the custom pre-dated government? You jumped into a debate about which came first - property or government.

Chemical reaction lead to men, men create the notion of ogvernment, and with that the notion of rights. Rights are an idea, and NOT a universal one, certainly not an absolute or natural one.

And it all began with chemical reactions either way. Yes, rights are an idea, but based on what? And it doesn't matter if everyone on the planet respects the rights of others nor did I say this respect was universal. The fact that no one wants others violating their rights is universal - that's what rights are partially based upon.

All creatures are indidivuals. What is the difference between you as an idvidual and a chimp? Both are born as individuals, even ants are. That does not mean that ants, while born indvidually, function individually.

Geez Gepap, do you read my arguments? I already explained that rights are moral claims of ownership between humans, not animals and humans. Obviously rights are not a prohibition against people eating animals and we certainly don't accuse animals of violating our rights when they eat us.

If the erson "murdered" wanted to die, it might be suicide on the part of the person who allowed themselves to die.

Ever hear of doctor assisted suicide? That sounds like what you're now describing. What happened to suicide? If you want to change your argument, then say so, but at least admit your attempt to equate suicide with murder was invalid. Now, why would I want to be assisted in my suicide? Because the alternative is worse? If I was dying from a cancer that was eating me alive and wanted to be assisted in my suicide, that doesn't mean I want to be murdered, it means I prefer a less painful way of dying. Again, wanting to die because of extenuating circumstances that make life unbearable doesn't mean I want to be murdered, suicide - assisted or not - isn't murder inspite of the twisted "logic" of social conservatives.

That people do not follow the law does not mean the law does not exist. That is why crime exists. That seems rather obvous.

Sure does, and by that same token, just because some people violate the rights of others doesn't mean rights don't exist. Now, how does this alter the fact that you're reaching beyond the Nazi government to call their crimes illegal? How does this show that the legal history of humanity invalidates the Nazi's behavior when many governments committed genocide and mass murder?

That human beings are social animas, and thus social norms are needed to govern behavior within the community, to avoid too much dangerous internal strife. All social animals have hierarchies and structures and norms, without them they could not function as groups. Simple evolutionary necessity.

Do you deny that property was one of these norms to reduce strife? I want to see you acknowledge that Templar doesn't know what he was talking about, then we can change the debate to whether property pre-dated these norms because we were debating which came first - property or government - not property or norms.

You ar in no possition to make that claim.

You can't be serious!!! You really think everyone wants to enslave others?

If you believ the feeling of porperty is universal, and we can define peoiple as chattel, then taking someones's slaves, hence thier property, is an attack on universal rights as you define them.

Wo horsey, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I said enslaving others was not a universal desire, and that not wanting to be enslaved was a universal desire. Nothing you've posted refutes that. Furthermore, since rights are moral claims of ownership, your proposition requires us to accept slavery as moral and that rights - universal desires - conflict. Rights cannot conflict, one right cannot cancel out another right because rights are based on universality and morality.

And what about wanting to kill your spouse if you see them with someoen else? That is a extreemly common reaction: does that make killing your spouse a universal right?

Nope, it isn't a universal desire inspite of your claim that it is extremely common (which isn't true either). Do you understand what universal means?

As for chop-suey style: Sometimes Berz a single paragraph is one entire point, with one senetnce supporting another and so forth, making the entire paragraph a single unit.

If the "point" requires those additional sentences for support, then the point and those additional sentences are deserving of responses. What do you suggest, that I address the point and ignore all it's supporting arguments?

Break it up willy nilly and you are looking for arguements were statements reside, and there is a vast difference between a statement and an arguement.

Whatever that means, but I don't break paragraphs up willy nilly. If you're accusing me of taking your arguments out of context, show me where instead of alleging some sin and not supporting it. When someone takes my argument out of context, I show them how and where. I don't b!tch and moan about their style of posting. Btw, since you're responding in the same style, aren't you "guilty" too? I sure didn't see you complaining about Templar's posts even though he uses the same style (and to his credit, without whining about others doing the same thing).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gepap -

Hardly, I pointed out that the actual owner has the territorial claim and that in his absence, the first one there had the claim IF they left a marker to denote their presence in the vicinity. If they didn't leave a marker, the second person has the rightful claim. So where is this territorial dispute you claim exists? I see you still didn't answer my question. If you walked in and saw someone's coat on a seat, would you feel a territorial claim to that seat and simply remove it? I wish you'd just answer the question...That's ridiculous, virtually no one (except maybe you) would walk in and remove a coat from a seat and sit down as if the seat was unclaimed.So what is the custom based on? A recognition of territory AND property (the coat)! You offered this hypothetical to ostensibly show a territorial dispute in the absence of property, but property - the coat - is the key to recognising the valid territorial claim in your example.Why are you bringing the law into this? And you're now arguing that if the second person was enough of an a$$ to move the coat and sit down, a territorial dispute is created. That doesn't answer the question as to whom has the rightful claim, only that someone is ignoring another's rightful claim. If that's your argument, then a trespasser has created a valid territorial dispute when trespassing.

The porblem Berz is that yoiu seem to think that by putting the coat down the man as established a rightfull claim. YOU HAVE NOT. You see, you have no actual claim to the seat: putting the coat down is a convention. That most people do not break it means nothing: you could break it, and you would not be morally wrong or ethically wrong to do so. You see, since the seat is the roperty of another party not even present, just by putting a coat down you can NOT make a claim on it built on anything other than social custom, but becuasde the claim is built on nothing but social custom another individual can ignore it without any ethical breach. As for the notion of territoriality: the feeling can be seen being expressed by the idea of marking territory (you could mark the seat by urinating on it, no?), and by the possibly violent reaction of someone who feels their territory has been taken (which is why most people won;t do the above they are afarid of the possible repercussions), yet neither of those do anything to build what you seem to think they do, which is some sort of rightfull claim on a seat YOU DO NOT OWN simply by marking it.

Then states without these restrictions can kill with impunity and not be guilty of murder?

Beyond the simple question of this being feaseable, in theory, yes.

They hid their crimes to delay or prevent US entry into the war. After the US entered the war, the slaughter escalated and the US leaders did know what was happening. Can you cite some law under the Nazis forbidding them from murdering people during wartime?

Nonsense. The US would never have cared or gone into war purely for "humanitarian reasons", anymore than the highly publiziced slaughter of Armenians or the "Attrocities" in belgium borught the US into the first World War. You aso forget that it was Gremany that declared war first after Pealr Harbor, NOT the US. The level of Nazi crimes increase when the US joined the war becuase that also happened to be after the Nazis had invaded the Soviet Union. Oh, and most people did NOT know the extent of german attrocities until 1945, and by early 1941 most Americans knew full well that the nazi's were evil.

Not before removing the Nazis from control of the government, but at least you acknowledge a change in the law was needed.
You haven't cited any laws.

No state ever gets rid of prohibitions on mudfer: you simply redifne a group so that killing them is NOT muder. if someone is not a human being, then you can not murder them: if people are traitors, you can legally kill them (even the US constitution thinks so)

Then legalised murder isn't murder, true? Is that really your position? My point about murder being the intentional taking of innocent life was to show that murder can occur with or without government and you're still using the definition of murder that came to exist after governments more or less outlawed the act. What happened to your "customs" and "norms" that pre-date laws? Don't you think one of those customs would have involved such a serious matter as murder?

NO, legal killing is not murder. gain, the innoncence art is immaterial. You certainly need sutoms againt killing of members of your own group: certain killimgs though, like human sacrfice, would be killings acceptable to custom.

That's another matter, Templar and I were debating which came first - government or property. Now, will you answer my question? If property was one of those customs that pre-dated laws, does that mean property pre-dated government? Answer that and we can discuss the "absolute source" of property.

Depends on the definition of either. Templar is correct that complex laws concerning land use and transfer need government to exist.

And it all began with chemical reactions either way. Yes, rights are an idea, but based on what? And it doesn't matter if everyone on the planet respects the rights of others nor did I say this respect was universal. The fact that no one wants others violating their rights is universal - that's what rights are partially based upon.

What is not universal is what those rights ARE. No one wants to die: certainly a prisoner on death row does not want to die, he wants to liev if he could. That does not mean we are violating his rights by killing him. If what people think their rights are can change, then rghts are not universal in the way you think them to be universal.

Geez Gepap, do you read my arguments? I already explained that rights are moral claims of ownership between humans, not animals and humans. Obviously rights are not a prohibition against people eating animals and we certainly don't accuse animals of violating our rights when they eat us.

But you keep failing to back this "explination" with a shaky theoretical basis. As I said earlier, i could 'explain' that the sky s orange cuase the sun is two feet away. Is that a valid explination?

Again, wanting to die because of extenuating circumstances that make life unbearable doesn't mean I want to be murdered, suicide - assisted or not - isn't murder inspite of the twisted "logic" of social conservatives.

Not wanting to be murdered is not wanting to die: do you think people do not care if they are manslaughtered? You can not base the idea of murder on not wanting to die: soldiers do not want to die, but in war tey are not murdered.

You can't be serious!!! You really think everyone wants to enslave others?
Wo horsey, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I said enslaving others was not a universal desire, and that not wanting to be enslaved was a universal desire. Nothing you've posted refutes that. Furthermore, since rights are moral claims of ownership, your proposition requires us to accept slavery as moral and that rights - universal desires - conflict. Rights cannot conflict, one right cannot cancel out another right because rights are based on universality and morality.

Wrong. People have auniversal desire to dominate, to be the boss. The surest way to be free is to be at the top of the heap. Stalin was free of every other human being telling him what to do, and he was that free by being on top. Slavery is one way to dominate.

Nope, it isn't a universal desire inspite of your claim that it is extremely common (which isn't true either). Do you understand what universal means?

Most certainly, in fact, it seemm better than you, becuase you assign things "universal" status when they are based on social conventions of today. People do no want to be slaves becuase they want to be free, but as I said above, that does not mean they want everyone else to be free. A slavemaster is free, and if he believes that if his slave beocmes equal his freedom is threatened, he will fight to keep slaves, in the name of freedom, his freedom.

If the "point" requires those additional sentences for support, then the point and those additional sentences are deserving of responses. What do you suggest, that I address the point and ignore all it's supporting arguments?

Yes: In the very post i am quoting now you ask questions in one section even thought they are answered in my post elsewhere. Supporting arguements are all ONE. What you need to do is give YOUR arguement and your supporting points instead.


[/QUOTE]
Whatever that means, but I don't break paragraphs up willy nilly. If you're accusing me of taking your arguments out of context, show me where instead of alleging some sin and not supporting it. When someone takes my argument out of context, I show them how and where. I don't b!tch and moan about their style of posting. Btw, since you're responding in the same style, aren't you "guilty" too? I sure didn't see you complaining about Templar's posts even though he uses the same style (and to his credit, without whining about others doing the same thing). [/QUOTE]


It's called parcticality. You seem to be unable to argue in a different style, so if I feel I care to continue arguing with you, it does me no god to reply in my manner, since in the response you will chop it up anyway.I am saving mysef time. That does not mean I approve of the system, but I will not add to my burdens.

[Berzerker]

GePap -

The porblem Berz is that yoiu seem to think that by putting the coat down the man as established a rightfull claim. YOU HAVE NOT.

You cannot sit down without removing someone else's property.

You see, you have no actual claim to the seat: putting the coat down is a convention.

As I said before, the theater owner owns the seat - their claim trumps all others, but in his absence, the first person there - you know, first come, first serve - has the rightful claim. Calling this "convention" is meaningless because the convention derives from something else. People didn't just invent this "convention" from out of the blue, it comes from the notion of property. The owner of the theater established a rule for choosing seats and the coat and it's owner followed that rule, not the late-comer.

That most people do not break it means nothing: you could break it, and you would not be morally wrong or ethically wrong to do so. You see, since the seat is the roperty of another party not even present, just by putting a coat down you can NOT make a claim on it built on anything other than social custom, but becuasde the claim is built on nothing but social custom another individual can ignore it without any ethical breach.

What happens if the owner who set up the first come, first serve rule enters the picture and hear's both sides? Does he remove the second person who ignored his rule or the first who obeyed the rule? If you are sitting next to someone and they get up to go to the bathroom and you grab their seat, would you consider that an ethical breach? If so, why? Because you knew they were sitting there! That's the purpose of the coat, to inform others the seat has been claimed.

As for the notion of territoriality: the feeling can be seen being expressed by the idea of marking territory (you could mark the seat by urinating on it, no?)

Try asking the owner.

and by the possibly violent reaction of someone who feels their territory has been taken (which is why most people won;t do the above they are afarid of the possible repercussions)

Hmm...a violent repercussion because no ethical breach occured? Does that make sense?

yet neither of those do anything to build what you seem to think they do, which is some sort of rightfull claim on a seat YOU DO NOT OWN simply by marking it.

The theater owner owns the seat but you intentionally removed him from your hypothetical.

Beyond the simple question of this being feaseable, in theory, yes.

Feasable in theory? Many states did this in reality. So, unless the Nazis actually had laws prohibiting them from murdering people, they committed no murders. That's your argument!

Nonsense. The US would never have cared or gone into war purely for "humanitarian reasons", anymore than the highly publiziced slaughter of Armenians or the "Attrocities" in belgium borught the US into the first World War.

Nonetheless, that was the reason why the Nazis tried to hide their crimes. You see, they believed the US government was controlled, at least to a large degree, by American Jews and their supporters.

You aso forget that it was Gremany that declared war first after Pealr Harbor, NOT the US.

As a result of their ally's sneak attack. That has nothing to do with Germany's motive for hiding their crimes before that.

The level of Nazi crimes increase when the US joined the war becuase that also happened to be after the Nazis had invaded the Soviet Union.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that the Nazis feared the US reaction to their crimes and US involvement in the war.

Oh, and most people did NOT know the extent of german attrocities until 1945, and by early 1941 most Americans knew full well that the nazi's were evil.

The "extent" is another matter, but people did know the Nazi brutality because of what was happening in Poland. You really think American Jews had absolutely no contact with European Jews and no knowledge of what was happening?

No state ever gets rid of prohibitions on mudfer: you simply redifne a group so that killing them is NOT muder.

And you find this tactic valid? It's still murder...

NO, legal killing is not murder. gain, the innoncence art is immaterial. You certainly need sutoms againt killing of members of your own group: certain killimgs though, like human sacrfice, would be killings acceptable to custom.

So no state has ever murdered anyone unless it was "illegal". That means the Nazis murdered no Germans.

Depends on the definition of either. Templar is correct that complex laws concerning land use and transfer need government to exist.

Templar didn't argue that, he argued that the very notion of property and it's existence was invented by government. The fact laws came about to deal with the increasing complexities of property because of more people and more interactions is irrelevant.

What is not universal is what those rights ARE.

Correct. Just claiming that a right exists doesn't make it valid, it must be based on a universality.

No one wants to die: certainly a prisoner on death row does not want to die, he wants to liev if he could. That does not mean we are violating his rights by killing him.

That's right, if you murdered someone and are sitting on death row, you gave up your right to life by taking that right from your victim.

If what people think their rights are can change, then rghts are not universal in the way you think them to be universal.

What "people" think isn't the issue. If Hitler thought he had a right to slaughter millions of people, would you agree? I didn't say all our rights are agreed upon universally.

But you keep failing to back this "explination" with a shaky theoretical basis.

I never said all life forms have a right to life that cannot be morally violated by other life forms. And you complain about taking arguments out of context?

Not wanting to be murdered is not wanting to die: do you think people do not care if they are manslaughtered?

We have a right not to be murdered or "manslaughtered", we don't have a right not to die.

You can not base the idea of murder on not wanting to die: soldiers do not want to die, but in war tey are not murdered.

Oh really? If we invade Canada and start slaughtering people, you don't think that's murder? Even in wartime, murders can occur and the side guilty of instigating the war is responsible.

Wrong. People have auniversal desire to dominate, to be the boss.

That isn't the same thing as slavery. You keep introducing ambiguities while I am dealing with specifics. What does "dominate" and being the "boss" mean EXACTLY?

The surest way to be free is to be at the top of the heap. Stalin was free of every other human being telling him what to do, and he was that free by being on top. Slavery is one way to dominate.

But wanting to be Stalin or enslave others is not universal. Slavery was abolished by peoples who didn't want to enslave others and viewed the practice as immoral. How you can argue that enslaving others is a universal desire just shows how far you will go to avoid admitting you're wrong.

Most certainly, in fact, it seemm better than you, becuase you assign things "universal" status when they are based on social conventions of today.

*sigh* The universal desire to not be murdered was not based on today's social conventions.

People do no want to be slaves becuase they want to be free

Is that an admission of a universality?

but as I said above, that does not mean they want everyone else to be free.

That doesn't matter, not everyone wants others to lose their freedom, therefore, that desire is not universal. But that's where the Golden Rule enters the picture, if you want to be free but don't want others to be free, you're a hypocrite who is violating the Golden Rule.

A slavemaster is free, and if he believes that if his slave beocmes equal his freedom is threatened, he will fight to keep slaves, in the name of freedom, his freedom.

God, you keep introducinbg non-issues. I talk about universalities and you keep talking about non-universalities.

Yes: In the very post i am quoting now you ask questions in one section even thought they are answered in my post elsewhere. Supporting arguements are all ONE. What you need to do is give YOUR arguement and your supporting points instead.

You can't be more specific? Supporting arguments are not all ONE. And that is pure hypocrisy, Gepap. You have not limited your posts to stating your arguments and supporting points, you've also been trying to refute my arguments. That's what a debate is about - making your case and addressing the opposition's case.

It's called parcticality. You seem to be unable to argue in a different style, so if I feel I care to continue arguing with you, it does me no god to reply in my manner, since in the response you will chop it up anyway.I am saving mysef time. That does not mean I approve of the system, but I will not add to my burdens.

So instead of debating the "ethical" way as you see it, you've resorted to unethical debating and it's all my fault. I see you didn't actually show me taking your arguments out of context, as if that never happens using your style of debating.