Comment by thegrimmest
2 months ago
First of all, I'm not talking about international conflict, where the law of the jungle still effectively applies to this day. I'm talking about domestic liberalism, where ideas like the fundamental equality and the consent of the governed are held to be self-evident. If you disagree with these ideas then I suspect you will be intractable.
> At what arbitrary point would you like to start counting
There is no need to keep count. We are all born into this world with no possessions, and we all negotiate with those already here for everything we come to own. It is true that people and circumstances vary widely, but that doesn't provide legitimacy for one person's claim over another (equal) person's legitimate good fortune.
> We live in a society which, by definition, requires multiple people participating
It is exactly the nature of this participation which I am litigating. I hold that it should be maximally voluntary and consensual. The only justified violation of fundamental liberty is in defense of liberty itself. Drafting people into the army (effectively enslaving them) is justified in direct defense of the nation (not to attack eg. Vietnam). Redistributing legitimate (earned through consensual exchange) wealth by force simply doesn't pass this test.
> There is no high philosophy here, it's just the reality of how things work. Get over it.
Funnily enough this is the exact sort of reasoning has been used to rationalize the most horrific atrocities ever perpetrated.
> First of all, I'm not talking about international conflict, where the law of the jungle still effectively applies to this day.
Then why should we take this seriously? Some huge disparities in outcomes in this world are the consequence of "international conflict". What do you want to do about Native Americans in the USA, for example?
> We are all born into this world with no possessions, and we all negotiate with those already here for everything we come to own.
This is not meaningfully true. If you are born into a rich family, you almost certainly are going to live a life with more access than those who are not. If you are born into a country with socialized medicine you are going to have access to opportunities that someone who isn't does not. We are not born equal in any way that is meaningful.
> It is exactly the nature of this participation which I am litigating. I hold that it should be maximally voluntary and consensual.
It isn't and can't be. Any right of consent you are given in society is society choosing to give you that right. It doesn't exist above society. That's just the breaks.
> Funnily enough this is the exact sort of reasoning has been used to rationalize the most horrific atrocities ever perpetrated.
People find any reason to justify their actions. You'll find a lot of terrible things have justifications that overlap with non-terrible things. It doesn't really say much.
> It doesn't exist above society.
Yes, it does. Or at least that's the line of reasoning you seem to be disagreeing with.
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The entire line of enlightenment liberal thought that gave rise to our society fundamentally disagrees with your position. The right to liberty is not bestowed by the good graces of society, but is fundamental and unalienable.
> That's just the breaks.
This isn't a justification, it's a rationalization, and not a particularly good one. I am arguing that liberty, ie. the right to interact with other people on a consensual basis, ought to be the primary determining factor as to whether any particular action is legitimate. You have not replied with an argument on why this ought not to be.
> It isn't and can't be.
Yes, it can. Or at least, it can be more consensual. I hold that charity is a more ethical means of wealth redistribution than taxation, exactly because of charity's voluntary nature. I also hold that before the New Deal, the status quo was much more liberal. Government was a small entity mostly charged with administering the vital institutions that maintained the liberal order. There were of course still overreaches and failures, as with any human system. Do you really think that tearing down much of the New Deal can't be? I think it can, whether it will remains to be seen.
> You'll find a lot of terrible things have justifications that overlap with non-terrible things.
Then the justifications are wrong. The ends do not justify the means. Legitimate action should be possible to justify from first-principles in a manner that precludes illegitimate action. Otherwise how could we possibly come to an agreement on a distinction between the two? I would also note that the ideas I'm articulating do exactly that: provide a concrete, universalizable framework to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate.
> The entire line of enlightenment liberal thought that gave rise to our society fundamentally disagrees with your position. The right to liberty is not bestowed by the good graces of society, but is fundamental and unalienable
You're quoting a document that is defining what rights it will give to the people. Whatever language you want to add around it can't get past the point that the document is giving rights to people and we as a society are agreeing to follow that document.
And please, this document is written in a time where many of its signers were holding slaves. Clearly not every man was considered equal.
2 replies →