Political Theory

Re: Nuclear War and the State

WalterEC — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:34:04 GMT

Q22:

Assume the following scenario:

There is a nuclear war coming. The only way for such a war to be stopped is if the state intervenes by illegitimately collecting taxes from a group of people who otherwise would not pay them and then acting.

Obviously this is completely hypothetical, so lets not add any more side constraints for now.

Is such an act legitimate? And more importantly, does the impact of the state intervening and therefore stopping nuclear war outweigh the impact of robbing some citizens?

This scenario is so ridiculous that discussing it is of no profit

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Bostwick — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:21:25 GMT

Stranger:

JonBostwick:
Anonymous Coward:
You are advocating forcing someone to do something against her will
No kidding. The whole point of a legal system is to force people to respect the rights of other.
No it is not. The point of a legal system is to restore justice to people whose rights are violated.

Justice is when people respect others rights of property. Legal systems brings that about, after the fact.

Stranger:

You seem unwilling to even consider that children have rights. You quote my supporting points, not my argument.
Children may have rights, but they are unable to exercise them until they grow up. Until then, they must either belong to their parents, or to the state. They cannot belong to everyone, that would be communalizing them.

Children by living with their parents consent to their parenting, but that does not mean parents own them. If a child runs away, who is to force him to return to his parents? This is anarchy, there is no state. Why bring it up?

You can not own people.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Torsten — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:33:02 GMT

JonBostwick:

No kidding. The whole point of a legal system is to force people to respect the rights of other.

Well that depends on the social, moral and legal theory a legal system is based on. It is basically a matter of ideology and world view. Present Western legal systems mainly follow a positive rights theory in that approach. They work with the assumption that rights (i.e. of people or organizations) do exist and that they are worthy to be protected against violations. But one can also think of other approaches. It is even possible to ignore the assumption of personal rights, but base the legal system on specific social norms and values. Violations of those norms would then be sanctioned with punishments considered to be due, for this kind of behaviour. Examples of this are to be found within the Moses books in the Bible, but also in many societies that preceded the modern state. I think Hegel distinguished between different moral and legal spheres. Something in the line of ethics, morals/customs, and rights/laws, but I would have to look at it.

Nuclear War doesn't have anything to do with rights or legal systems. It is simply an expression of power and might. And might always breaks right, unless a mightier (or more brutal) force is utilized to defend this what is considered to be right (or a set of rights). Against the use of nuclear weapons there is no certain defense possible. If they are used against a country the inhabitants can but run for cover and hope that the damages are of a nature that does still allow for rebuilding what is left the day after.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Stranger — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:34:15 GMT

JonBostwick:
Anonymous Coward:
You are advocating forcing someone to do something against her will
No kidding. The whole point of a legal system is to force people to respect the rights of other.

No it is not. The point of a legal system is to restore justice to people whose rights are violated.

You seem unwilling to even consider that children have rights. You quote my supporting points, not my argument.

Children may have rights, but they are unable to exercise them until they grow up. Until then, they must either belong to their parents, or to the state. They cannot belong to everyone, that would be communalizing them.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Anonymous Coward — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:27:03 GMT

JonBostwick:
You seem unwilling to even consider that children have rights.

Children undoubtedly have rights but what is at issue here is if unborn children have the same rights as their born brethren and if those rights extend to the conscription of their mother into the service of their 'cause'.

But we seem to gotten way off the Nuclear War and the State issue so I would suggest if you wish to continue this discussion that another thread would be appropriate so others could also participate.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Bostwick — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:28:11 GMT

Anonymous Coward:
You are advocating forcing someone to do something against her will

No kidding. The whole point of a legal system is to force people to respect the rights of other.

You seem unwilling to even consider that children have rights. You quote my supporting points, not my argument.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Anonymous Coward — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:11:26 GMT

JonBostwick:
Try to argue with logic, not appeals to emotions.

OK...

You are advocating forcing someone to do something against her will, even though it is a life threatening procedure, because the alternative is against *your* sense of morality.

That is the logical basis of your argument.

You can dress it up all pretty and all that but it is no different than the arguments for conscription.

JonBostwick:
No more absurb than sueing someone who attacks a woman and causes a miscarriage.

Big difference there. On one hand you have someone who voluntarily terminates her pregnancy and in the other you have someone who violates her rights with tragic consequences.

Without a legal definition that an unborn person has full human rights the first one isn't a crime and the second one is. It would be perfectly feasible to sue the attacker over the loss of property but murder would depend on the afore mentioned legal status being in place.

It's a slippery slope once you start basing laws on the moral opinion of a minority of the population.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Bostwick — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:24:03 GMT

Anonymous Coward:
By your logic you would be required to reimburse me the cost of a couple of kidneys.

A human is not a kidney. Remember how I said law is built around ownership? a kidney has no rights independent of mine.

Anonymous Coward:
As long as the little bugger is still inside the mother there is no legal distinction between the two.

Thats why I said an abandoned fetus. Killing a fetus is not the only way to expel it.

A woman is not legally required to raise a child, but she is legal required to not kill him. Her legal requirements to her children are the same as they are to everyone else.

Anonymous Coward:
if someone just came up and said "I want your baby" and then tried to sue her for the cost of a child after the abortion, that's just absurd.

No, its not. No more absurb than sueing someone who attacks a woman and causes a miscarriage.

Try to argue with logic, not appeals to emotions.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Anonymous Coward — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:19:20 GMT

JonBostwick:
In the case of an unwanted infant, or fetus, it would be possible for an external to claim the child through "homesteading" rules.

That womb 'homesteading' argument doesn't go over too well with the ladies at the bar I'm sorry to say...

What limits are there if that were allowed, say I decide to homestead your kidneys then you received medical treatment. By your logic you would be required to reimburse me the cost of a couple of kidneys.

As long as the little bugger is still inside the mother there is no legal distinction between the two. If she choses not to carry it to term and someone were to pay her to do so then if she aborted the pregnancy she would be liable for the contractual amount but if someone just came up and said "I want your baby" and then tried to sue her for the cost of a child after the abortion, that's just absurd.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Bostwick — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:42:25 GMT

Stranger:

JonBostwick:

People do not own each other. Parents do not own children.
A parent may "abandon" a child, but they may not murder him. Today we see parents willingly kill a fetus that is mature enough to survive outside the womb.
Obviously, I don't expect an institution will stamp out the procedure of abortion. But I don't find it hard to imagine that either charities or businesses will come to the legal defense of the unborn and be granted "guardianship".
You cannot pursue a parent that mistreats his child without invading his property. Whether or not you loathe the idea, either the parent owns the child or the state owns both the child and the parents.
This is why instead of criminal prosecution for getting an abortion the state must prohibit abortion clinics, resulting in the creation of a black market for abortion. Your alternative is disincentivize abortion, but that still leaves it in the realm of morality and not justice. There is no materially possible way to outlaw abortions.

Neither the state nor the parents owns the child. The child owns himself. It is the State that declares children nonpersons and puts them at the mercy of their parents.

Remember, we are talking about a free market system, not one that is centrally planned. Human interaction will determine the best way to manage justice. All philosophy needs to be concerned with is how to define property. It is self evident that children possess the same natural rights as adults. If most people are opposed to child abuse, a free society would reflect that.

"Outlawing" abortion is in the realm of morality.The point of a legal system is defend ownership. A libertarian justice system would not use penitentiaries, so called, "disincentives" are the basis of justice. If someone burns down my house, they are liable to build me another. Invading property would be a part of this system, reposition would occur.

Children are free to leave their parents and find someone else willing to support them. In the case of an unwanted infant, or fetus, it would be possible for an external to claim the child through "homesteading" rules. And penalty for a parent who commits abortion but refuses to reimburse the "guardian" could be passive, such as the loss of trade rights.

The issue is clearly a dispute of ownership and thus a legal matter.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Torsten — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:01:40 GMT

Inquisitor:
I mean that they posses no greater rights than individuals can grant them (e.g. no person has the right to murder, and neither does the State.) Anything beyond that is a privilege.

But that's what makes out the difference between a citizen or subject and governments/states. They hold certain priviledges, authorities, potencies which normal individuals don't. Usually this has to do with jurisdiction and taxation, but it also entails the ius ad bellum - The right to wage war.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Stranger — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:06:11 GMT

JonBostwick:

People do not own each other. Parents do not own children.
A parent may "abandon" a child, but they may not murder him. Today we see parents willingly kill a fetus that is mature enough to survive outside the womb.
Obviously, I don't expect an institution will stamp out the procedure of abortion. But I don't find it hard to imagine that either charities or businesses will come to the legal defense of the unborn and be granted "guardianship".

You cannot pursue a parent that mistreats his child without invading his property. Whether or not you loathe the idea, either the parent owns the child or the state owns both the child and the parents.

This is why instead of criminal prosecution for getting an abortion the state must prohibit abortion clinics, resulting in the creation of a black market for abortion. Your alternative is disincentivize abortion, but that still leaves it in the realm of morality and not justice. There is no materially possible way to outlaw abortions.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Inquisitor — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:59:47 GMT

Torsten:
What do you mean?

I mean that they posses no greater rights than individuals can grant them (e.g. no person has the right to murder, and neither does the State.) Anything beyond that is a privilege.

... That again depends on the legal order you are dealing with. By law many governments have given themselves these "rights" (conscription). It's the same as with any other rights. They are constructed principles guiding the claims of people or legal entitites. Some rights have only a better foundation then others, while others are simply absurd.

Assuming we wanted a legal order consistent with self-ownership, in which the government ruled entirely by consent, it'd only have those powers granted to it by the individuals making it up. It could definitely conjure up other powers for itself, but if it were so that it exercised these without the consent of the ruled, it'd be an ordinary rights-violator.

The usual argument for Nukes is that they are a deterrent to anyone that may dare to attack.

True, that is a valid argument for them I suppose.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Bostwick — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:50:54 GMT

Stranger:
The fetus is not a legally emancipated person. It is under the ownership of the mother and father and their respective parties. If both agree to an abortion, there is nothing that can be legally employed against them.

People do not own each other. Parents do not own children.

A parent may "abandon" a child, but they may not murder him. Today we see parents willingly kill a fetus that is mature enough to survive outside the womb.

Obviously, I don't expect an institution will stamp out the procedure of abortion. But I don't find it hard to imagine that either charities or businesses will come to the legal defense of the unborn and be granted "guardianship".

The most important aspect of a free society for defending the unborn would the development of a "baby market." Imagine if a woman had to pay the legal guardian the price of an infant if she killed the fetus!

I dont claim to be able to predict what free market justice will look like, but theres no reason to believe that just because something is impratical today it will not work in the future.

Re: Nuclear War and the State

Stranger — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:00:22 GMT

The fetus is not a legally emancipated person. It is under the ownership of the mother and father and their respective parties. If both agree to an abortion, there is nothing that can be legally employed against them.