Is it? There is a great deal of unresolved disagreement: We cannot even agree on the status of moral principles let alone what they are. — Fooloso4

We can agree it's not right to ignore people in need without establishing the status of morality, can't we?

They are not aristocrats. They are plutocrats. — Fooloso4

Pretty much the same thing.

quote="Tate;724972"]We can agree it's not right to ignore people in need without establishing the status of morality, can't we?[/quote]

And yet in practice many are ignored.

There is also differences in attitudes as to what "in need" covers and what this obligates us to do.

They are not aristocrats. They are plutocrats.
— Fooloso4

Pretty much the same thing. — Tate

Similar in that the few are in power, but also quite different. Today's plutocrats are not aristocrats in the Greek sense, or by birth, or in the sense meant by the US Founding Fathers.

And yet in practice many are ignored. — Fooloso4

I think what you're saying is that there is no consensus regarding the morality of ignoring people in need. Therefore we have a lot of them.

Similar in that the few are in power — Fooloso4

That's what I meant. Name a culture that didn't have its version of one percenters (or there abouts).

There are some, but not many.

Therefore we have a lot of them. — Tate

It is not a matter of some "therefore". People have always had different opinions about their obligations to others.

Name a culture that didn't have its version of one percenters (or there abouts). — Tate

What are we to make of that? Is it something we want to eliminate? If there is a need for rulers does it make more sense that they be the few who are most capable? In other words, members of a true aristocracy.

is not a matter of some "therefore". People have always had different opinions about their obligations to others. — Fooloso4

Doesn't this have some impact on the kinds of societies we build?

Name a culture that didn't have its version of one percenters (or there abouts).
— Tate

Is it something we want to eliminate? — Fooloso4

I don't know. What do you think?

... maybe pick another bookseller? — Isaac

:100:

I haven’t quite worked out a theory of property... — NOS4A2

Ah, wisdom dawns!

You only own property if we say you do.

From there, the whole edifice of individual sovereignty collapses.

You only own property if we say you do. — Banno

I think you're saying that property rights only mean something in the context of community.

You don't want to argue that we can't make mistakes and dispossess people immorally. That would be giving a big thumbs up to a lot of gruesome crimes.

Good to see you exercising your comprehension skills. Yes.

Good to see you exercising your comprehension skills. Yes. — Banno

NOS4A2 has already made one poster fall ass backwards into that one. Good to see you're not as stupid.

Doesn't this have some impact on the kinds of societies we build? — Tate

Of course. It is a question of whether we take people as they are or try to change them.
Great harm can come from trying to do great good.

Is it something we want to eliminate?
— Fooloso4

I don't know. What do you think? — Tate

Pre-internet I would have said definitely not. Now I think there is the potential for more voices to be heard. This may be preferable to leaving decision making in the hands of a few. But it is not a matter simply of more voices, but of the possibility of hearing the right voices, those with something useful or valuable to say that is being ignored or overlooked. Creative solutions those on the inside are too close to see.

But for this to happen there would have to be gatekeepers, bouncers, moderators. And so, another iteration of the few.

Interesting.

Now I think there is the potential for more voices to be heard. — Fooloso4

Wikipedia has, despite the misgivings of observers during it's inception, reached a certain level of stability.

Consider a nation in which the laws were constructed by communal editing, as in Wikipedia.

The ultimate democracy?

Wikipedia ... — Banno

Great example.

The ultimate democracy? — Banno

Maybe.

Or the ultimate tyranny of the masses.

But if you don't like the law, you just change it....

Wikipedia ought fall into chaos, unless there are more than some critical mass of folk who are willing to put together half-decent text and delete the "Garry is a poof" comments. And it more or less works, in most cases... If there is no critical mass, the Wikipedia will fail; hence, by modus tollens, there must be more than that critical mass who will work for the benefit of the encyclopaedia...

Not advocating it as a system of government, but I'd like to watch...

How can you be sure that it isn't like organized crime in that there is a active conspiracy among certain wealthy people to undermine those that are either poor and/or the working class. I'm not an expert in US history but there has been times when certain business/corporate interests have mobilized much like a small military to undermine those that work and have actively harassed/killed those that have tried to do things like form unions/take actions for worker rights.

West Virginia coal wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars — dclements

I suppose if easy money, a quick buck can be made via exploitation then (wealthy) folks will, quite naturally, take this shortcut to riches. However, to my reckoning, this route to big money comes with risks that make it a bad choice. What was the aftermath of the coal wars? I bet the coal companies lost, big time!

I disagree. One of the easiest (if not THE MOST EASIEST) to make money today is to find a way to exploit others. By either making others feel like they are not worth anything (or in some way a substandard citizen or human being), one is able to make them live/work in conditions that they would not be willing to deal with otherwise. And even if you can't make them believe as you want them to you can always either violence or the threat of violence in order to make them behave the way you want them to.

It has been going on since the beginning of civilization and will likely continue to go on for the foreseeable future. Western civilization has been built on the backs of the poor and disenfranchised and it will continue to be that way since it seems to be the easiest/profitable way for those in power to run things. — dclements

Indeed. The poltico-economic environment (conservatism + capitalism) is conducive to exploitation. It looks like a work in progress - the systems we're working under/with need more work obviously and we can see changes made in the right direction. Trust me, we'll get there...someday!

You only own property if we say you do. — Banno

:up:

You're missing a premise from which you can then derive the conclusion that you therefore have the legal and/or moral right to that pre-tax income.

It is unjust to take the fruits of someone else’s work and effort for your own benefit. I have the right to my income simply because it was given to me. I acquired through a just transaction.

Ah, wisdom dawns!

You only own property if we say you do.

From there, the whole edifice of individual sovereignty collapses.

The rest of my quote magically disappears.

As I stated before, this is false. Repeating it, doesn't make it true. This is a procedural argument because we live in a society that recognises contracts but there's neither a legal nor moral argument that you have a right to pre-tax income. I already asked you to give the moral argument underpinning this. The market mechanism does not value moral outcomes, since it's not valued you cannot claim a moral right to whatever income you earn.

More an implied critique of your social contract theory, following Searle. Something counts as property only in so far as there is an acceptance amongst those in your community. It's being a product of your labour is irrelevant.

You don't want to argue that we can't make mistakes and dispossess people immorally. — Tate

The morality of who owns what and the legality of who owns what are two different matters which you keep confusing.

Property is about the legality. You own what you own because the law says so. Even if that's the Nazis claiming ownership of Jewish property.

What you ought to have is a matter of morality. It has nothing to do with what is legally the case, nor even what is currently made the case by a community (even pre-law). It is to do with what ought to be the case.

The corollary of what you're saying is that every pound in the exchequer is disputed property depending on the exact tax rate each community group out there considers just.

The question was about whether the state, the guarantor if property rights, can be guilty of theft (as NOS4A2 accused).

The answer is: yes.

The question was about whether the state, the guarantor if property rights, can be guilty of theft (as NOS4A2 accused).

The answer is: yes. — Tate

It unambiguously isn't. Try taking your state to court for theft on the grounds that you don't think it's property law is what it ought to be and see how far you get.

Courts aren't always necessary:Holocaust reparations

Sometimes it helps: Native American settlement

I've no idea what point you're trying to make. All of the settlements under those agreements were legal and made years after the 1938 laws were repealed (in the German case).

Nothing in either of those agreements says that a current state's laws determining property do not do so.

All you're reaffirming is that sometimes property law isn't what it ought to be. Nowhere have you shown that it isn't the current determinant of who owns what.

Still confusing who owns what with who ought to own what.

The market mechanism does not value moral outcomes — Benkei

That, in a nutshell, is the problem! Well said!

It's quite odd that this is so. In the simplest sense, neither the seller nor the buyer need to be morally upstanding individuals to close a deal.

Yet, I see real change happening over the past dozen or so years. There was a Thai-based company which was blacklisted for using coconuts picked by monkeys; then there's the Xinjiang boycott by America; more instances of the ethicization of economics can be pulled out of the pages of history. These are good signs, wouldn't you say?

There was a Thai-based company which was blacklisted for using coconuts picked by monkeys — Agent Smith

Cool. Nearly there then. Just a few billion more exploitative products and services to go.

You repeating it doesn’t make it untrue, either.

Do you really think it is just to take the fruits of someone else’s labor without their consent?