If You Believe This, Can You Defend Yourself?

[snapshot]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Do you believe that people who do not produce enough to sustain themselves have a right to survive? If so, how far would you be willing to go to defend this right?

Producing, I'll define, is creating value. Certain valuables contribute to your survival. If you are not able to produce enough valuables (to either consume or to trade for consumables) to sustain yourself, you will die.

People who are not able to provide for themselves, in order to survive, require that other people give up portions of their labor in order to sustain those themselves. These producers are necessarily giving up--not trading--the products of their labor. This is because no one would trade down to the point where they could not sustain themselves. If the trade was consensual, then the person would be defined as being able to provide for themselves.

The question is, if a person does not desire to give up his labor in order to sustain the life of another, is there such a retaliatory response that can be made? Can anything be done? Essentially, the only things that could be done in order to sustain one's self--if one is not able to sustain themselves through production/trade--is to use overt violence or stealth to obtain the valuables necessary for survival.

If you believe that people who do not produce enough to sustain themselves are entitled to the products of other people's labor, are you saying it's OK to steal, threaten, or kill in order for those people to sustain themselves? In order words, do you think that selfishness is worse than murder, enslavement, or theft? Do you believe that one person's selfishness makes these things OK?

[highanddry]

That may have seemed pretty astute when you wrote it... But it is pretty weak philosophically. Why might "production" give someone the "right" to survive? (I can think of tons of examples of people that arn't able to sustain themselves without connecting that to "Selfishness, murder, enslavement or theft")

The parts of your paragraph that are clear enough to understand come off Hitlerian even interrogatively, but I'll admit that I don't understand the major points you are trying to make.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by highanddry

That may have seemed pretty astute when you wrote it... But it is pretty weak philosophically. Why might "production" give someone the "right" to survive?

The parts of your paragraph that are clear enough to understand come off Hitlerian even interrogatively.

I understand that some parts are confusing, but I hope you'll at least grant me some leeway with that.

It's not that production gives someone the right to survive. It's that you are entitled to the products of your labor, and that no one is more entitled to the products of your labor than you are.

If you do not have a right to the products of your labor, then, whether you use force to steal or you produce for yourself, there is no argument for the concept that people who are unable to produce for themselves can use violence in order to sustain themselves, since they have no right to those products either.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by highanddry

(I can think of tons of examples of people that arn't able to sustain themselves without connecting that to "Selfishness, murder, enslavement or theft"

I can, too. And I will if you want me to. But I'm only asking if one person's selfishness makes murder, enslavement, or theft OK.

[snapshot]

OK, you're editing, so I apologize for all these posts.

My main point will lead to anarchism, but I'm trying to start from first principles here. If you believe that it is necessary for government to exist, then morality must preclude government, since no argument can be made for the existence of government without an argument from morality (saying that government ought exist).

So, I'm actually not making a point. I'm just trying to question people as to whether or not they agree with the foundations of government. If you believe that selfishness does make murder, enslavement, and theft OK, then I can see why one would promote the idea that government is good (if a portion of it's purpose is to combat selfishness).

[Ziggy Fry]

I didn't know hitlerian was a word.

Sin.Ziggy.

[JcP]

Up top: your argument doesn't work because it's not a rule. There are plenty of people who fall into poverty or are unable to "work" their way out of starvation. So to suggest that those who need don't deserve help (which is at the core of your argument) is no good for me.

Originally Posted by snapshot

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.?

I agree with this. Of course "ability" and "need" are both mutable terms, so I don't think this is as solid a statement as you think.

Originally Posted by snapshot

Do you believe that people who do not produce enough to sustain themselves have a right to survive? If so, how far would you be willing to go to defend this right??

(you define "producing" later, and I reply to it then)

I believe that everyone produces exactly what they are supposed to be producing. Just because someone does not produce money or societal "goodies" doesn't mean he/she is irrelevant. In my opinion, to hold the belief that production = right to sirvive is basing one's morality on social terms. Which is about as silly as saying, "if one is not attractive, does this mean he/she has no right to have sex?" No. It might lead to one not having sex, but it has nothing to do with the rights of the person.
Likewise, if someone does not 'produce' enough, he/she might starve to death. But this has nothing to do with whether he has the RIGHT to survive or not.

Originally Posted by snapshot

Producing, I'll define, is creating value. Certain valuables contribute to your survival. If you are not able to produce enough valuables (to either consume or to trade for consumables) to sustain yourself, you will die.

Value according to whom? An artist creates no valuables in terms of survival. An actor has nothing to trade, either. If you are going to argue that his "performance" is his trade for money, then it's just as logical to argue that a homeless man trades "thank you, God bless you" for your change. In essence, he trades you good karma/a feeling of self-worth for your money.

I also disagree with this entire sentiment. I do not judge people based on how much I think they are "worth" to me or to my survival. I know someone already brought up hitler, but that kind of sentiment is pretty bad news.

Originally Posted by snapshot

People who are not able to provide for themselves, in order to survive, require that other people give up portions of their labor in order to sustain those themselves. These producers are necessarily giving up--not trading--the products of their labor. This is because no one would trade down to the point where they could not sustain themselves. If the trade was consensual, then the person would be defined as being able to provide for themselves.?

Well there are people who trade down to the point where they could not sustain themselves. Some orderes of nuns, monks, priests, etc. give up everything they own and put faith in others to support them. They do give back in the form of social work and religious help, but your comment is still incorrect.

Originally Posted by snapshot

The question is, if a person does not desire to give up his labor in order to sustain the life of another, is there such a retaliatory response that can be made? Can anything be done? Essentially, the only things that could be done in order to sustain one's self--if one is not able to sustain themselves through production/trade--is to use overt violence or stealth to obtain the valuables necessary for survival.

I think it's interesting you went to one side of this coin and not the other. "If a person does not desire to give up his labor in order to sustain the life of another" is a double sided issue.
You went to the guy who refuses to work and expects a handout. What about the guy who refuses to work to help the person in need?

So you are making an argument against government, and yet to remove government would merely create an equal problem on the opposite side.

In addition to violence, stealth, and negatives, one could also ask kindly for help from others. And, in order to help prevent the need for violence, stealth, and other things, we have a government who is supposed to be helping.

So I don't think the answer is "get rid of government." That would remove one of the things preventing the things you see as bad.

Originally Posted by snapshot

If you believe that people who do not produce enough to sustain themselves are entitled to the products of other people's labor, are you saying it's OK to steal, threaten, or kill in order for those people to sustain themselves? In order words, do you think that selfishness is worse than murder, enslavement, or theft? Do you believe that one person's selfishness makes these things OK?

Jump in logic. Believing people should be helped by others has nothing to do with the morality of theft, murder, etc.


you really are an anarchist. This is the second thread of yours that has been threaded with that kind of sentiment. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you haven't yet, you might be interested in reading some stuff about it.


edit: btw, I'm sure you figured it out, but I bring up government and stuff because of the other posts of yours in the thread. I know it's not in the post I quoted.

[generic_hippie]

so A guy who holds a traffic lollipop, telling cars when to stop and go, the worth of his job completely replaced with technology, (radio controlled trailer mounted traffic signals).

What the fuck does he produce?

Or is he a victim of the workerism mentality where everybody must contribute even when their contribution is worthless?

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by generic_hippie

Or is he a victim of the workerism mentality where everybody must contribute even when their contribution is worthless?

I would say he's a victim of people not wanting to pay him anymore.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by JcP

Up top: your argument doesn't work because it's not a rule. There are plenty of people who fall into poverty or are unable to "work" their way out of starvation. So to suggest that those who need don't deserve help (which is at the core of your argument) is no good for me.

I never said they don't deserve it. Point it out to me if I did so I can correct it. I said they don't have a right to it, meaning that they can't use violence in order to get what they want or need.

I'm essentially arguing that violence is not OK, and that the selfishness of one does not warrant the violence of another. That's all I'm saying.

I agree with this. Of course "ability" and "need" are both mutable terms, so I don't think this is as solid a statement as you think.

Quite possibly.

(you define "producing" later, and I reply to it then)

I believe that everyone produces exactly what they are supposed to be producing. Just because someone does not produce money or societal "goodies" doesn't mean he/she is irrelevant. In my opinion, to hold the belief that production = right to sirvive is basing one's morality on social terms. Which is about as silly as saying, "if one is not attractive, does this mean he/she has no right to have sex?" No. It might lead to one not having sex, but it has nothing to do with the rights of the person.
Likewise, if someone does not 'produce' enough, he/she might starve to death. But this has nothing to do with whether he has the RIGHT to survive or not.

Why not? I'm saying that rights can be defended, but I'm asking, if someone is starving, do they have the right to commit violence in order to stay alive?

Value according to whom? An artist creates no valuables in terms of survival. An actor has nothing to trade, either. If you are going to argue that his "performance" is his trade for money, then it's just as logical to argue that a homeless man trades "thank you, God bless you" for your change. In essence, he trades you good karma/a feeling of self-worth for your money.

Right, exactly. Which is why I said that a person who trades is not someone that we can put in the category of s/he who does not produce enough to survive. A beautiful women who just stands around receiving money for the sake receiving money from men is giving men value. The men would not give up their money if they didn't think they were getting something in return. No one trades down because it's the equivalent of destroying value.

I also disagree with this entire sentiment. I do not judge people based on how much I think they are "worth" to me or to my survival. I know someone already brought up hitler, but that kind of sentiment is pretty bad news.

You don't have to judge people, but you do judge their services. If someone has something they want to sell you for a million dollars, and you judge what they want to sell as not being worth a million dollars, you're judging the value of a good or service and you have every right to refuse the transaction. I don't see what Hitler has anything to do with it; that's why I didn't respond previously to it. Would you give a murderer 10 bucks to buy a knife? I wouldn't.

Well there are people who trade down to the point where they could not sustain themselves. Some orderes of nuns, monks, priests, etc. give up everything they own and put faith in others to support them. They do give back in the form of social work and religious help, but your comment is still incorrect.

Parishioners gives alms in order for those nuns to survive because they feel the church provides a valuable service those nuns provide a valuable service. If people didn't think that nuns and churches were worth having around, they wouldn't give money to them. So I don't see how my comment is incorrect.

The nuns would probably not join a convent in which there were starving nuns, but they have every right to, and they would only do it if they felt it was more valuable than what they were doing.

Value is subjective.




I think it's interesting you went to one side of this coin and not the other. "If a person does not desire to give up his labor in order to sustain the life of another" is a double sided issue.
You went to the guy who refuses to work and expects a handout. What about the guy who refuses to work to help the person in need?

So you are making an argument against government, and yet to remove government would merely create an equal problem on the opposite side.

In addition to violence, stealth, and negatives, one could also ask kindly for help from others. And, in order to help prevent the need for violence, stealth, and other things, we have a government who is supposed to be helping.

So I don't think the answer is "get rid of government." That would remove one of the things preventing the things you see as bad.


Jump in logic. Believing people should be helped by others has nothing to do with the morality of theft, murder, etc.


you really are an anarchist. This is the second thread of yours that has been threaded with that kind of sentiment. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you haven't yet, you might be interested in reading some stuff about it.


edit: btw, I'm sure you figured it out, but I bring up government and stuff because of the other posts of yours in the thread. I know it's not in the post I quoted.[/quote]

I think it's interesting you went to one side of this coin and not the other. "If a person does not desire to give up his labor in order to sustain the life of another" is a double sided issue.
You went to the guy who refuses to work and expects a handout. What about the guy who refuses to work to help the person in need?

This is implying that someone's mere existence puts an obligation on that person. But that is beside the point, because I'm not asking about whether or not the guy is mean or uncaring. I'm only asking if he is deserving of violence. Whether he is uncaring is completely subjective. He may not be able to work. He may be psychologically impaired. The person he refuses to help may have stolen from him or hurt him in some way. He may view charity as unethical. Whatever the reason, why is one person's view on what is moral more valid than the person who doesn't want to give up his labor? Who decides that?

In addition to violence, stealth, and negatives, one could also ask kindly for help from others. And, in order to help prevent the need for violence, stealth, and other things, we have a government who is supposed to be helping.

So I don't think the answer is "get rid of government." That would remove one of the things preventing the things you see as bad.

What if I didn't want to support that government though? What if I thought there was a better way to help people? Would I still be forced to support it monetarily? Would I still be threatened with jail if I didn't pay up? Would they kill me if I fought back? If we're trying to prevent violence, then why do we need to promote violence against people who disagree with how you want to solve problems. So how do you prevent the need to use violence when the existence of government is dependent upon it? Is it violence that you're trying to prevent? Or just certain types of violence that you don't approve of?

Jump in logic. Believing people should be helped by others has nothing to do with the morality of theft, murder, etc.

I disagree. You said "believing people should be helped..." I question on what basis anyone can make the claim that people should be helped. Using the word "should" gives this a moral spin.

To me, morality seems kind of meaningless unless there is some objective quality to it. This is why I only associate it to objective acts like murder, enslavement, theft, etc. Not liking something does not make something immoral. That's just a subjective preference. Even your preference for murder is subjective. What I'm questioning is whether people can justify murder, enslavement, and theft in the first place so that they can then justify the existence of government. You can't have a government without these things. If you defend yourself against a police officer who tries to arrest you for marijuana, you'll be beaten and jailed, or killed if you fight hard enough. The percentage of taxes that are taken from you is equivalent to how much of a slave you are to the government. And the taking of taxes themselves is theft.

I probably seem to be pretty unempathetic, but I'm really not. I'm just not putting forth any reasons why people should be helped because that is a personal choice. The point of this thread is that it's not a personal choice to be attacked or stolen from. There is an objective nature to that.

I may just be too stupid to see the big picture as to why the government should exist, but I'm honestly trying. It's just not making any sense to me.

[Porcelain]

There are some people who have a bad hand dealt to them in life...but if we're going to be honest, let's admit that many of them are looking for an excuse not to do anything about their problems. For example, there were a couple street kids sitting outside asking passers-by for money. I honestly had no cash so they asked me if I could buy them some food and I took them to Wendy's. I took it as an oppertunity to make small talk about their situation. I could see by the look of their glazed eyeballs there was heroin involved. As the girl was telling me her story, she threw in classic excuses like not being able to get a job because she has no address. Considering how many programs there are to help people in her exact situation, I find it amazing that she hasn't found a group home, or a friend who would allow her to use their address or anything like that. With some people, one "no" in life is enough to spiral their whole plan out of control. There are always loop-holes in any system and if there aren't...lie. It's simple. No one who has gotten anywhere in life has gotten there without lying even if it was something as innocent as "dressing up" a resume.

There are other people...some in my immediate family...who just don't fucking try. She's in her 40's...she refuses to learn English properly and yet uses the fact that she doesn't know English as an excuse for why she can't get a decent job. She's had day jobs which she gets fired from cuz she's too lazy to get up in the mornings and she calls in sick too much. Then, she expects everyone to take care of her.

I'm not saying everyone is like that but I believe where there's a will, there's a way. Why is it that everyone else can find ways to make ends meet? If you give up on yourself, how can you expect anyone else to do things for you? People have their own problems...their own lives. It's not always about having fancy things and not wanting to share. Sometimes it's the difference between feeding a bum on the street (who odds are, got there through their own doing) or your own child. It may not be very enlightening or spiritual but I don't believe being a good person means giving everything away to everyone. As long as you're not a self-ish bastard who is all about themselves, there's nothing wrong with giving to the people you feel responsible for rather then everyone else.

[JcP]

Snapshot, I'm not sure what you're asking now. Is this about whether or not violence/theft is acceptable to survive, or is this about whether or not government has a purpose?

I responded in terms of the latter because of your replies to highanddry. If the context of your question is in terms of whether or not murder/theft/etc. is an acceptable action, that would have garnered a completely different reply from me.

So I guess I just need clarity as to what it is you're getting at, so I can reply in a way that's both coherant and on point. From my end, it seems like the topic just changed with your reply to me...which probably means I missed your point the first time.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by JcP

From my end, it seems like the topic just changed with your reply to me...which probably means I missed your point the first time.

That's what I'd like to believe, anyway.

Is this about whether or not violence/theft is acceptable to survive, or is this about whether or not government has a purpose?

It's both. Why would we want government if we felt that theft and violence was unacceptable? People obviously feel that the violence of the government is more acceptable than something else. I put forth the idea that it was selfishness that the government violence is trying to combat. Maybe it's just that people would rather violence be committed against others rather than themselves, even if those others are innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

I responded in terms of the latter because of your replies to highanddry. If the context of your question is in terms of whether or not murder/theft/etc. is an acceptable action, that would have garnered a completely different reply from me.

I'm always open to the latter question because it's a consequence of the philosophy.

So I want to know if I can find the root of people's want for government. Apparently, it's not selfishness that people really have a problem with. It can't be violence, because otherwise people would be against the government just like I am. I'm assuming right now that the real answer is that people just haven't or don't want to think about it. People feel it's necessary and that's all there is to it, no matter how illogical their justifications may be. But that's just an assumption and I'm open to actual arguments.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

It's both. Why would we want government if we felt that theft and violence was unacceptable? People obviously feel that the violence of the government is more acceptable than something else. I put forth the idea that it was selfishness that the government violence is trying to combat. Maybe it's just that people would rather violence be committed against others rather than themselves, even if those others are innocent people who have done nothing wrong.
.

We want a government (in terms of the criteria you've chosen to discuss...violence and theft) to provide a source to protect and deter others from using violence and theft against us. Or, in other words, to provide safety for those who do not use violence and theft and prevent those who do use violence and theft from harming others.

I think your argument about the violence of government was amply discussed in a previous thread between you and me, so I'm not going to do that again.

"Wanting violence be committed against others instead of themselves" is a misnomer for those who are in favor of a government and a civilized society, and I think you knew it when you typed it. No one (well I'm not in everyone's head, but not many) is "wanting" violence be commited if they are in favor of having a government. It's the OPPOSITE of that.


I see no reason for government if people shared my mindset in terms of how to function in society. I don't need the threat of imprisonment to not stab someone. Some people apparently do. Some people also apparently still stab people, and the mindset it takes to do so is not something that is condusive to the society everyone wants (probably even the person who just stabbed someone).

But lets take it smaller...if you could sneak into a movie for free, would you? If you knew you wouldn't get caught, would you sneak into it? The fact that there are plenty of people who would, to me, justifies the need for a government. We discussed how I agree the government is too big and often too powerful, but that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about the actual need for it or not in any form.