Imagine there are 10 people in a room, and 9 of them decide that murder is wrong and should be punished. Does that mean the remaining one has to accept that murder is wrong, because they have "collectively decided" that murder is wrong, or does he have the right to commit murder?
Of course, the 9 people in the room have a sound and reasonable argument that murder is wrong (perhaps their argument is "it infringes the rights of others"), just as, we may presume, the nine chili-eaters have a sound and reasonable argument they must all eat the five hottest chilis. But in each instance, the tenth individual began from different premises and did not arrive at their conclusion (maybe he is an Incan time traveler and human sacrifice is part of his religious beliefs, and he does not see that there is any objective basis for human rights.)
Enforced collective agreement and societal norms are necessary for society to exists whether you like and agree to it or not. If that makes you a slave, then all of mankind has been enslaved from the dawn of time save the loners in the wilderness.
One of the libertarian's "collective agreements" is that every individual has certain rights.
> Imagine there are 10 people in a room, and 9 of them decide that murder is wrong and should be punished. Does that mean the remaining one has to accept that murder is wrong, because they have "collectively decided" that murder is wrong, or does he have the right to commit murder?
You're doing a pretty good job at sophistry, but since you happened to use the word "right", I'd point out that decisions don't affect rights.
Compare these two ideas:
1) No one wants to be killed, and therefore, we can
reasonably consider killing someone forbidden.
2) The nine of us want to eat shit, and therefore,
we can reasonably conclude that you must eat shit
too, regardless of whether you want to or not.
-Which one makes more sense? I think most moral questions boil down to whether something you're doing has a negative, unwelcome effect on other people. In those cases, it's reasonable to consider that whoever is affected has a say in what you're doing.
Consider for example:
1) Do you have the right to walk 10 meters forward?
2) Do you have the right to walk 10 meters forward,
even though there's someone right in front of you,
and you'd have to trample over him to move forward?
> Enforced collective agreement and societal norms are necessary for society to exists whether you like and agree to it or not.
What's the rationale for this claim?
Furthermore, is it moral for your average Sicilian neighbourhood mafia to extort people? -If not, why is it alright for governments to extort people? Does the end justify the means? -What if the Sicilian mafia wants to feed a few poor people with the money they extort from you? -Would that make their extortion alright?
What if the mafia say they need your money to maintain peace in the neighbourhood? You see, without the mafia's protection services, people would be killing each other left and right, and we just can't have that, can we? -Extorting you is necessary for the common good then, wouldn't you agree?
>You're doing a pretty good job at sophistry, but since you happened to use the word "right", I'd point out that decisions don't affect rights.
Why?
You're stating this as an axiom. Indeed, you're taking the very concept of human rights itself as an axiom, and that's why everything follows so cleanly for you.
But step out of the box. There is no reason for everyone to believe that. Most people through history did not believe in it. Many of them would have equally rational arguments to the contrary. Your very concept of "rights" as something fundamental is a deeply held Western social norm and "collective agreement." Because 9/10 people collectively agree that we have rights, our rights are protected and enforced.
If they did not agree, your idea of rights would be regarded as a fine bit of eccentricity and people would kill you as a sacrifice to the god Asdkjhf and feel that it was not only right and just but necessary. In other words, your rights would be completely meaningless. They are not an objective construct you can hold up as a shield against all wrongs.
Morality is an entirely different argument. But within the commonly held philosophical framework, a (democratic) government cannot be compared to a mafia because the government represents the will of the people while the mafia does not. But this argument can never convince you, because you have taken the axiom of individual rights to the extreme while not taking other axioms.
> Indeed, you're taking the very concept of human rights itself as an axiom, and that's why everything follows so cleanly for you.
Without axioms, we can't figure anything out. You say "human rights", but I'd say "natural rights". To me, the former is a state-centric concept - governments supposedly "protect" our "human rights", but somehow no one seems to figure out that governments are the biggest threat to "human rights" too - history is full of genocides committed by governments/rulers etc.
Rights are an idea meant to draw boundaries for acceptable behaviour, and natural rights is a version based on reasoning, starting from the axiomatic observation that we own our bodies - it's clear they're completely under our control, after all.
Ultimately, it's all about making sense of things, through reason and evidence. That's the only way to figure things out, and to reach logical, sound conclusions about societal issues.
> Because 9/10 people collectively agree that we have rights, our rights are protected and enforced.
This doesn't make sense to me. What does it mean that our rights are "protected and enforced"? -By whom? -The government? And what does a "collective agreement" have to do with whether our rights are protected and enforced?
If you think the government protects and enforces our rights, you're way off the mark. For starters, there's nothing the government does that prevents a random stranger from hurting you, and second, contrary to what they'd have you believe, governments are the single biggest threat to you and your rights anyway.
> If they did not agree, your idea of rights would be regarded as a fine bit of eccentricity and people would kill you as a sacrifice to the god Asdkjhf and feel that it was not only right and just but necessary
Yeah. Rights are an idea. Luckily it's an idea that the vast majority of people automatically adheres to, without ever even thinking about it. Everyone knows you "can't" just go around hurting people or taking their property, but what no one knows is that there's no reason why this shouldn't apply to governments too.
> They are not an objective construct you can hold up as a shield against all wrongs.
I'm not saying that the idea of rights protects me in any way, shape or form. But I would like to clear up the idea, so that people would stop conflating it (along with everything else) with what governments supposedly do to benefit us when in reality they're only harmful.
> But within the commonly held philosophical framework, a (democratic) government cannot be compared to a mafia because the government represents the will of the people while the mafia does not. But this argument can never convince you, because you have taken the axiom of individual rights to the extreme while not taking other axioms.
That argument can never convince me, because it makes no sense when you get to the bottom of it. It's not about cherry-picking axioms to accept. Either something is axiomatic, or it's not, and two separate statements can't be contradictory and axiomatic at the same time.
First, taxation really is extortion, there's simply no way around that. Can you consent to something that happens against your will? (Hint: "No."). There goes your fake axiom about the will of the people. Even if you're willing to pay taxes now (mostly because you're in denial about the extortion), it changes nothing about the nature of taxation. We all know you can't stop paying them.
Second, we're all brainwashed to believe governments are beneficial and necessary. Don't believe me? -Well, does it seem a bit strange that people are arguing for their own extortion? Or that without governments, we wouldn't have roads, or hospitals or education? As if those services can only be provided with money that's been forcefully confiscated from people.
Thinking that people who have been brainwashed into not seeing extortion for what it is actually want it to happen is comparable to thinking that a comatose person wants you to stick a fork in his eye. There goes "the will of the people" again.
"Well, does it seem a bit strange that people are arguing for their own extortion?"
Rational actors may absolutely wish to agree to be forced into something. This is known as a "collective action problem" - where any individual may benefit if they defect, but each individual benefits more if everyone cooperates than if everyone defects.
How about a toy example:
Say we're living in a small coastal village, and storm season is approaching. If we don't build a levee, we're all going to lose a lot more - in total - than the cost of building the levee. But the levee is expensive (more than we can collectively come up with up front) and will take a long time to build (we don't have time to save, before we need to start construction). So we all agree to pay monthly. Come the second month, I'm thinking "Well, I want the levee built, but the value my portion of the funds adds to the levee really isn't worth as much to me as the funds themselves..." If the choice is "Everyone pays or no one pays" I clearly prefer "everyone pays". I prefer "everyone but me pays" even more, but everyone else is only going to pay if we all credibly commit to paying, which means we commit to be forced if we later decide we don't want to pay.
"Either something is axiomatic, or it's not, and two separate statements can't be contradictory and axiomatic at the same time."
Yes they can. It just means the system is inconsistent. I'd recommend studying some logic, if you intend to use your mighty powers of REASON to reach TRUTH.
But with the wrong axioms, we can figure out things that are false and think they are true. Just because you're taking something as an axiom doesn't mean you are correct to do so.
Of course, the 9 people in the room have a sound and reasonable argument that murder is wrong (perhaps their argument is "it infringes the rights of others"), just as, we may presume, the nine chili-eaters have a sound and reasonable argument they must all eat the five hottest chilis. But in each instance, the tenth individual began from different premises and did not arrive at their conclusion (maybe he is an Incan time traveler and human sacrifice is part of his religious beliefs, and he does not see that there is any objective basis for human rights.)
Enforced collective agreement and societal norms are necessary for society to exists whether you like and agree to it or not. If that makes you a slave, then all of mankind has been enslaved from the dawn of time save the loners in the wilderness.
One of the libertarian's "collective agreements" is that every individual has certain rights.