tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post6555565067156504585..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: My gift to you may be qualifiedgcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-35595507199069190132014-06-28T16:28:26.543-04:002014-06-28T16:28:26.543-04:00Gotta be brief, but:
"My" claim of civil...Gotta be brief, but:<br />"My" claim of civil society's purpose is just as old as the Hippocratic oath, since it comes from Plato and Aristotle!<br />2) That it is an ideal often missed by a long shot no more discredits it than does the long persistence of blood letting discredit the Hippocratic oath. <br />3) It is an explicitly ethicsl ideal, so why you think I can't employ it to draw ethical conclusions is a mystery to me. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-34700019015464835562014-06-27T21:01:42.924-04:002014-06-27T21:01:42.924-04:00With all the font references in the code, I assume...With all the font references in the code, I assumed you might have found an avatar giving me ‘the finger.’ (chuckles)<br /><br />I’ve been thinking about this off and on today (rare slow day at work). <br /><br />First, let me clear up something. I am not an AnCap. I have very strong libertarian leanings and I spend a lot of time arguing from an AnCap perspective because I’m kicking the tires, so to speak. At this point, I would say I am undefined with a lean toward more limited governmental powers the larger its scope.<br /><br />Second, you are absolutely correct that not achieving an end does not negate the reason for attempting it.<br /><br />However, I would argue that substituting “doctor” for “civil society” does change things. <br /><br />As far back as the Hippocratic Oath we have a general understanding of the reason for doctors. They may or may not be good at achieving those ends but we have a general end in mind. Is that the case for civil society? Is there a centuries-long historical record that indicates the reason for civil society is to promote the flourishing of all its members? Not to my knowledge. In fact, anything that is roughly approximate to such an end is a very recent phenomenon in human history. Clearly, property rights existed long before society was ready or willing to work toward the flourishing for all members – or even consider it. Until very recently, this was pretty much standard operating procedure for humankind – and still is for a lot of the world. If the reason for *civil society* is to promote the flourishing of all its members then only recently and in limited places has there been *civil society.* (There is an argument that we’ve been trending in that direction…)<br /><br />So, when you give your reason for the existence of civil society, my first thought is that this is a new (relatively speaking) interpretation and one that isn’t exactly universal – and is subject to all sorts of problems even in the places that loosely operate by it now. History certainly seems to indicate that the governance of civil society is to provide for the flourishing of “us”( meaning whoever has the power). <br /><br />Now, if you want to argue that this *should* be the desired end of society I won’t argue at all but I will ask, “Why?” (Not to disagree but to hear your answer.) Upon what grounds would you assert that this ought to be the desired end? I think you can make a utilitarian argument and an economic argument but I’m not sure how you can make an ethical argument (absent simply defining unethical as violating the utilitarian/economic argument) without an appeal to rights (or the supernatural).<br /><br />Said differently, I can see how you could argue that too much infringement upon others is sub-optimal, but I’m not sure I can see how you could argue that it is *wrong* other than to create a tautology.<br /><br />Again, as I tried to make clear, I’m NOT saying your interpretation and application are *wrong.* I’m just trying to understand them via very brief thread posts. <br />Steven Rodgershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00627066790845474774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-86294764357851556052014-06-27T17:02:30.132-04:002014-06-27T17:02:30.132-04:00Steven, this post is inspired by our "discuss...Steven, this post is inspired by our "discussion": http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-favorite-ideological-game-oh-so-what.htmlgcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-19969382647970465892014-06-27T16:49:02.961-04:002014-06-27T16:49:02.961-04:00Wow, weird code in that previous comment, hey?
OK...Wow, weird code in that previous comment, hey?<br /><br />OK, one more time, Steven: I just explained to you why I am doing nothing like what you are saying I am doing. I gave you the same sentence I used, but with "doctor" substituted for "civil society." I asked does uttering this sentence mean one has defined "doctor" as "someone who always helps the patient. You recognized it does not.<br /><br />Well, substituting the word "civil society" for "doctor DOES NOT CHANGE THINGS! To declare that "the purpose of X is Y" DOES NOT MEAN that one has defined X as always achieving Y! If I say "The reason for starting a business is to make money," that does not mean I have "defined" anyone losing money as not being in business<br /><br />And, I find that you keep straining to put this interpretation on what I have written, when I keep telling you that is not what I meant, to be bizarre.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-26094556219686320292014-06-27T05:29:17.829-04:002014-06-27T05:29:17.829-04:00Gene, I can assure you that I'm not trolling o...Gene, I can assure you that I'm not trolling or trying to waste your time (or mine). If I take the time to participate in a thread, I'm trying to understand your position so I can learn. Steven Rodgershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00627066790845474774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-62750835708554419442014-06-26T21:07:53.461-04:002014-06-26T21:07:53.461-04:00{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252
{\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset...{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252<br />{\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset0 ArialMT;}<br />{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red34\green34\blue34;\red255\green255\blue255;}<br />\deftab720<br />\pard\pardeftab720\partightenfactor0<br /><br />\f0\fs26 \cf2 \cb3 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0<br />\outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 Ok, Steven, I warned you, but since you seem determined to waste my time by repeatedly generating your own idiotic misinterpretations of what I have written: Bye!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-59236664345757386032014-06-26T20:30:37.945-04:002014-06-26T20:30:37.945-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Steven Rodgershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00627066790845474774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-48180615740494365592014-06-26T18:01:22.248-04:002014-06-26T18:01:22.248-04:00Never mind that you could just sell your property ...Never mind that you could just sell your property and pay way less than 100% taxes, what don't you get about the deal you are offered? Pay taxes, get property rights. Pay no taxes, get no property rights. Why do YOU think it would be just to opt out of your duty but keep the privileges that go with it?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-17461299088823173352014-06-26T17:26:58.813-04:002014-06-26T17:26:58.813-04:00I said what you quoted. I did not say the ridiculo...I said what you quoted. I did not say the ridiculous meaning you assigned to what you quoted. <br /><br />"By this, can there be a civil society that doesn't promote the flourishing of all its members?"<br /><br />Ah! So if someone says to you "The reason for doctors is to heal their patients," you will say they have "defined away" the problem of bad doctors?!<br /><br />I really don't have time for such nonsense, Steve. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-79855928656170482292014-06-26T15:33:08.818-04:002014-06-26T15:33:08.818-04:00I didn't say it, Gene, you did.
"the rea...I didn't say it, Gene, you did.<br /><br />"the reason for civil society is to promote the flourishing of all of its members."<br /><br />By this, can there be a civil society that doesn't promote the flourishing of all its members? You've simply defined away the issues I noted. <br /><br />Unless you are arguing that a 100% tax rate is just, then the choice is pay the tax as prescribed, pay an unjust tax, or face physical violence. This is not slavery but it certainly sets the stage for a less than equitable negotiation with the 'justness' resting on the 'civil society' constraint that may or may not operate in the real world. Steven Rodgershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00627066790845474774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-76428262404402694252014-06-26T14:19:18.079-04:002014-06-26T14:19:18.079-04:00"So I was correct, you are simply defining &q..."So I was correct, you are simply defining "civil society" to mean a society which creates rights in a certain manner."<br /><br />Wow, so you say something completely different than what I said, and say that proves how you were "right": no, you first formulation of what I was saying was absurd. And this one doesn't even look the same! And neither is equivalent to the words you put in quotes!<br /><br />"How is abandonment not effectively a 100% tax rate?"<br /><br />Yeah, you don't like the deal that enables you to own property, then you don't get to own property! Why is that mysterious? Don't like your mortgage deal? Walk away from your house. But you can't both not pay your mortgage AND keep the house!<br /><br />And note, if you try to do both, you will "face physical violence."gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-45559758768455503762014-06-26T13:21:21.772-04:002014-06-26T13:21:21.772-04:00"the reason for civil society is to promote t..."the reason for civil society is to promote the flourishing of all of its members."<br /><br />So I was correct, you are simply defining "civil society" to mean a society which creates rights in a certain manner. My interpretation wasn't "silly," you're simply choosing a different set of priors and building upon it.<br /><br />"the slave is threatened with physical violence if he tries to walk away from the 'deal" he is "offered.' But property owners are free to abandon their property and go live in the wilderness, untaxed, if they don't like their deal."<br /><br />How is abandonment not effectively a 100% tax rate?<br /><br />The property owner has three choices:<br />1. Pay the rate as provided by 'society.'<br />2. Pay effectively 100% (abandonment).*<br />3. Face physical violence.<br /><br />There's a reason that even people who rabidly oppose taxation still tend to pay it.Steven Rodgershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00627066790845474774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-34741189322558676282014-06-26T00:54:13.943-04:002014-06-26T00:54:13.943-04:00And from another viewpoint, we may look at it this...<i>And from another viewpoint, we may look at it this way: the reason for civil society is to promote the flourishing of all of its members. But slavery hampers that flourishing, for both the slave AND the master. Therefore it is contrary to the ends of civil society to permit slavery.</i><br /><br />While we're on this subject, could you possibly do a post on how civil society and the promotion of human flourishing tie into the legitimacy/justification of government? The topic is interesting to me and you've touched upon it before in <a href="http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2012/04/contract-theory-and-abandonment-of.html" rel="nofollow">these</a> <a href="http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2012/07/vico-on-goverment.html" rel="nofollow">three</a> <a href="http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2014/01/burke-on-authority-and-rebellion.html" rel="nofollow">posts</a>.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-7342801798732698952014-06-25T17:55:00.229-04:002014-06-25T17:55:00.229-04:00If the difference is the ability to walk away from...If the difference is the ability to walk away from the deal, is that equivalent to saying that the principle of self-ownership takes precedence over any "deal" inherited from civil society?<br /><br />That would lead to the question of why we believe in self-ownership and not property rights, but I'm not equipped to debate that. I'm mainly interested if you would accept that any principle has primacy over the social order we inherit.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470489293820651609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-41281958823137091222014-06-25T17:35:08.812-04:002014-06-25T17:35:08.812-04:00And from another viewpoint, we may look at it this...And from another viewpoint, we may look at it this way: the reason for civil society is to promote the flourishing of all of its members. But slavery hampers that flourishing, for both the slave AND the master. Therefore it is contrary to the ends of civil society to permit slavery. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-75837232007820237502014-06-25T17:24:05.328-04:002014-06-25T17:24:05.328-04:00Yes, there is a difference: the slave is threatene...Yes, there is a difference: the slave is threatened with physical violence if he tries to walk away from the "deal" he is "offered." But property owners are free to abandon their property and go live in the wilderness, untaxed, if they don't like their deal. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-72594509139819276792014-06-25T17:13:48.550-04:002014-06-25T17:13:48.550-04:00I might quibble with the analogy: in neither the c...I might quibble with the analogy: in neither the case of taxation or slavery does anyone voluntarily accept the deal. They inherit the deal from the social order they are born into. If rights come from society then a slave has no starting premise of self-ownership, and thus no capacity to accept or reject such a deal. I am not sure if this is on point or just nit-picking at the limitations of the analogy.<br /><br />I fully admit that acknowledging taxation is okay doesn't mean we have to accept slavery. That logic only makes sense if our starting point is absolute and uncompromised individual rights, and you've done a great job pointing out how that starting point doesn't really hold up.<br /><br />But in the absence of absolute individual rights, is there a difference in principle between taxation and slavery? If so, what is that principle? If not, how do we draw the line such that taxation is okay and slavery is wrong?Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470489293820651609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-69192822797324370422014-06-25T16:41:07.417-04:002014-06-25T16:41:07.417-04:00Right. Taxation is like my first deal, slavery lik...Right. Taxation is like my first deal, slavery like my second. I am wondering why you are having difficulty seeing that acknowledging the first deal is ok doesn't mean we have to accept the second one. gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-58085997002496679182014-06-25T16:15:53.459-04:002014-06-25T16:15:53.459-04:00Nope.Nope.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470489293820651609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-79770285421420408122014-06-25T16:10:09.604-04:002014-06-25T16:10:09.604-04:00Let's say I offered it to you as a deal: would...Let's say I offered it to you as a deal: would you take it?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-78064785710545489602014-06-25T15:56:41.607-04:002014-06-25T15:56:41.607-04:00Clearly that is not. That wasn't our deal.Clearly that is not. That wasn't our deal.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470489293820651609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-8547108455690631202014-06-25T15:45:19.683-04:002014-06-25T15:45:19.683-04:00But let's say instead I let you fish, then I g...But let's say instead I let you fish, then I grab all five fish, chain you in the basement, and make you work for me. Does that seem fair?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-37195862162855340792014-06-25T15:29:51.640-04:002014-06-25T15:29:51.640-04:00Yes (given that we both accept that you can and do...Yes (given that we both accept that you can and do own the stream).Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470489293820651609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-7171833190494409442014-06-25T15:21:03.794-04:002014-06-25T15:21:03.794-04:00Let us say you really love to fish but have no wat...Let us say you really love to fish but have no water on your property. Meanwhile there is a creek on mine. I say, "Matt, you can come fish in my stream, but here's the deal: one fish out of five you catch is mine, ok?"<br /><br />Does that seem fair?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-27094597679932768712014-06-25T15:14:51.737-04:002014-06-25T15:14:51.737-04:00Yes, you've been charitable with me. Fire away...Yes, you've been charitable with me. Fire away.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470489293820651609noreply@blogger.com