Rights are concepts, ones I generally like, but they're not a intrinsic part of reality. Momentum is, in a very real sense. If the conditions arise, as they do all the time whenever anything moves, momentum will do it's thing. Every single time.
Justice? Much as I like it, it requires effort. Belief. Ultimately, if nobody's willing to support or fight for justice, it doesn't exist. And, depending on your culture, it changes. Still good to have, though.
There are better and worse cultures, and having Rights that people believe in and and are willing to fight for is better than the lack thereof, but the simple fact of, well, all things, is that it requires effort to maintain things. Civilization included.
Sure. Valuable and useful, but not written into Physics. That's an issue, because way too many people seem to think otherwise. And, then they don't put in the effort to maintain what is, in many ways, the foundations of a people.
Well, this comes down mostly to what we mean by "intrinsic part of reality". Its a bit of a definitional question, but since words are a big part of how we think of things, that does matter too. See things like Racism.
I would say there being better or worse cultures implicitly argues that justice is a real things. If it was purely a question of option, then there would be no ability to apply logic to them. For example of a raw preference, I like westerns. Assuming that is true, what can we reason from that? Or even more broadly, take "society liked Westerns in the 1960s". Then, "Society liked urban movies in the 1970s". Can we make any logical arguments on whether the 1960s or the 1970s were better on these facts alone? Maybe, but we would recognize these as fairly weak arguments. Were in the realm of nearly pure preference.
If instead we say "the 1970s had a higher murder rate than the 1960s" we immediately recognize that something much more objectively comparable is going on than whether westerns or Urban movies are better. Murder is immediately recognizable as wrong. If we see that in the 1960s (all these numbers made up) that 80% of murders were solved in the 60s, and 40% were solved in the 70s, we could say, with something like 80% agreement, that the 60s on this stat are a more just time than the 70s on these stats: more unjust acts are being done, and fewer bad actors are being held to account.
So, if we view this as a spectrum between, maybe not real and unreal, but universal and particular, I think we would both agree that "murder is wrong" is more universally true than "westerns are the best movies", we could also say it is more "intrinsic part of reality" than a preference for westerns. Both of those are real however.
The existence of injustice no more invalidates justice anymore than the existence of lies or error invalidates the idea of Truth.
There's a cost to all things. And, being a part of a society has advantages, and costs. If you want a society to continue, people have to pay the upkeep.
Ultimately, that's why the West is failing. People are being punished for paying the upkeep on the culture, instead of being rewarded, so the foundations are vanishing.
Yeah, Justice is both ways, but without the idea of justice, I'm not sure you can really argue why.
I'm of the mindset that few things should be done for free. Whether we like it or not life has a price tag it's called the needs of survival and cost of labor, and anything that gets in the way of those things needs to be compensated for.
Should voting be paid for? As in, the Republicans will pay you $50 to vote for them, the Democrats will pay you $100 dollars. Would this be good?
I'm not saying they are communist. I'm also not talking about societies but moral systems. I'm saying that a moral system that holds "forcing others to do nonconsensual work by calling it a duty" as a moral good, not a necessary evil, has lost the key moral argument against communism. That's to say: "No, it's not yours, you are a bandit." You can't make that argument if forcing duty is a moral good.
Also interestingly, again, no one is debating me on what I'm saying, they are just having issue with the implications of it.
1) Were talking about conscription, which is a moral society question. This is a nonsense distinction here.
2) What's the difference between a moral good and a necessary evil in your system. If I let my neighbor be enslaved so I don't have to pay taxes, are those just trading off evils? And since I have no duties to my neighbors, letting him be enslaved is actually the morally superior option, because I'm not involved in the necessary evil of taxation?
3) "Its the government's were letting you use it." Does that then mean your the bandit? And the Government can then demand your rent in any way it wants? Is it a better system where the government just owns everything, and can thus make you do stuff on the basis of its ownership, or that there's duties, which then imply some degree of a two way relationship.
4) Arguing against the implications is arguing against what your saying. This is as silly as a communist arguing that pointing to the outcomes of communism isn't arguing against communism.
And again, this argument doesn't work. I'm not saying it's bad just because communists do it. I'm saying it's the core moral argument of communism. What's morally bad about communism if you allow forcing duty to be a moral good? Seriously? Where's the moral evil?
Obviously, it doesn't work in practice, but that's not a moral argument, that's a practical argument, and a useless argument to make that gets one nowhere.
Its, not though. Communism at the theory level is to complete the dissolving of social order and Duty started by the Bourgeois Revolution. To quote directly from the communist manifesto:
"The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
The ideological goal of communism is to end the last remnants of duty, such as family, nation, or workplace. The argument of the Communist to the individual is some manner of
1) The Capitalists, Christians, and State are exploiting and stealing from you.
2) We will stop the stealing, returning what is rightfully yours and allow your total liberation.
Communism is an argument from nearly all the deadly sins: gluttony, to consume without worry, lust, to have sex without the bounds of family or propriety, greed, to have what others possess, Wrath, to bring pain to those you hate, Sloth, to live without work, and Pride, that you have right knowledge and deserve to rule for it.
Communism demands treason to family, people, nation, and work. They speak very little of duty. Or, as the communist manifesto ends:
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!
Seriously, no one here has really argued that conscription isn't slavery, they've just spent time going 'but duty' and 'muh social contract'.
Because either its not, universally, just as all taxes aren't theft, or if slavery is defined so broadly we are all slaves, so whether its slavery or not is irrelevant.
Also, this is a very annoying tactic you employ which makes you come across as immensely bad faith: you make an arguement, we give a counter argument, you don't agree with our argument, and then imagine that since you didn't personally find it persuasive, no argument was made.
That you reject duty or social contract does not make them non-arguments.
I don't really believe you believe your arguments, but that's a different issue.
Sure, call it a cost. As long as it is considered a bad, but necessary thing, I'm fine in regards to this conversation. But the glorification of slavery as a moral good by calling it duty is deeply wrong. That's been the entirety of my point in this thread.
See on the one hand, it is very wrong that California is forcing you to do this against your will. It's an evil. On the other hand, if California (or any state) is to ever have a working justice system, it needs a jury of peers (no, judges are shit at this), and force is the only way to guarantee a truly cross sectional selection. There is simply no other possible substitution. That makes jury duty a necessary evil: It's evil, but the evil cannot be substituted or lessened or removed without causing a greater evil (people not getting a fair trial).
Is it an evil that I have to pay for food? Maybe we could call property ownership a necessary evil then? Its a shame some people don't get houses, but without private land ownership we'd have less houses. Therefore, private property and landlords are necessary evils. Money is a necessary evil to run an economy. Its a necessary evil that parents have power over their children.
Capitalism, land ownership, families, bosses, money, limits on lust, all necessary evils.
Would you agree to all the above framings? With the implied "but if we didn't need any of these, getting rid of them would make things better!
Libertarian plan:
1) Dissolve all bonds.
2) ?
3) Total liberation (but totally not in a communist way, we swear).
Libertarian handmaiden of socialism. We totes can do 75% communism!
