Search results

Though maybe it be good to get out of the weeds a bit and focus on the why of the logic: explicitly dealing with the government's property claims. For the two principles being suggested: 1) Blood creates duty. 2) Closer relationship suggests more duty, distant relationships produce less. So...

Quite possibly. Sure, the moral argument support material interests. Hm, it seems to be a plausible enough statement. We currently buy into such a general claim: If I sold China into slavery to aliens, I think everyone on this board would agree to that as some sort of betrayal to the human...

Well, it is a state, not an Alliance. At the very least full participation requires meeting minimal standards. I don't think the system breaks down if some carve out for hunter gather tribes exists for example, but they probably shouldn't have all that much sway either. Obviously this is easier...

Hm, I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying: a universal moral system means everyone is subject to it, regardless of whether they themselves subscribe to it: A large federation to exist probably does have to have some fairly universalist moral claims: the Federation as the final...

Eh, I don't believe the Chinese are so different to regard theft as moral. Though, there is also a degree where it doesn't wholly matter either. Obviously, part of natural law does suppose that people, even states, can be in breech of the natural law. And be morally judged for it. So, the...

Well, all my research confirmed was that I don't know enough about Chinese philosophy to say either way. Chinese is a different tradition and the works have different emphases, if they're translated at all. One Tomist I listedned to seemed to believe they were pretty in line with natural Law as...

Consequences only means terror? Well, yes. That does suggest families are in fact natural to humans, and part of our human nature. You seem to be treating it as a rebuttal to the claim? Are we agreed then that, at the very least, family units are certainly natural to human existence? I think...

Another major question that I think I might pause on for now. Rights really I think only make sense as something in society, interpersonal agreements. Take a favorite "right" of the EU, freedom of movement: do you have a right to move on an Island? Well, no one's going to stop you. But, if you...

Okay, you don't want to answer, so I'll move on. Which is the goal of having a conversation, no? Closing this line to consolidate. Universal, General principles. The goal is the 90% solution, keeping in mind there is always the exceptions that prove the rule. We have minute details of...

Is your position "it is morally impossible to steal from people outside our group". You keep going in circles when a yes or no here would suficie. So, what's your conclusion then? Things that aren't universal principles aren't universal principles. I'm not sure why your acting offended over...

Okay, where in any this have I made the contention that natural law is "more concerned with limiting their adherents in conflicts with non-adherents than helping the former"? That's why all your arguements seem so nonsensical, and basically seem to boil down to "ha ha, stupid moralists think...

Sure, and barbarians can be civilized or killed. This is why I put forward the Idea of conceptualizing the Federation as the single fully sovereign entity in existence, so that the full discussion is a within civilizational question, rather than inter. A Federation that I guess I'm theorizing...

This argument comes across as so crazy I don't think you actually believe it. is Poland better than Russia because Poland will steal from its citizens more willingly than the Russian government? Or Poland has no morals because Russia is stronger, and likewise Russia has no morals because the US...

@Marduk Hm, I think were also bumping up against the different underlying assumptions of Natural Law vs Civil Law. Natural Law posits that there is a justice that exists, and our goal is to discover it and clarify it. To take your example of a Caribbean Island, if there were people there, the...

@Marduk Sure, there is de facto limits to the claim, but were discussing things on the moral level, not the raw practical level: what is the state's claim to legitimate rule. The Califate doesn't rule everything, but it generally outlines a right to rule everything. There's what's in the...

Ah, I think I see where confusion is mostly coming in here of mixing the levels of property being discussed: your talking more on the upper state level, while I'm thinking more on the lower state and private. Lets see if we agree mostly on the high level of the principles, since I think we...

Isn't that what were discussing? Are you suggesting some sense of fairness is not necesary part of a system? None of your arguments really rest on it being a desert or not, though I think I'm losing track of what you are arguing. That property rights in a desert are different than one near a...

I'm not really sure the importance of the infrastructure really matters per say. I think more important is that ownership is divied up fairly, rather than maximumly productive. If the goal is mere maximizing productivity, that doesn't even necesarily suggest any particularly strong property...

Hm, there would I think be a bit of both: one obviously wants principles which lead to good outcomes, but the principles also have their own logic, leading conclusions one might not have initially desired, but might be a logical, and acceptable, outcome of the system. My personal bias is to...

Hm, that would theoretically be something along the line of the railroad land grants, where the railroads got a lot of free land in exchange for building railroads. This is somewhat undesirable in that it does encourage overbuilding of infrastructure in a speculatory manner. Though, by raw...