6 ) Do you agree that I have a right to buy a building, setup a restaurant there and use whatever arbitrary reasons to deny possible clients? If no, why it's different to 5?Definitely yes.
7 ) Do you agree that when I exercise a profession, I may use whatever arbitrary reasons to deny possible clients? If no, why it's different to 6?It depends. If you are employed by government: No, if your denial of service threatens basic rights: No ( like if you are a medic and health or life of a person is threatened). In other situations : yes
8 ) Do you agree that when I exercise a profession, I may use whatever arbitrary reasons to determine how much I want to be payed? If no, why it's different to 7?See 7
X ) If the people are allowed to do this, why not the government. ((Hello apartheid))Because government, unlike citizens, has no rights but it has a duty to treat everyone equally
You are not allowed to allow people to enter your home in order to conduct illegal activity. You are not allowed to kick out tenants or dependents without notice, or deny them the ability to return and gather their belongings. I think all of these are good things.Sure. No right is absolute and all contradict each other
No. I said no for 2 as well, though. This one is simply practical application of logic, though. If it's against the law, it's a crime, which means it's obviously not a right now is it?Don't you think that it is severely limiting my own freedom when government forces me to hire someone I personally dislike? Don't you think that forcing someone to do something, almost always more severe violation of freedom than not allowing someone to do something?
1) Do you agree that I have a right to have private property: Yes\no?In a very limited sense. Owning a factory is not ok. Owning your own house is
2) Do you agree that I have a right to not let anyone* enter into my house for whatever arbitrary reason: Yes\no?.No. There are times when it's perfectly reasonable to not let someone in your house, and there are times when it's absolutely unacceptable. If someone is homeless in a blizzard, you should let them in.
3) Do you agree that I have a right to hire... let's say housemaid to work in and use whatever arbitrary reasons I want to deny applicants?: Yes\no. If no: Why it's different to 2?Yes, but only so long as you're paying them a fair wage and they're not in danger of poverty if you don't hire them.
4) Do you agree that I have a right to setup workshop in my house hire several workers, and use whatever arbitrary reasons to deny applicants? Yes\no? If no why it's different to 3?No. That's the sort of private ownership I'm not ok with. If you're not working, you have no claim to the products of people's work just because you "own" the tools they're using.
5) Do you agree that I have a right to buy a building, setup factory here, start hiring workers to work on it, and use whatever arbitrary reasons to deny applicants? If no, why it's different to 4?Again, no. If the workers are working in the factory, they should own the factory.
Don't you think that it is severely limiting my own freedom when government forces me to hire someone I personally dislike? Don't you think that forcing someone to do something, almost always more severe violation of freedom than not allowing someone to do something?
No. There are times when it's perfectly reasonable to not let someone in your house, and there are times when it's absolutely unacceptable. If someone is homeless in a blizzard, you should let them in.I agree that not helping a person when he\she is in mortal danger is equal to murder.
Again, no. If the workers are working in the factory, they should own the factory.OK, no private ownership for large business. But question remains. Should workers, as a collective owner, have a right to freely choose who they want to accept in their ranks?
No, of course not. Not allowing someone to eat is a far worse thing to do than forcing someone to provide someone else food. One makes the person losing out slightly poorer, and one makes them dead. The result of an action is the important part.I said almost always for a reason.
Socialist detected?Yep.
Of cause everything owned by government is even worse than owned by single person...
Should workers, as a collective owner, have a right to freely choose who they want to accept in their ranks?
What is worse, to disallow person to eat some specific food or to force someone to eat some specific food? (all food are quite equal)
What is worse, to prohibit to have sex or to force to have sex?
What is worse to prohibit to go to war or to force to go to war?
What is worse to prohibit associating with some people or force to associate with some people?
What is worse to prohibit to practice a religion or to force to practice a religion?
What is worse, to disallow person to eat some specific food or to force someone to eat some specific food? (all food are quite equal)There is a saying: Dictatorship allow, democracy forbid. It's because in democracy everything is allowed by default, and in dictatorship it's the reverse.
What is worse, to prohibit to have sex or to force to have sex?
What is worse to prohibit to go to war or to force to go to war?
What is worse to prohibit associating with some people or force to associate with some people?
What is worse to prohibit to practice a religion or to force to practice a religion? (OK, that's quite close)
And so on....
Again, no. If the workers are working in the factory, they should own the factory.
Because government, unlike citizens, has no rights but it has a duty to treat everyone equallyI would disagree. There are certain actions (such as taxing people) that one would permit a government to perform but not permit but not an individual.
Would you be okay with an owner renting tools to a worker? If so, how is this better than working in a factory? By having twenty people working in a factory and one person selling the product, far more can be produced than twenty-one people producing and selling individually. Furthermore, a factory provider much greater income stability as individual production varies. If not, why not?Quote4) Do you agree that I have a right to setup workshop in my house hire several workers, and use whatever arbitrary reasons to deny applicants? Yes\no? If no why it's different to 3?No. That's the sort of private ownership I'm not ok with. If you're not working, you have no claim to the products of people's work just because you "own" the tools they're using.
The main obstacle that I always think of when it comes to socialism (using the classic factory example) is the need for some kind of leadership and investment to build a new factory.
Corporations do serve an important role in a capitalist society by providing the capital (or taking on the debt) to build expensive things like factories that wouldn't break a profit for many years, and take on that risk (protected as a corporation) without harming the individuals irreparably behind it.
If the workers owned the factory, they'd need to first come together somehow to propose the need for it
and then either take on the massive debt in constructing it themselves or (more likely) have the government build it for them.
If the factory failed and they had to pay the debt, their lives would be more or less ruined.
If the government built it, the government would need to somehow make that money back either through the factory's life or through other means
With the government invested in a factory (and taxing it), how can you say that the profits are going to the workers and not the government?
but it seems that a socialist society would always devolve into one where the totalitarian state owns all the means of production and the workers derive no benefit
Would you be okay with an owner renting tools to a worker?
i-Two people enter a hospital; one healthy, one sick. You may let the sick one die, or harvest the organs of the healthy one to save the sick one.
Three people enter a hospital; one healthy, two sick. You may let the sick ones die, or harvest the organs of the healthy one to save them both. Is there a minimum ratio of sick people to healthy ratio for you to kill all the healthy ones to save the sick one?
You can harvest the organs of an older individual with low life expectancy to save a person with high life expectancy if saved.
iv-You can harvest the organs of one person with life expectancy thirty years to save four older people with life expectancy ten years if saved.
You can harvest the organs of two older people with life expectancy ten years to save a person with life expectancy thirty years if saved. Is there a minimum ratio of life expectancy saved to life expectancy sacrificed?
You can sacrifice two smokers of life expectancy fifteen years to save three older people of life expectancy ten years.
You can sacrifice three older people of life expectancy ten years to save two smokers of life expectancy fifteen years.
You can sacrifice a drifter with no family or friends to save a person with lots of close friends.
You can sacrifice someone with no family of friends to save a person with lots of dependants.
You can sacrifice one person to save two people, each with probability 1/2.I can't decide, because I'm not sure whether attempting the greatest benefit or trying to avoid the least benefit is better.
You can sacrifice one person to save ten people, each with probability 1/10. If no, what is the minimum number that would have be saved to choose yes?
A loner with no family or friends wants to kill themselves. You can stop it, or let it happen.
A loner with no family or friends wants to be killed by another. You can stop it, or let it happen.
An individual with lots of family and friends wants to kill themselves. You can stop it, or let it happen.
An individual with lots of dependants wants to kill themselves. You can stop it, or let it happen.
You may sacrifice an individual who has committed minor crimes to save an individual with a clean record.
You may sacrifice a mass murderer to save an individual with a clean record.
Two people are being denied freedom of speech. You may kill one to liberate the other.
Two people are being denied freedom of belief. You may kill one to liberate the other.
You may kill one person with life expectancy ten years to increase another's life expectancy by fifteen years. Is there a minimum ratio of gained life expectancy to lost life expectancy for you to do this?
You may kill one person to provide entertainment for ten others.
You may kill one person to provide entertainment for a billion others. Is there a number of people such that you would kill one person to entertain that many?
One person is playing a game, and a second does not have a game, but would enjoy the game more if they had it. Do you take the game from the first and give it to the second?
You are playing and enjoying a game, and another person who will enjoy it more wants to play it. Are you obliged to give it to them?
Does the answer to the previous question change if you particularly like or dislike the other person?
Your house has such thin walls that neither you nor your neighbour can play music without the other being forced to listed in it. If your neighbour is not doing anything that requires silence, do you play your music?
If you said yes to the previous one, what about if you know your neighbour does not share your taste in music? If you said no to the previous one, what about if you know your neighbour shares your taste in music?
If someone is performing an action that you strongly object to but is legal, is it acceptable to try to disrupt that activity? If yes, are you obliged to?
If someone often performs actions that you strongly oppose to, is it acceptable to try to disrupt unrelated activities? If yes, are you obliged to?
If a quality is correlated with people of a certain group, and an individual is a member of that group, in the absence of further information is it acceptable to treat that individual differently based on that attribute (weighted by probability)?
At what point in the process from sperm/egg to embryo to foetus to baby to adult does it become acceptable (if at any point) to kill/deny life? At what point (if any) does someone gain the right to permanently alter their body (including harm)?
Does an individual have the right to say things that another may consider inappropriate? If so, do they have the right to an audience? Does an individual have the right to ignore the speech of another? What if the speech includes things that are demonstrably false?
Does an individual have the right to keep a secret from another? What if the act of keeping the secret may cause harm?
Does an individual have the right to own a pet? If yes, does an individual have the right to own a slave? If no, does an individual have the right to own a non-human creature of significant mental capacity?
Does an individual have the obligation to raise their children? Does an individual have the right to raise their children as they wish? Do they have the right to have children? What if they are not able to properly provide for children?
Does an individual (not government) have the right to claim another's property if it is unused and will foreseeably remain unused? What if it is being used, but less efficiently that it could be?
Does an individual selling a good or service have the right to charge what they want? Does this change in the presence/absence of competition? Does this change if the good/service is/isn't essential?
Does an individual have the right to believe what they want? What if this includes beliefs that can be proven to be logically inconsistent? What if this results in actions that impede or prevent the individual's goals?
Does an individual have the right to associate with whatever groups they wish to? What if already existing members of a group do not wish to associate with them? What if the group in question provides a danger to the individual or another individual?
Do individuals have the right to demand that others accommodate their deviations (deviations meant in a technical and nonoffensive manner)? Does this change if the deviation is physical or mental? Does this change if the deviation is voluntary or involuntary?
Do you agree that I have a right to buy a building
I would disagree. There are certain actions (such as taxing people) that one would permit a government to perform but not permit but not anThe state have... hm... monopolies on some "businesses". Tax collecting is one of them. Police, army, courts are another... It would be a mess if we had private police or courts, right?
individual.
Governments can take taxes not because thy have right to do it(like medieval feudal) but
because they have a duty to provide safety, healthcare, transportation and so on
-schnip-
So at what point would the following become unacceptable?QuoteWould you be okay with an owner renting tools to a worker?
Nope. If you're not actually using it, you have no right to deprive others of it.
We're assuming that they're identical, including likelihood of getting sick again. The reason for them being sick is from some external factor. If you want, consider the sick one as having been hit by a drunk driver.Quotei-Two people enter a hospital; one healthy, one sick. You may let the sick one die, or harvest the organs of the healthy one to save the sick one.
Let the sick one die, since they're statistically more likely to get sick again in the future, and a society in which we arbitrarily kill one person for the benefit of one other person would cause a lot of anxiety.
So you consider someone who is contributing to society as having priority over someone who isn't? Does this mean that you would sacrifice someone with a disability that prevents them working to save someone able-bodied?Quoteiv-You can harvest the organs of one person with life expectancy thirty years to save four older people with life expectancy ten years if saved.
No. The person with thirty years left to go is still contributing to society, and thus improving the happiness of others more, and thus their death would cause a greater loss in happiness.
The smokers would stop smoking if they survive their hospital trip. The major difference is that their reduction in life expectancy is from their actions, not an outside influence.QuoteYou can sacrifice two smokers of life expectancy fifteen years to save three older people of life expectancy ten years.
Possibly, if people knew about it, and knew that it was because they were smokers. On the one hand, killing people like that would upset a lot of people. On the other hand, it might reduce smoking dramatically. I'm leaning towards yes, but I'm really not sure. Plus, the smokers are harming the health of others as they continue to live.
I don't think it's possible to be in a situation where it's impossible for life to get better by enough to make it worth living.Suppose that you're in a war zone. You know that if you get captured, you'll be tortured and executed. Alternatively, suppose you've had a stroke and are permanently disabled. Your disability is painful, and you can only communicate through blinking.
So you believe that someone's actions enhance/subvert their right to live?QuoteYou may sacrifice an individual who has committed minor crimes to save an individual with a clean record.
Depends on what the minor crimes are. If it's something I think is admirable, no. If it's something I think is bad, yes.
We have an inconsistency here. You've said that belief doesn't matter, and people should be free to talk about things they want. However, you've also said that other people have the right to try and stop them if you don't like what they're doing. You're saying that one person taking offense to another's views and speech gives them the right to compromise the another's right to those.QuoteIf someone is performing an action that you strongly object to but is legal, is it acceptable to try to disrupt that activity? If yes, are you obliged to?
Yes and yes, assuming my objection is morally justified.QuoteIf someone often performs actions that you strongly oppose to, is it acceptable to try to disrupt unrelated activities? If yes, are you obliged to?
Only if it inhibits their ability to also do the things I object to, and if so, yes.QuoteDoes an individual have the right to associate with whatever groups they wish to? What if already existing members of a group do not wish to associate with them? What if the group in question provides a danger to the individual or another individual?
No, some organizations, like the Nazi Party and Al-Qaeda, should not be tolerated. No, being around someone you don't want to be around typically causes more suffering than being around someone you want to be around causes happiness. No.QuoteDoes an individual have the right to believe what they want? What if this includes beliefs that can be proven to be logically inconsistent? What if this results in actions that impede or prevent the individual's goals?
Yes, beliefs don't matter, only actions. Only so long as they don't act on those beliefs. Depends on what the goals are, but assuming they're moral, no, not that you can stop it.QuoteDoes an individual have the right to say things that another may consider inappropriate? If so, do they have the right to an audience? Does an individual have the right to ignore the speech of another? What if the speech includes things that are demonstrably false?
Yes, because a society that doesn't tolerate free speech has worse side effects that outweigh the benefit of avoiding offense. No, they don't have the right to an audience: forcing people to listen to something has similarly undesirable effects to preventing free speech. You can absolutely ignore others, unless what they're saying is something along the lines of "I'm going to shoot this person in the face".
We have an inconsistency here. You've said that belief doesn't matter, and people should be free to talk about things they want. However, you've also said that other people have the right to try and stop them if you don't like what they're doing. You're saying that one person taking offense to another's views and speech gives them the right to compromise the another's right to those.I'll answer for Eagle here. You mix opinions and actions. Extreme case:
1. Is the healthy person willing to sacrifice themselves to save this person? If yes, then go for it.Spoiler: 40 questions (click to show/hide)
But saying that someone is preaching that person A is killed should not be allowed, that's compromising their freedom of speech. If it is decided that saying something that is currently illegal should be done is unacceptable, then you run into another world of problems.QuoteWe have an inconsistency here. You've said that belief doesn't matter, and people should be free to talk about things they want. However, you've also said that other people have the right to try and stop them if you don't like what they're doing. You're saying that one person taking offense to another's views and speech gives them the right to compromise the another's right to those.I'll answer for Eagle here. You mix opinions and actions. Extreme case:
If you have belief that person A should be killed, that's you freedom of thoughts no one can ban you to think like that
If you go and kill the Person A, then you are making a crime
If you preach that person A should be killed, that's an encouragement to crime, and that's a crime itself
32. Yes, all of these things are within their inalienable right to free speech.So you believe that if someone wants to say something, they are entitled to have others listen to them?
My personal belief is that individual rights and freedoms must be upheld outside of extreme extenuating circumstances. No one shall die against their will unless they have been proven to commit a capital crime. Individuals have rights to property, free speech, the right to a fair trial, and the rest of the rights specified in the American Constitution.What constitutes a capital crime? Murder has already been established, but what about theft or fraud? If not right to life, would other rights be compromised?
But saying that someone is preaching that person A is killed should not be allowed, that's compromising their freedom of speech. If it is decided that saying something that is currently illegal should be done is unacceptable, then you run into another world of problems.QuoteWe have an inconsistency here. You've said that belief doesn't matter, and people should be free to talk about things they want. However, you've also said that other people have the right to try and stop them if you don't like what they're doing. You're saying that one person taking offense to another's views and speech gives them the right to compromise the another's right to those.I'll answer for Eagle here. You mix opinions and actions. Extreme case:
If you have belief that person A should be killed, that's you freedom of thoughts no one can ban you to think like that
If you go and kill the Person A, then you are making a crime
If you preach that person A should be killed, that's an encouragement to crime, and that's a crime itself
That is, it was stated that someone has the right to hold whatever beliefs they want. It was also stated that someone has the right to talk to a willing audience about whatever they want. It was also stated that if you object to someone doing something, even if it is perfectly legal, you have the right to try and stop them.32. Yes, all of these things are within their inalienable right to free speech.So you believe that if someone wants to say something, they are entitled to have others listen to them?My personal belief is that individual rights and freedoms must be upheld outside of extreme extenuating circumstances. No one shall die against their will unless they have been proven to commit a capital crime. Individuals have rights to property, free speech, the right to a fair trial, and the rest of the rights specified in the American Constitution.What constitutes a capital crime? Murder has already been established, but what about theft or fraud? If not right to life, would other rights be compromised?
What I don't understand about denying people service is that they're paying you. Why don't you want money? Serving everyone just means getting more money. You sure as hell don't have to like them, but it would be dumb to not want to get paid.
denying people service
Eventually the groups starting these projects would have enough money that they can pay for new factories without promising shares, and there you have it, capitalism.
Listen, Eagle, I'm not trying to be rude or anything here, but the leader of your 'perfect world' would be what I call a 'Utopian Dictator' - but only to him and his chosen few. To everyone else, he'd look no different than the Soviets or the Nazis or some of the more nasty corporations. Theres one key thing you haven't considered: it is NOT possible to quantify joy, happiness or pain. All humans feel different emotions to different degrees. The way you would like everything would result in an ruling class of the overly emotional as the fact that they feel more means what they want would factor in more heavily.