Subject:
|
Re: Misperceptions of America (Was: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:02:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1989 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote
> Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote:
> > Larry, I believe even the USA abolished slavery some time ago. Unless
> > you let the prisoners choose, and pay them, then you've just bought
> > it back.
> Do you mean because we'd have a situation where officials would trump up
> charges to enslave innocents,
That is one major problem, yes. Unless you have a 100% accurate legal system
there is always the problem of compensating someone for a period of slavery.
As we have discussed before, compensation relies on the recipient being
willing to sell the thing being compensated for for a "reasonable" price.
> or are you arguing that someone guilty of
> a crime with a victim (who has forfeited his rights because he would not
> acknowledge that others have rights too) should not be forced to make up
> for it.
To what extent does violating the law lessen someone's rights? Can I run
you down if I see you jaywalking? If someone chooses not to respect property
rights should they lose those rights, only the specific right they were
caught violating, or some unrelated rights? Should they merely be required
to purchase what they stole? How do we decide?
> If the former, totally agree, careful safeguards against that would be
> needed. Here's one (that we don't have now): Make elected officials
> personally liable for malfeasance instead of hiding behind the official
> actions shield.
I disagree that we can hold anyone liable for certain things. Sure, you
steal $100 in cash from me that's easy to value as direct loss.
Consequential loss is generally not a lot harder, even if we don't restrict
it to reasonably forseeable losses. But how to we hold someone responsible
for loss of parenthood while their child was young? If I am falsely
imprisoned while my children are young, that is not a replaceable loss.
And how do we compensate for that? We can't buy my children a father.
> If the latter, totally disagree, you're wrong. Reason out why I say
> that, starting from first principles and you might well convince
> yourself you're wrong too.
I can see why you believe it, but I disagree. Your principles are, I
think: 1: all rights are property rights. 2: rights are absolute,
they either all exist or none exists. 3: rights are specific to
the individual. 4: rights are reciprocal - you have them because I
recognise yours, and I have them because you recognise mine.
I don't accept any of those except possibly the last.
Moz
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
