The “right” to healthcare does not require....

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Say what? Where did that line of questioning come from?

What makes you think I'd have any interest in attempting to justify military conscription and discipline?

Do you agree that in times of emergency, it is ethical for the government to conscript men and subject them to military discipline in order to defend the nation?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Do you agree that in times of emergency, it is ethical for the government to conscript men and subject them to military discipline in order to defend the nation?

No, conscription is just another form of slavery, and I don't find slavery to be very ethical. If you have to enslave a man to defend something, then whatever you've enslaved him to defend is probably not worth fighting for anyway.

Just pretend I answered "yes" and continue on, though. I want to see where that was going.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

No, conscription is just another form of slavery, and I don't find slavery to be very ethical. If you have to enslave a man to defend something, then whatever you've enslaved him to defend is probably not worth fighting for anyway.

Just pretend I answered "yes" and continue on, though. I want to see where that was going.

Principles are written in blood: they cannot exist without the will to defend them. If social cooperation allows us the force to carve a dominion out of the state of nature and see it governed in accordance with our principles, and to thereby to collaboratively enjoy the fruits of liberty, then it is necessary to defend that society from existential threats to ensure our liberty. If we fail to defend our society from conquest by other societies, the principles we prefer to live by are moot.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Principles are written in blood: they cannot exist without the will to defend them. If social cooperation allows us the force to carve a dominion out of the state of nature and see it governed in accordance with our principles, and to thereby enjoy the fruits of liberty, then it is necessary to defend that society from existential threats. If we fail to defend our society from conquest by others, our principles are moot.

Wait, help me out here. I'm lost.

Was the above response inspired by what I said about military conscription as slavery, or is this where you were originally going to begin with? Because if it's the latter, then I don't understand what this has to do with any alleged social obligation to provide health and medical care to others.

Just say what you're trying to say. It's easier that way.

[Minister_of_Information]

If you are alleging that conscription is slavery, you are thereby discounting the idea that conscription serves the interests of the conscripted. The above reply illustrates otherwise.

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

If you are alleging that conscription is slavery, you are thereby discounting the idea that conscription serves the interests of the conscripted. The above reply illustrates otherwise.

But slavery may serve the interest of the enslaved as well. (If I go capture some poor soul living in poverty, bring him here and force them to be my maid/butler etc, yet house them, feed them and treat them kindly I certainly have assisted in improving their interests). Improving their quality of life by making them my slave and taking them from squaller does not negate the crime of enslaving them.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

If you are alleging that conscription is slavery, you are thereby discounting the idea that conscription serves the interests of the conscripted. The above reply illustrates otherwise.

So, what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, is that slavery is OK as long as it serves what you believe are the interests of the conscripted, and this belief of yours supersedes the individual beliefs of those targeted for conscription? You believe that you, or some nameless group of people, through some corrupt political process, gets to make this determination for other individuals? Is that what you are saying?

Your previous response:

Principles are written in blood: they cannot exist without the will to defend them. If social cooperation allows us the force to carve a dominion out of the state of nature and see it governed in accordance with our principles, and to thereby enjoy the fruits of liberty, then it is necessary to defend that society from existential threats. If we fail to defend our society from conquest by others, our principles are moot.

I guess I am failing to see how this illustrates anything at all. A society is nothing more than a group of individuals, each having the choice to determine whether he or she believes that particular society is worth fighting and potentially dying for. It is not your decision to make, it is their decision. It is as simple as that. You have no business talking about the so-called "fruits of liberty" one second and then trying to to justify the forcing of people to serve interests not of their choosing the next.

Conscription, whether economic or military, is slavery. It makes hardly any difference whether it is a cotton field or a battlefield. There is no philosophical way around it.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

So, what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, is that slavery is OK as long as it serves what you believe are the interests of the conscripted, and this belief of yours supersedes the individual beliefs of those targeted for conscription? You believe that you, or some nameless group of people, through some corrupt political process, gets to make this determination for other individuals? Is that what you are saying?

Your previous response:



I guess I am failing to see how this illustrates anything at all. A society is nothing more than a group of individuals, each having the choice to determine whether he or she believes that particular society is worth fighting and potentially dying for. It is not your decision to make, it is their decision. It is as simple as that. You have no business talking about the so-called "fruits of liberty" one second and then trying to to justify the forcing of people to serve interests not of their choosing the next.

Conscription, whether economic or military, is slavery. It makes hardly any difference whether it is a cotton field or a battlefield. There is no philosophical way around it.

Yes you are wrong, and I am happy to correct you. Your premise is mistaken. Conscription is not slavery, it is conscription. Slavery is slavery, and it is never ethical. Conscription is ethical if it serves the interests of the conscripted. And if avoiding subjugation via conquest is in the interests of a free people, then conscription may also be in their interests (depending on circumstances). In order to be free, they must act according to a maxim that ensures that freedom is not interrupted by foreign subjugation, and that will require military force. And military force may require conscription.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Yes you are wrong, and I am happy to correct you. Your premise is mistaken. Conscription is not slavery, it is conscription. Slavery is slavery, and it is never ethical.

What's the essential difference between conscription and slavery? If I forcefully extract your labor from you, against your wishes, by making you spend your time fighting on a battlefield you don't want to be on or picking cotton in a field you don't want to be in, what's the difference? Either way, you're being forced to serve interests not of your choosing, while having your freedom, time, effort, and labor stripped away from you.

They're basically the same thing. Strip all the patriotic, nationalistic, and slave morality crap away, and both are the same, with the only differences being cosmetic in nature. One form of this slavery - conscription - serves a military function, while the other - chattel - serves an economic function. But since nearly all military actions have an economic component involved, it's very much accurate to classify conscription as a classic form of slavery as well.

I've seen all the best arguments on this subject and none of them hold up. But if you want to try, feel free.

Conscription is ethical if it serves the interests of the conscripted.

No it's not, and it never will be. It's never, ever ethical to force a man to serve interests not of his choosing. And no, you don't get to decide what a man's interests are, he does. You can disagree, and try to persuade him with your gift of gab, but you don't have a right to put a gun to his head and threaten his life to get him to do what you demand.

What's the matter with you?

And if avoiding subjugation via conquest is in the interests of a free people, then conscription may also be in their interests (depending on circumstances).

Hello! Being forced, at gunpoint, to serve interests not of your choosing is to be SUBJUGATED. It doesn't matter if the gun being pointed at you is being held by an enemy at the gates or your next door neighbor, the result is the same. In each case, it's just one group of people using guns to force another group of people to serve interests not of their choosing.

It's a crime either way you slice it.

In order to be free, they must act according to a maxim that ensures that freedom is not interrupted by foreign subjugation, and that will require military force. And military force may require conscription.

Look, dude, it's not "freedom" if people can legally force you to serve interests not of your choosing. If you put a gun to my head and tell me that I must carry a rifle to protect my freedom, I'll ask you, "if I truly enjoy the gift of freedom as you say, then wouldn't I have the freedom to make this choice for myself?".

Again, sorry to burst this bubble of yours, but conscription = slavery.

[Minister_of_Information]

I'm becoming accustomed to the observation that you are mistaken yet again. Freedom does not exist in an ideal plane devoid of struggle, or upon islands populated by solitary individuals; if it exists it must survive life on earth and the state of nature in which it finds itself. This state of nature is quite naturally the war of all upon all, and the war of all upon all is inimical to liberty. Liberty can only exist via the military cooperation of a society of individuals, who having conquered a particular territory and kept it secure from incursion, conspire to have their ethos enacted by virtue of this selfsame force of arms. So quite clearly, those who will that they live in a state of liberty, also will that they act in concert to defend that state when necessary, if they are to be self-consistent. The will to be free is the consent to collaborative defense of that freedom -- even if particular individuals fail to see the connection. And the defense of freedom may require conscription.

When it comes to slavery, of course, there can be no discussion of consent.

[Dreamliner]

Offhand I'd say that conscription is even worse than slavery. At least with slavery your owner didn't have you being killed or killing others in mind. It was in his best interest to keep you healthy.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I'm becoming accustomed to the observation that you are mistaken yet again. Freedom does not exist in an ideal plane devoid of struggle, or upon islands populated by solitary individuals; if it exists it must survive life on earth and the state of nature in which it finds itself. This state of nature is quite naturally the war of all upon all, and the war of all upon all is inimical to liberty. Liberty can only exist via the military cooperation of a society of individuals, who having conquered a particular territory and kept it secure from incursion, conspire to have their ethos enacted by virtue of this selfsame force of arms. So quite clearly, those who will that they live in a state of liberty, also will that they act in concert to defend that state when necessary, if they are to be self-consistent. The will to be free is the consent to collaborative defense of that freedom -- even if particular individuals fail to see the connection. And the defense of freedom may require conscription.

When it comes to slavery, of course, there can be no discussion of consent.

You're engaging in the same kind of basic contradiction Burke engages in. Burke claims robbery is wrong and a violation of individual rights, but Burke loves himself some government, and government can't exist without robbing people to finance its protection racket operation, so government robbery is OK, since the end justifies the means.

Here you are committing the same contradiction, but instead of robbery, it's forced servitude in the military.

The enemy is coming and wants to subjugate us and force us to serve interests not of our choosing! The enemy wants to violate our freedom! This makes them the "bad guys"! Minister of Information has just the solution! He proposes to subjugate his neighbor, and millions of others, and force him to carry a rifle and fight the enemy to the death. Yes, he proposes to force his neighbor to serve an interest not of his choosing and violate his neighbor's freedom.

So who's the real enemy in the above scenario? You both want to commit the same crime. You both want to subjugate your neighbor, force him to serve interests not of his choosing, and violate his freedom. Which enemy is worse? The stranger who's a thousand miles away that you can see approaching and prepare for, or the guy who says he is your friend while holding a gun to your back?

In my estimation, you're the enemy. You're the dishonest one. You speak in flowery language about liberty, freedom, and cooperation, but what you're really saying and what you really mean is force, slavery, servitude, and obligation. You believe you possess some right to determine what another man's interests are and you're willing to hold a gun to his head to make sure he pursues them. Worst of all, you're prepared to murder him if he doesn't, even if not by your own hand.

Tell me, are you typing any of this stuff out with a straight face, by chance?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

You're engaging in the same kind of basic contradiction Burke engages in. Burke claims robbery is wrong and a violation of individual rights, but Burke loves himself some government, and government can't exist without robbing people to finance its protection racket operation, so government robbery is OK, since the end justifies the means.

Here you are committing the same contradiction, but instead of robbery, it's forced servitude in the military.

The enemy is coming and wants to subjugate us and force us to serve interests not of our choosing! The enemy wants to violate our freedom! This makes them the "bad guys"! Minister of Information has just the solution! He proposes to subjugate his neighbor, and millions of others, and force him to carry a rifle and fight the enemy to the death. Yes, he proposes to force his neighbor to serve an interest not of his choosing and violate his neighbor's freedom.

So who's the real enemy in the above scenario? You both want to commit the same crime. You both want to subjugate your neighbor, force him to serve interests not of his choosing, and violate his freedom. Which enemy is worse? The stranger who's a thousand miles away that you can see approaching and prepare for, or the guy who says he is your friend while holding a gun to your back?

In my estimation, you're the enemy. You're the dishonest one. You speak in flowery language about liberty, freedom, and cooperation, but what you're really saying and what you really mean is force, slavery, servitude, and obligation. You believe you possess some right to determine what another man's interests are and you're willing to hold a gun to his head to make sure he pursues them. Worst of all, you're prepared to murder him if he doesn't, even if not by your own hand.

Tell me, are you typing any of this stuff out with a straight face, by chance?

Actually I'm smirking at the moment.

To quote the ever so mortal 2Pac: "I was given this world I didn't make it." Part of the will to live an ethical life is the will to see things as they are rather than as we would like them to be. If we want our lives to be lived in accordance with what is right, we must have the might to make it happen. Slavery wasn't ended by a bunch of flowery words, it was ended by men with guns and the will to use them. The end of slavery was the forceful imposition of Western values upon an unconsenting world. Later on the world came to agree, perhaps.

You can make the same observation about the American revolution itself. A plurality either favored the status quo or did not oppose it. Only a minority acted, overtly or covertly, to support the revolution. So should the minority eschew liberty when a majority prefer chains? Of course not. If people prefer to act in inconsistent ways or hold beliefs that are inconsistent with their ideals and interests, well that is more or less inevitable. But if they enjoy liberty and prefer to keep it, they have to be willing to defend it. If they object conscientiously let them carry the wounded and dead out of battle. If they actively undermine that defense of liberty, let them be tried and executed as traitors. This isn't how we would like things to be, but the fact is that the existence of liberty requires an army, and an army requires discipline. Maybe some day that will be different, but I doubt I will live to see it.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -- Plato

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

To quote the ever so mortal 2Pac: "I was given this world I didn't make it." Part of the will to live an ethical life is the will to see things as they are rather than as we would like them to be. If we want our lives to be lived in accordance with what is right, we must have the might to make it happen. Slavery wasn't ended by a bunch of flowery words, it was ended by men with guns and the will to use them.

Really? If slavery ended, why does the government have a primary claim over your labor and extract a sizable portion of it through threats and violence via the income tax?

Slavery never ended, it just morphed and changed hands from the private to the public sector.

The end of slavery was the forceful imposition of Western values upon an unconsenting world. Later on the world came to agree, perhaps.

LOL, Western values. Fantasy land stuff.

You can make the same observation about the American revolution itself. A plurality either favored the status quo or did not oppose it. Only a minority acted, overtly or covertly, to support the revolution.

American Revolution = Government Mafia turf war

Basically just two groups of rich people fighting over who was going to have the supreme legal authority to rule over and exploit the growing pool of highly productive American peasants.

So should the minority eschew liberty when a majority prefer chains? Of course not. If people prefer to act in inconsistent ways or hold beliefs that are inconsistent with their ideals and interests, well that is more or less inevitable. But if they enjoy liberty and prefer to keep it, they have to be willing to defend it. If they object conscientiously let them carry the wounded and dead out of battle. If they active undermine that defense of liberty, let them be tried and executed as traitors. This isn't how we would like things to be, but the fact is that the existence of liberty requires an army, and an army requires discipline. Maybe some day that will be different, but I doubt I will live to see it.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -- Plato

More contradictory nonsense. What you're describing isn't a society based on true liberty or freedom. What you're really describing is a slave morality society where one group of men gets to determine the interests of another group of men and has the legal authority to force them to serve interests not of their choosing.

There's nothing about such a society that's worth defending, which is why no man has the right to force himself on others. The only society worth defending is the kind of society where every man is free to act and make his own decisions, as long as those actions and decisions don't violate the rights of other men.

Can you or can you not construct an argument justifying your slave morality society that doesn't rest upon a giant, white elephant contradiction?

[Minister_of_Information]

Can you construct an argument that doesn't rely on begging the question?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Can you construct an argument that doesn't rely on begging the question?

Sure, just as soon as you stop contradicting yourself.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Sure, just as soon as you stop contradicting yourself.

There's a difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

There's a difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

Sure, but what you're proposing is no paradox. It's not even close to a paradox. It's a textbook contradiction.

True freedom means the freedom to make one's own decisions in both life and in death. True freedom means self-ownership of one's life and one's body. You're advocating involuntary, forced servitude here. You're advocating that one man can dictate to another man what his best interests are. And your whole justification for this is based on the most obvious of contradictions, that freedom and liberty must be sacrificed to protect freedom and liberty.

The contradiction can't possibly be any more obvious.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Sure, but what you're proposing is no paradox. It's not even close to a paradox. It's a textbook contradiction.

True freedom means the freedom to make one's own decisions in both life and in death. True freedom means self-ownership of one's life and one's body. You're advocating involuntary, forced servitude here. You're advocating that one man can dictate to another man what his best interests are. And your whole justification for this is based on the most obvious of contradictions, that freedom and liberty must be sacrificed to protect freedom and liberty.

The contradiction can't possibly be any more obvious.

A man's will to be free is his will to defend that freedom. He cannot have one without the other. A man that has decided to be free has already made his choice.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

A man's will to be free is his will to defend that freedom. He cannot have one without the other.

Who gets to decide that for him, though?

You or him?