Ecurb wrote: ↑January 7th, 2022, 10:13 am
Oh come off your high horse, GE. My objection is clearly correct. FREEDOM is not "conceived" as being limited, it is only ADVOCATED inasmuch as it is limited.
Oh, stop. No one can "advocate" something without conceiving it first. Your claim was silly and now you're struggling to rationalize it.
Ecurb wrote: It is merely the case that freedom often should be limited -- all laws (and rights) limit it. The difference is that laws are passed with the consent of the people -- so at least one has a say in how one's freedom is limited.
Really? You suggest that whether others should be free to kill you should be determined by a public vote? You're advocating mob rule?
I don't think you really understand the concept of rights (or perhaps of moral constraints generally). If you have a right to something, or to do something, then morally speaking, you may keep it or do it no matter what "the public" wants or thinks. Popular decision-making is itself constrained by individual rights (that is the purpose of the US Bill of Rights).
You are prevaricating again, GE. This is gettng tedious. I advocated nothing of the sort.
Well, the above sure suggests otherwise. "So at least one has a say in how one's freedom is limited." That sure sounds like you consider that "say" to be a desirable thing. But not many people would agree, I think, that rapists are entitled to a "say" in whether they should permitted to rape, or thieves a "say" in whether they should be permitted to steal, even if rapists and thieves should become a majority in a democratic society.
I merely pointed out a difference between laws in a democratic society limiting freedom, and other things limiting freedom. How that "advocates" for the elimination of "rights" is unclear, unless, of course, you want to prevaricate and misrepresent my position for the sake of "winning" an argument. I made this clear by the words "at least".
Well, because people have no "say" in whether to violate rights, in a democratic society or any other human society --- or, at least, any morally justifiable "say." Laws in a democratic society have no more moral force, due to that mere fact, than laws in a dictatorship. Laws in democratic societies which violate rights are just as immoral as those decreed by a dictator. In short, who promulgates a law has no bearing on its moral defensibility.
This is ridiculous. Slavery (in addition to forcing others to labor) legally allows the owner to restrict the slave's freedom of movement. So do property rights. Therefore, property rights resemble slavery. This is obvious. It's not my fault that you have a one-track mind.
Egads. More irrelevant resemblances. The rules of chess restrict the player's movements. Traffic laws restrict drivers' movements. Laws against assault restrict people's movements, i.e., they forbid me from swinging my fist in such a way that it breaks your nose. Are chess players, drivers, fist-swingers thereby enslaved? Unless you can explain how any of those restrictions are immoral, the "resemblances" you cite are irrelevant.
The words "slavery" and "liberty" resemble each other in that both contain seven letters. Does that mean one implies the other?
Hmmm. Is being a citizen of a country a sort of contractual obligation?
No, it is not. There is no "social contract."
Are citizens who take advantage of the security the nation provides obliged to follow its laws?
They are obliged to obey its laws if, and only if, those laws are morally defensible. If they benefit from the security the government provides then they are also obligated to help pay for the machinery which supplies that security. Taking advantage of that security does not oblige them to obey any laws which violate their rights.
If so, aren't they obliged to pay taxes to support housing for the homeless, if the elected officials decide to spend the tax money thusly?
Answer implicit in comments above.
Fighting a revolution to oppose slavery is reasonable; fighting a revolution to oppose doling out some prefabricated huts to the homeless is obnoxious.
Suppose the slaves are employed, not to pick cotton, but to build prefabricated huts for the homeless. Is slavery then justifiable?