Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
In Islamic law, women never have an obligation to support themselves. If they do not have a husband, the father, brother, or uncle will take them in.
Hence, men have an obligation to support not just themselves but potentially also all their female relatives. I agree with this principle, also on biological grounds. In our biological species, women specialize in rearing children. If they don't, then the birth rate will rather sooner than later, completely implode.
The corollary is that women need the permission of a male guardian prior to engaging in sexual behavior. If it goes wrong -- divorce is obviously always a possibility -- then it is the guardian who will financially pick up the pieces (and not the ex-husband). So, a woman can be in conflict with her husband or with her guardian but not simultaneously with both.
In western countries, women tend to instead fall back on the government. However, that will work until it doesn't anymore.
-
- Posts: 782
- Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
Does that apply equally to Rosa Parks ? And anyone else who breaks a law that you disapprove of ?
The basic question here is whether you believe in some sort of natural law - some standard to which the State and everybody else can be held - or whether you believe there is no such thing.
If you do, then we can argue about what conduct and what statutes are morally good, according to that natural law.
If you think there is some inherent wrongness in a whites-only restaurant, for example, then I'd be interested in whether you think a similar wrongness applies to boys-only schools and women-only beauty parlours or hairdressers.
But it may be that you think there is no inherent wrongness in anything, and the word "should" in the above just slipped out... ?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7089
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
Can you cite that? Or did you just make it up?heracleitos wrote: ↑May 21st, 2022, 12:10 amIn Islamic law, women never have an obligation to support themselves. If they do not have a husband, the father, brother, or uncle will take them in.
Welcome to the 18th century.
Hence, men have an obligation to support not just themselves but potentially also all their female relatives. I agree with this principle, also on biological grounds. In our biological species, women specialize in rearing children. If they don't, then the birth rate will rather sooner than later, completely implode.
Have you not heard that there is 7.9 billion people on earth and has already risen by 35 million this year?
Non sequitur.
The corollary is that women need the permission of a male guardian prior to engaging in sexual behavior.
If you like it so much, why not go and live in Saudi Arabia?If it goes wrong -- divorce is obviously always a possibility -- then it is the guardian who will financially pick up the pieces (and not the ex-husband). So, a woman can be in conflict with her husband or with her guardian but not simultaneously with both.
In western countries, women tend to instead fall back on the government. However, that will work until it doesn't anymore.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
This is absurd! Humans do not exist! There are no such things as humans. What is laughably referred-to as a 'human being' is actually a rag-bag of independent cells. Therefore you are a cell, not a human. I find your unicellular perspective to be constrained and limited, although I suppose that goes with the territory? There seems little point in continuing this discussion with such a limited correspondent, so I will not.GE Morton wrote: ↑May 19th, 2022, 2:10 pm Er, no, PC. That humans are individuals is an undeniable, observable fact. And that those individuals differ in countless ways, and especially in their respective talents, abilities, temperaments, and interests, is also an undeniable, observable fact. Those differences are extensive enough and distinct enough to render each of them unique. Individualism is nothing more that the recognition of those facts. No "faith" is involved.
...
Er, PC, a group (of humans) is nothing more than than the individuals who comprise it. It is not something distinct from them which can be "balanced" against those individuals. You're making a "category mistake" (Gilbert Ryle).
For any humans reading this, the GEM-cell is quite wrong. It asserts that a network consists only of its nodes. Without the nodes, a network cannot exist; without the connections, a network cannot exist. The function of a network depends on its nodes and connections. Society is such a network; it comprises individuals (nodes) and interconnections (connections) and their consequent interactions.
N.B. The existence of society does not require that individuals do not exist; this seems to be the Libertarian Mistake.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
I have found the following written references on the matter:Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 21st, 2022, 4:02 amCan you cite that? Or did you just make it up?heracleitos wrote: ↑May 21st, 2022, 12:10 amIn Islamic law, women never have an obligation to support themselves. If they do not have a husband, the father, brother, or uncle will take them in.
Saudi Arabia has just changed their secular laws to allow it:https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234650383.pdf
In practice: In most Islamic Society, it is generally unacceptable for a divorced woman to live alone (as is usually also the case with unmarried women). In most situations women who bind themselves divorced will return to live with their parents or to the household of another close relative.
I am against the ruling mafia enforcing religious law. Unlike the State, religion is a true consensus. It is not a thing for Statist enforcement. I actually do not want the State to get involved, because it discredits religion as a weapon against the ruling mafia. Hence, I reject secular laws that try to mimic religious law. We really don't need that kind of things.https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210 ... e-guardian
In a landmark move, Saudi Arabia is to allow unmarried, divorced or widowed women to live alone without the consent of close male relatives who are normally their guardians, or wali according to Islamic law. The judicial authorities in the ultra-conservative Kingdom have abolished Paragraph B of article 169 of the Law of Procedure before Sharia Courts. The amendment will enable single women to stay in their own separate accommodation.
The practical problem with divorced women living alone, remains the funding of their "separate accommodation". Neither the government, nor the guardian, nor the ex-husband will pay for that. The divorced woman may be able to pay for it by herself, but what if she can't? In my opinion, in that case, it would be better for her to remarry. But then again, that is not always a solution either. What if no man manages to live with her?
So, yes, in Islam, all female relatives can end up causing damage to your bank account. They can also suddenly move in with you. According to the religion, you are on the hook for them.
Overpopulation was the old concern.
The new concern is that a rapidly aging population develops herd anti-immunity and attracts pandemics. With not enough young people around, the elderly are going to die off from diseases that spread much more easily. Given the reverse age pyramid in many countries, aging countries are most likely going to go through a population collapse.
I live in SE Asia. In my opinion, there is too much money floating around in countries such as Saudi or the UAE. It makes me feel poor. But then again, religion has nothing to do with nationality or territory. It is a belief, and not a geographical area. Islam has local communities all over the world.
There is no national state that can afford to go to war with Islam. NATO tried and got recently deported from Kabul Airport. France tried as well, and the result was 2 billion Muslims across the globe burning the French flag, which amounted to a very, very last warning, the kind of which Vladimir Putin apparently handed to the Ukraine in January before his "special operation".
Muslims live wherever they do, protected by the global Islamic consensus.
Our primary protection is not the national state but the global Islamic community.
There is no national state that dares to provoke the hardcore of Islamic diehards. That is why I like these diehards so much. It is them who ultimately convinced me to "join Islam", well rather, to adopt Islamic law. The ruling mafia deeply fears Islamic law, because they know that it is a law with very strong teeth.
You see, as an individual person, you otherwise do not have much recourse. There is a serious risk of getting bullied around. You need protection from all these mafias. In my opinion, the only protection from a violent mafia, is another violent mafia. But then again, the ones based on coercion will eventually collapse. That is why I prefer a mafia based on voluntary consensus.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
I think you'll find that both religion and 'the State' can be, but aren't necessarily, consensual.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
Old quote of uncertain origin but often attributed to George Washington:heracleitos wrote: ↑May 20th, 2022, 10:12 pm
A government is not a legitimate "consensus". It is primarily based on coercion. That is why it cannot survive long term.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, makes a dangerous servant and fearsome master."
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
Rosa Parks was arrested. Thoreau thought civil disobedience was reasonable, although the disobedient one should accept his punishment.Good_Egg wrote: ↑May 21st, 2022, 2:50 am
Does that apply equally to Rosa Parks ? And anyone else who breaks a law that you disapprove of ?
The basic question here is whether you believe in some sort of natural law - some standard to which the State and everybody else can be held - or whether you believe there is no such thing.
If you do, then we can argue about what conduct and what statutes are morally good, according to that natural law.
If you think there is some inherent wrongness in a whites-only restaurant, for example, then I'd be interested in whether you think a similar wrongness applies to boys-only schools and women-only beauty parlours or hairdressers.
But it may be that you think there is no inherent wrongness in anything, and the word "should" in the above just slipped out... ?
I disagree, of course, as does everyone else. Germans who harbored Jews under Nazism were subject to the death penalty. I don't think they deserved it.
I do think there are things which are inherently right and wrong. I'll grant that I may think so because of my cultural conditioning -- indeed, I probably do. Regarding my dispute with GE (you are a Johnny-come-lately; we have been arguing about these issues endlessly and resolved nothing) I think that "life" and "liberty" are "natural rights", whereas "property" (despite Locke) is not.
To recap my position for you (I've stated it to GE innumerable times) I'll suggest:
1) All rights are nothing more than obligations. Your right to life obliges people not to kill you (it does not protect you from cancer, grizzly bears, or sharks). Your right to liberty obliges other people not to restrict your freedom (it does not protect your freedom in any other way).
2) Property rights are not natural rights (GE calls them "common rights", but I would merely say they are culturally determined). They exist only at the whims of the societies which promote them. GE claims that "first possession" grants some sort of "right" to ownership, but does not continue by arguing why first possession "SHOULD" provide a right to ownership. Clearly, in human history, first possession did not always confer a right to ownership -- in many raiding societies taking things first possessed by others was the normal way of life (think: Apaches or Mongols).
Corollary derived from the above: Since all rights are (and can be) nothing more than obligations, all rights limit liberty. This is obvious from the above -- if we are obliged not to kill someone, our liberty to kill someone is limited, etc, etc.
3) Property rights are in conflict with the right to liberty. This too is obvious. Property rights oblige people to restrict their freedom to trespass or to drive away in someone else's car, or to eat apples from a tree "owned" by someone else without permission.
4) In general, natural rights (Life #!, and Liberty #2) trump other rights. But, of course, we limit natural rights to create an orderly society.
Given these basic premises, let's look at laws prohibiting racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace. In general, I think that regulating the economic sector is a legitimate role of government. Law enforcement prevents fraud, enforces contracts, and protects from robbery. Liberty (the right to free speech) protects the right to lie, but it is reasonable to limit lying in advertising, or in contractual promises. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to require restaurants open to the public to refrain from banning people based on race or gender.
There are, of course, ways around this. As you point out, regulating businesses may be distinct from regulating non-profits. Private Clubs, Schools, and other non-profits may be more exclusionary. (I'm not sure about beauty parlors -- they should probably serve men as well as women). In fact, when Civil Rights laws were passed in the South, some restaurants tried to avoid the law by becoming private clubs. I'm not sure what the legal results were.
Here's a quick recap: Since all rights (in fact, all laws) limit liberty, all laws and rights are in conflict with other laws and rights. We must aften decide between conflicting interests. Property rights conflict with the right to liberty of movement. My position: liberty of movement-- which is a "natural right" -- is more important than a property right, Therefore we must be quite sure the property right's value is significant before we allow someone's property right to trump some else's freedom of movement. Based on this, I'd suggest that we should allow trespassing on private property that is unimproved: meadows and forests, for example, but often prevent it indoors, or on plowed and cultivated fields. In addition, we should (in the interest of free speech) liberalize the plagiarism and libel laws. Although we want to allow artists to make money, school groups who are putting on copyrighted plays should be able to do so free of charge. The copyright should only protect against other people making money off the copying. This would be an example of regulating the economic sector, while offering more freedom in non-economic sectors.
GE argues that laws preventing racial discrimination in the work place prohibit the right to "free association" of the owner. But this is true if and only if the property is seen as some sort of extension of the owner's person (which is, I think, how GE sees it). If, instead, property is seen as a culturally constructed artifact, then the owner's right to free association is not limited. He can simply sell the business and free associate wherever he chooses.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
Sorry, Sy, but "mentally destroyed" is a hyperbolic, polemical metaphor with no substantive content. You'll need to specify some tangible, diagnosable, observable injuries resulting from Alfie's refusal to refer to Bruno with "she," if you propose to punish Alfie for that refusal. Neither a refusal to pander to another's delusions, declining to befriend or associate with someone, and not even a verbal insult are tortious acts ("Sticks and stones may break my bones . . . "). Anyone who might be "destroyed" by such refusals should seek counseling to repair their unstable psyches --- or just grow a thicker skin.Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 20th, 2022, 8:28 pm
For you, the weak must be left to be mentally destroyed by any bullies or psychopaths who choose to destroy them, and the state must not ever protect those weak people, no matter how injured, disabled or marginalised they may be. If they are weak, you advocate letting the strong destroy them mentally and emotionally, if that is how the strong wish to exercise their freedom.
More polemical hyperbole. "Harrassment" is well-defined in law. Here is how it is generally defined:Social democracy, flawed as it is, is vastly more coherent, rational and moral than your biased fake libertarianism, which is actually just authoritarianism masquerading as "freedom". You advocate freedom in all areas but those important to the left - such as the freedom to simply exist without being harassed into an early grave.
"Criminal Harassment Defined
"Harassment that reaches the level of a crime varies slightly by state, but it generally entails:
"* Targeting someone
"* With behavior meant to alarm, annoy, torment, or terrorize, and
"* Creating reasonable fear in the victim for their safety or the safety of their family or property."
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/crimin ... sment.html
Refusing to refer to a male with "she" does none of those things.
Egads. If you think the "logical extension" of denying that "improper pronoun use" is a crime is that murder and rape are not crimes either, then you are in desperate need of a refresher course in logic. You've become so enmired in the swamp of fatuous lefty rhetoric that you can no longer distinguish sense from nonsense."GE Morton, the logical extension of your ideology is that it is wrong for the state to forbid murder, rape and theft, because this inhibits the right of people who wish to steal, rape and murder.
Ah. I suppose that is a "logical extension" of my comments regarding pronoun use also?A government of your choice would immediately bring out the tear gas, guns and jackboots to disperse any left-wing protest marches that disrupted traffic and business activity.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
Locke did not claim that rights to property are natural rights (other than the right to one's body).Ecurb wrote: ↑May 21st, 2022, 11:02 am
I do think there are things which are inherently right and wrong. I'll grant that I may think so because of my cultural conditioning -- indeed, I probably do. Regarding my dispute with GE (you are a Johnny-come-lately; we have been arguing about these issues endlessly and resolved nothing) I think that "life" and "liberty" are "natural rights", whereas "property" (despite Locke) is not.
Last two sentences are correct, but rights must be something more than obligations in order for them to entail any obligations. The obligations arise from specific facts about that relationship (between a person and something to which he claims a right). The obligations don't arise ex nhilo.1) All rights are nothing more than obligations. Your right to life obliges people not to kill you (it does not protect you from cancer, grizzly bears, or sharks). Your right to liberty obliges other people not to restrict your freedom (it does not protect your freedom in any other way).
I've given that several times. The moral basis for the first possession rule is obvious and quite straightforward. Every person requires various material goods to survive and prosper --- food, water, shelter, various other goods. While there is no natural right to any particular property (other than one's body), there is a natural right to seek out and take possession of whatever material goods one may need or desire, and to produce such goods. All animals have that power, and regularly exercise it. Humans, however, are moral agents, and their rights to take possession of some material good are subject to a moral constraint --- namely, that one may not inflict losses or injuries on other moral agents. Hence the only material goods one may freely take are those not in the possession of and conferring benefits upon another moral agent, who would suffer a loss or injury should that good be taken from him. The first possessor of a desired good, however, per force inflicts no loss or injury upon another moral agent, since no one else hitherto derived any benefit from that good. Such takings are "righteous" and thereby confer a "right" to that good; it becomes his property.2) Property rights are not natural rights (GE calls them "common rights", but I would merely say they are culturally determined). They exist only at the whims of the societies which promote them. GE claims that "first possession" grants some sort of "right" to ownership, but does not continue by arguing why first possession "SHOULD" provide a right to ownership.
Yes, all rights limit liberty. Liberty is restrained by the "fundamental principle" just mentioned: one may not inflict losses or injuries on other moral agents.Corollary derived from the above: Since all rights are (and can be) nothing more than obligations, all rights limit liberty. This is obvious from the above -- if we are obliged not to kill someone, our liberty to kill someone is limited, etc, etc.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
This is where we disagree. "Taking possession" of property ALWAYS inflicts loss or injury on other people. If you take possession of an apple tree, other people lose the right to eat the apples. Supposing that the apple tree would be inevitably discovered by many other people, this creates a loss. "Owning" land prevents other people from walking where they will on God's Green Earth. They "lose" that right. All ownbership inflicts similar losses on other people, but some are more justified than others. If someone builds a house, he (not others) has expended money and effort to do so. He has lost something by building the house, and his gain in recompense is that he can correctly keep strangers from sleeping in it. If, on the other hand, he merely discovers what would inevitably by discovered by others, he is inflicting a loss on them without deserving any recompense.GE Morton wrote: ↑May 21st, 2022, 1:02 pm
I've given that several times. The moral basis for the first possession rule is obvious and quite straightforward. Every person requires various material goods to survive and prosper --- food, water, shelter, various other goods. While there is no natural right to any particular property (other than one's body), there is a natural right to seek out and take possession of whatever material goods one may need or desire, and to produce such goods. All animals have that power, and regularly exercise it. Humans, however, are moral agents, and their rights to take possession of some material good are subject to a moral constraint --- namely, that one may not inflict losses or injuries on other moral agents. Hence the only material goods one may freely take are those not in the possession of and conferring benefits upon another moral agent, who would suffer a loss or injury should that good be taken from him. The first possessor of a desired good, however, per force inflicts no loss or injury upon another moral agent, since no one else hitherto derived any benefit from that good. Such takings are "righteous" and thereby confer a "right" to that good; it becomes his property.
Also, since property is not an extension of one's body, the owner of a restaurant does NOT lose the right to free association when he is barred from discriminatory practices. Nobody forced him to own a restaurant. He can choose another line of work, like chairing Ku Klux Klan meetings.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
Well, now you've switched terminology. Your comment, to which I responded was, "Reality features a fruitful and dynamic balance between the individual and the group."Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 21st, 2022, 7:01 am
For any humans reading this, the GEM-cell is quite wrong. It asserts that a network consists only of its nodes. Without the nodes, a network cannot exist; without the connections, a network cannot exist. The function of a network depends on its nodes and connections. Society is such a network; it comprises individuals (nodes) and interconnections (connections) and their consequent interactions.
Now you're speaking of "networks," not "groups." Not all groups are networks, but yes, unlike groups, networks presume connections between nodes. But "balancing" makes no more sense with respect to networks than to groups. What is it that must be balanced? I suppose the your answer would be the "needs" of the network v. those of a "node." But then you're back to the beginning, since only the "nodes" of the network have needs. The network has no needs other than those of the "nodes."
Society is indeed a type of network, but unlike (say) a computer or telephone network, the connections between "nodes" are not hardwired; they are dynamic, volatile, and are are selected by the "nodes" to advance their own interests and purposes, not by a systems engineer (though many politicians and social scientists imagine that to be their role) to advance some interest or purpose --- or fantasy -- of the designer.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
Only because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence, because it's inconvenient to your fantasies based on 19th century science that humans are not diverse.GE Morton wrote: ↑May 21st, 2022, 11:58 amSorry, Sy, but "mentally destroyed" is a hyperbolic, polemical metaphor with no substantive content.Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 20th, 2022, 8:28 pm
For you, the weak must be left to be mentally destroyed by any bullies or psychopaths who choose to destroy them, and the state must not ever protect those weak people, no matter how injured, disabled or marginalised they may be. If they are weak, you advocate letting the strong destroy them mentally and emotionally, if that is how the strong wish to exercise their freedom.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstacey ... 2455b4716e
The numbers are stark, worrisome and should set off alarm bells: 52% of all transgender and nonbinary young people in the U.S. seriously contemplated killing themselves in 2020. More than half thought it would be better to be dead, rather than trying to live with rejection, isolation, loneliness, bullying and being targeted by politicians and activists pushing anti-trans legislation.
The post (taken out of context) was not just about undermining the sense of identity of vulnerable transpeople who are already often teetering on the edge of suicide. I appreciate that you are a transgender flat-Earther, unable to absorb science conducted in the last century. I don't expect sense from you in this area.GE Morton wrote: ↑May 21st, 2022, 11:58 amEgads. If you think the "logical extension" of denying that "improper pronoun use" is a crime is that murder and rape are not crimes either, then you are in desperate need of a refresher course in logic. You've become so enmired in the swamp of fatuous lefty rhetoric that you can no longer distinguish sense from nonsense."GE Morton, the logical extension of your ideology is that it is wrong for the state to forbid murder, rape and theft, because this inhibits the right of people who wish to steal, rape and murder.
Ah. I suppose that is a "logical extension" of my comments regarding pronoun use also?A government of your choice would immediately bring out the tear gas, guns and jackboots to disperse any left-wing protest marches that disrupted traffic and business activity.
Thus, the point was broader.
You are a self-declared libertarian, yes? You are completely against all government interventions, aside from cases of murder, rape and theft, yes?
So how can you justify government intervention in these areas? Government should not interfere with private business, yes?
Why draw the line at murder, rape and theft? If people are killed, raped or robbed, that's their fault for being weak. You said yourself that people should just harden up if they have a problem rather than expect government to intervene. Of course, the vulnerability of teenagers - especially those struggling with sexual identity (a mind bogglingly difficult personal problem that few will ever have to face) - is much greater than most, but the general principle is the question of vulnerability and protection of the weak by authorities.
In what areas of society can governments validly intervene, and why are only those areas valid and not others?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?
Er, no. You can't "lose" what you never had in the first place.
Well, first, there is no "right to eat the apples" until one has taken possession of the apples. Property rights are not abstract; they relate specific persons to specific things. The only natural right anyone has with respect to apples is the right to search for them, and to take possession of any one finds.If you take possession of an apple tree, other people lose the right to eat the apples. Supposing that the apple tree would be inevitably discovered by many other people, this creates a loss.
But you seem to be offering the hoary "loss of opportunity" argument, which I'm sure I've refuted before. It leads to a reductio ad absurdum, first outlined by Robert Nozick: If Alfie cannot take the only apple left on an unowned tree because it would deprive Bruno of the opportunity to pick it, then Bruno can't take it either, because that would leave Chauncey without that opportunity, etc. Even if there are 2 apples on the tree, Alfie can't take one, because that would leave only one apple, which Bruno could not take because Chauncey would then be left without an apple. Since Bruno can't take that last apple, Alfie can't take the 2nd to last. That problem arises even if there are initially 100 apples on the tree. No one can take even the first apple, and everyone starves.
"Opportunities" are things to be seized. An "opportunity" one cannot seize is not an opportunity at all. And loss of an opportunity is not a tangible loss, i.e., a reduction in welfare.
Moreover, the "lost opportunity" argument, absurd though it is, does not apply to most property. There are two means by which someone might become a first possessor of something --- by discovering it (as with the apples) or by creating/producing it. Most wealth consists in produced goods, not discovered goods (only about 0.5% of the US GDP, for example, represents natural resource goods). Building a house denies no one else the opportunity to build house.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.TOTL.RT.ZS
They don't have any such right. They only have a right to walk on land not owned by someone else, just as they only have right to pick apples not owned by someone else. You're again invoking the absurd "lost opportunity" argument."Owning" land prevents other people from walking where they will on God's Green Earth. They "lose" that right.
You apparently still don't see the blatant contradiction in that claim. That is amazing. "Free association" entails the right to discriminate, on racial or any other grounds. "Free" association means lack of constraints on one's choices regarding with whom to enter into a relationship.Also, since property is not an extension of one's body, the owner of a restaurant does NOT lose the right to free association when he is barred from discriminatory practices.
LOL. Sound like an argument a mafiosi might make to a restauranteur objecting to paying protection money.Nobody forced him to own a restaurant. He can choose another line of work, like chairing Ku Klux Klan meetings.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023