<< That’s because you’re too dumb to understand what you’re talking about. >>

<< Instead of just garbling on thoughtlessly, why don’t you actually try to understand what you’re talking about? >>

Well Jardine, we did have a couple of reasonable exchanges there. It looked as though it could have developed into a meaningful conversation.

But alas, you blew it.

I’m not interested in any further correspondence with you. Bye.

Dear Jardine,

<<You didn't say why "nothing on earth could confer that type of ownership", but I presume you meant because it's not enforceable on outer planets.>>

Had this been what I meant, then indeed I would be contradicting myself. However this wasn't.

The reason nothing on earth could confer such strong/perfect/ideal ownership on a person is that in order to confer it, someone else, the conferrer, must have had that same level of ownership in the first place - but how then did the other person come to have it? Either this is a case of 'turtles all the way down' or some divine being or power conferred it on an historical human. Since you don't seem to believe the latter, I don't think that I need to argue against it.

<<Therefore the only moral principle that could further the moral wellbeing of the nation, consistent with the exercise of power to achieve it, is the principle of liberty.>>

Almost:sentence

A moral principle has to be a verb, a directive, while 'liberty' describes a state-of-affairs.
Also, a nation cannot have "moral wellbeing" since it is not a conscious entity. What you probably refer to, regards the morality or otherwise of legislators and executioners who act on behalf of a nation.

So the corresponding moral principle should be to AVOID DENYING THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS.

I agree.

Dear Ludwig,

<<We need political action, law and policy to protect the rights of the majority, to ensure that we all have similar rights, to plan for a healthy future for all of society, to control the ruthless and unscrupulous elements...>>

This statement can be made true by changing only one word, substituting 'need' with 'want'.

The question is whether it is morally correct to achieve what we want on the back of others.

Is it?

---

Dear Jardine again,

Getting one word wrong does not justify calling someone 'dumbo':
If you read Ludwig's corrected statement ('want' instead of 'need'), we all sometimes have immoral desires and so-long as we don't act on them that's OK. I think you should apologise to Ludwig.

“The reason nothing on earth could confer such strong/perfect/ideal … how then did the other person come to have it? “

I didn’t say anything about conferring ownership. I said “ownership denotes a right to use something to the exclusion of others, using force if necessary to exclude them.” There’s no need to assume that someone confers ownership, and there’s no reason why others cannot recognise such ownership; and no reason inconsistency in others, including a State, undertaking to defend it.

I don’t see why you characterise such ownership as “strong/perfect/ideal”. No-one here has yet established any just principle for any other kind.

“A moral principle has to be a verb, a directive, while 'liberty' describes a state-of-affairs.”

The moral principle I refer to is the principle of liberty, which is, you should be free to do what you want so long as you are not aggressing against the person or property of others. The verb is “be”, adverb “should”.

“Also, a nation cannot have "moral wellbeing" since it is not a conscious entity. What you probably refer to, regards the morality or otherwise of legislators and executioners who act on behalf of a nation.”

The nation, considered as all the people in the group denoted, can have moral wellbeing. And if the moral principle involved is true, and universal, then there’s no reason why the same moral principle cannot apply to all. I assert that the principle of liberty is true and universal, because
a) founded on the self-evident truth of a right to self-ownership, and
b) it cannot be denied without self-contradiction.

The moral proscription is on anyone, including legislators or officials, aggressing against the person or property of others.

I’m sorry Ludwig. I apologise for being insulting. Obviously your advocating physical violence against me is much more offensive.

You have given no reason for infringing the principle of liberty. After repeatedly evading, you finally admit you cannot exemplify a justification, and then, having conceded what's in issue, you keep popping back up again stubbornly re-asserting the same disproved and indefensible belief system.

I wrote:

>> We need political action, law and policy to protect the rights of the majority, to ensure that we all have similar rights, to plan for a healthy future for all of society, to control the ruthless and unscrupulous elements.. <<

Yuyutsu, you replied:

<< This statement can be made true by changing only one word, substituting 'need' with 'want'. >>

No no, we NEED it! We absolutely need it. We need laws that apply equally to everyone, so that the ruthless and aggressive elements won’t be allowed run amok over the top of the rest of us, and reduce our rights right down to the bare minimum.

Hey, it’s always a difficult balancing act. Every law restricts our right to do something. But in so doing, it helps protect our rights, which would be more significantly eroded if the unscrupulous and self-centred elements had free reign.

Isn’t this obvious?

Jardine seems to completely miss this fundamental point. Can you appreciate it Yuyutsu?

We absolutely need a strong rule of law.

Surely it would be quite immoral to argue against this, which would be arguing for an anarchic, dog-eat-dog, bad-guys-win, horrible world, wouldn’t it?

Dear Jardine,

If ownership isn't conferred, then there is nothing sacred and absolute about it (or tell me what else possibly makes it sacred and absolute), hence no reason why EVERYONE should respect it. SOME may recognise it, others not, some may form a state to defend it, others ignore it.

We don't find true ownership in nature. What we see around is only quasi-ownership, mock-ownership, pretend-ownership, which lasts only until government eyes your property or until your neighbour is hungry.

Yes, you WANT to have ownership, but it's equivalent to Ludwig wanting equality. Neither exists, neither is natural. Ludwig for example wouldn't recognise your ownership because he believes in socialism and a dingo for example wouldn't recognise your ownership because it doesn't understand the concept. You may believe that you NEED your ownership, but so does Ludwig believe that he NEEDS equality. A dingo believes that it needs to fill its stomach.

What sacred principle allows you for example to kill the taxman and dingo on your property, to save your crops and stock, but not the policeman who stops you on the road or your neighbour's barking-dog from across the fence?

You mentioned "the self-evident truth of a right to self-ownership": while self-ownership is undeniable, it does not even imply ownership over your body. The evident truth is that people, especially at both ends of their life, do not own their bodies and are helpless while others care for it, how much more so before they are born and after their body dies.

Similarly, there is no moral principle of liberty, no moral imperative to "be free". Most of us want to be free and our liberty should indeed be respected and treated AS sacred, but not because it is a sacred moral principle in itself.

The underlying moral principle that indirectly upholds liberty, and to some degree also ownership, is non-violence, Ahimsa, or as Hillel puts it: "What you hate being done unto you, do not do unto your fellow". The moral imperative is thus to respect other people's liberty, rather than to demand your own.

Dear Ludwig,

Please read what I just wrote to Jardine: much of it applies to you as well, only interchanging "ownership" with "equality", "socialism" with "capitalism", etc.

<<We need laws that apply equally to everyone>>

But laws never apply equally to everyone. The letter-of-the-law may be the same, but some are pleasured while others are pained by them.

Imposing laws is a form of violence.

It may perhaps be excused when made in self-defence, but legislators must be extremely careful not to cross that boundary.

<<so that the ruthless and aggressive elements won’t be allowed run amok over the top of the rest of us...>>

I appreciate that you want this, but utmost care should be taken to avoid using violence in order to achieve your goals, unless it's absolutely needed for self-defence.

<<Hey, it’s always a difficult balancing act.>>

Balancing between your wishes and hurting others?

Hurting others is wrong, but understandable if you must do it in self-defence. Ideally you should turn the other cheek, but that's not a realistic expectation from ordinary people.

<<Every law restricts our right to do something.>>

No, every law restricts our freedom to do something: see below.

<<But in so doing, it helps protect our rights, which would be more significantly eroded if the unscrupulous and self-centred elements had free reign.>>

What gives us 'rights' other than the law itself?
More laws mean more 'rights', requiring even more laws to protect them, hence even more violence.

Best stay away from 'rights' in the first place. Use legislation only as last resort to prevent violence and fraud against your people.

<<Surely it would be quite immoral to argue against this, which would be arguing for an anarchic, dog-eat-dog, bad-guys-win, horrible world, wouldn’t it?>>

Are you claiming that I am immoral? Anarchy put simply, is acknowledging that no person has a right to rule over another, to control another, to use violence against another. That a group of people organise to form a state, doesn't grant them any more moral powers than the sum of the moral powers those people had to begin with.