- 02 Aug 2018 19:32
#14936717
OK, consider an ethic according to which there are no rights at all; everyone is morally free to coerce everyone else whenever he can get away with it, but many people succeed in defending themselves well enough so that they control much of their own time. According to their ethic they have no right to self-ownership, or anything else but they have physical control over themselves and are therefore able to make arguments. One might plausibly claim that this comes close to describing the world we now live in.
One can think of lots of other systems of property rights that would work at least well enough to keep some people alive to argue philosophy.
So, why must we have self-owners and private property to argue?
"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia" Orwell
E l/r -10 : L/A -7.64
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I didn't impute ideas, marxist, libertarian, or otherwise into my arguments
OK, consider an ethic according to which there are no rights at all; everyone is morally free to coerce everyone else whenever he can get away with it, but many people succeed in defending themselves well enough so that they control much of their own time. According to their ethic they have no right to self-ownership, or anything else but they have physical control over themselves and are therefore able to make arguments. One might plausibly claim that this comes close to describing the world we now live in.
private ownership
One can think of lots of other systems of property rights that would work at least well enough to keep some people alive to argue philosophy.
So, why must we have self-owners and private property to argue?
"All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia" Orwell
E l/r -10 : L/A -7.64