Re: RMS

Ingo Menger schrieb:
On Mar 8, 3:05 pm, Joachim Durchholz <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Whether a society is justifiable is a question of what justifications
you accept.

Correct also. That would be a matter of discussion, right?
And in this discussion, I would note, that the ability to discuss
things must be considered "a first principle" at least, otherwise
people could not even clarify the question what ethical system is
justified.

Oh no. I'm not discussing the issue as a member of a restrictive society, but as a member of a society that guarantees freedom of speech and other human rights (well, at least to the extent that I dare write this *ggg*).

So, if we need an ethical system in order to prevent that all
conflicts are "solved" by brute force, we are by logical necessity
forced (!) to admit, that the use of the own brain, and tongue and so
on, in short the ownership of the own body (or, as others call it, the
right to live) must be a basic principle of that ethics.

First, all social systems are based on bodily force. Even in the most liberal society, if you don't accept the fine, you'll be arrested, and if you resist arrest, you're bodily forced into arrest. If you use arms to resist, you may even get shot.

Of course, in western culture, physical force is ultima ratio. Other societies handle this differently, some of them being remarkably stable (again, medieval societies had a good deal of violence built into them, without losing much stability).

So, no, I'm not forced to admit anything. It's more a matter of the goals a society strives for, and the justification it is willing to accept, rather than logical consequence.

Of course, if the goal is a society that respects human rights and grants the right to pursue happiness, then you cannot base it on brute force (except as ultima ratio). It's the kind of society I have been living in, and the kind of society I want to continue to live in.
If, on the other hand, the goal is a society that follows the principles of a specific confession (be it socialism, Christian faith, Muslim faith, capitalism, or fascism), to the exclusion of personal happiness and individual human rights, then brute force can be an effective means of establishing and perpetuating such a society. It would also be a society I would not want to live in (and I guess most people wouldn't want to, too).

I don't say it's easy. But I take my chance to counter the relativist
notion, that rights are somehow what society grants us. And if it
decides so, then what was right today will be wrong tomorrow and vice
versa.

But historically, this has happened, and more than once.

In the case of the commons, this can most probably be considered to be
a "free good" as long as there were no conflicts about usage.

Oh no, there was a *lot* of conflict about the use of commons. They were not "free goods" in any sense - they were protected not by property law (not much of that existed anyway), but by tradition, and woe to those who dared send their swines into the forest ahead of the proper time!

The full construction was like this:
The land was property of the king, who granted parts of it as fiefdoms to his followers (and these most definitely did not own the land).
The inhabitants of the land didn't own it, but they had rights to its use - such as the right to feed their swines in the oak forest, or have their cattle graze on the meadows. They were also supposed to organize things so that the land wasn't overused, and established traditions to do that (I imagine that many of these traditions were established long before the medieval fief system was introduced).
Nobody in the village had a personal property in the commons. In fact he couldn't sell these rights - he had the rights to the commons because he was part of the village. If somebody married into a different village, he lost all the rights in the old village and gained those in the new village. (Those who were evicted from their village lost their rights to any commons.)

No property in the commons. Still, a quite effective system of regulating the use of the commons.

> With
growing population and more cattle, conflicts indeed arouse, and the
former commons became a more and more scarce ressource. Today, they
are gone, and for a reason.

Sure, though growing population is just a small part of it.
Other factors were nobility that was overtaxing land and population to raise money for wars and personal luxury; a growing consensus that there should be personal property even in land (something unheard of outside of the Roman Empire, at least in Europe); possibly others that I don't recall.

Our "commons" today is the ocean with the fish in it, and the same
development occurs. Hopefully, property rights will emerge here soon,
otherwise, fish populations will be eradicated and even wars about the
last fish may break out.

Military action already has happened. More in the form of warships firing warning shots at fishing boats than real wars, though.

Regards,
Jo
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: THE STONE AGE, THE GHETTO AND THE PROMISCUITY PRINCIPLE
    ... > author FAILS to mention any renowned "uncultured society" where women ... > RIGHTS, dears, and not FAMILY RIGHTS. ... >> families in which they enjoy their freedom are impoverished and underachieving. ... education, job, food, a good, high quality standard of living, and a right to control my reproduction." ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Wintrolls killed CSMA
    ... >>Please specify these special rights. ... can legally get married to other mentally competent human adults. ... obvious moral and practical reasons why society doesn't want more people ... rejecting *your* morality is not the same thing as rejecting ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: THE STONE AGE, THE GHETTO AND THE PROMISCUITY PRINCIPLE
    ... author FAILS to mention any renowned "uncultured society" where women ... RIGHTS, dears, and not FAMILY RIGHTS. ... > families in which they enjoy their freedom are impoverished and underachieving. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Knoxys InGratitude to Men
    ... For the society you take for granted to ... Mark. ... the rights and freedoms that men grant them. ... who did the excluding, even when those men were our founders. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Wintrolls killed CSMA
    ... >>> 1) There are no 'special rights' involved anywhere in this debate. ... > and a child, or a goat, does not mean that nobody else can see the ... why Society in general does NOT recognize the legality of such ... The fact is, the Left (including all their sycophants, the perverts) is ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
Loading