ayaqoob1's forum posts
[QUOTE="RushKing"]We need to begin by asking these two questions.[QUOTE="Laihendi"] So you want to force people to pay "fair" wages but you also want to abolish the state. That is not going to work.Laihendi
What is private property?
How can one individual have absolute rule over an enterprise?
The answer is state violence. Private property is not a law of physics, it is a state privilege backed by state violence and is also a sign of a social hierarchy. Which means in an anarchist society an ex boss can't stop workers from managing the resources themselves, allowing every member to participate in the decision making process.
I do not believe state violence and vertical collectivism are the answer to problems.
Why do you believe that mob rule authoritarianism is any better than top-down authoritarianism? Most people are not qualified to make decisions concerning others. Anyways, property rights are a necessary means of enforcing a man's right to live. A man's property is the product of his actions, and a man must have secure ownership of the product of his actions if he is to be free to sustain his life by his own actions. That means the violence used to defend property that is legitimately his is violence used in defense of his life. Even if the state intervenes to protect him, the aggressor is the person violating that man's property while declaring that he has no claim to what is his. What do you mean by property rights? Land is not a product of man's actions so I guess no man can own land as property? Why are you okay with wage laborers being deprived of the full products of their labor when capitalists profit from them?Aren't the other sections of the constitutions a means to protect us from a tyrannical government? You know like the ones calling for checks and balances? If those measures are ignored why do you think the 2nd would be followed?One is to protect against the rise of a tyrannical government, as well as self defense, and protection of the nation from foreign threats.
The other was meant to distinctly define treason, and differentiate it from treason under English law
lostrib
But that would be treason..
Was to allow the people to take up arms against the government then why did the founders add this to the constitution?
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Why did they criminalize treason and resistance while also providing a way for people to committ treason and resist?
:roll:
If you've ever read John Rawls you know what I'm talking about.
The veil of ignorance
"Parties to the original position know nothing about their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of society.
The veil of ignorance blocks off this knowledge, such that one does not know what burdens and benefits of social cooperation might fall to him/her once the veil is lifted. With this knowledge blocked, parties to the original position must decide on principles for the distribution of rights, positions and resources in their society. As Rawls put it, "...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like".[5] The idea then, is to render moot those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation.
For example, in the imaginary society, one might or might not be intelligent, rich, or born into a preferred class. Since one may occupy any position in the society once the veil is lifted, the device forces the parties to consider society from the perspective of all members, including the worst-off and best-off members."
Difference principle
"1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. (Rawls 1993, pp. 56. The principles are numbered as they were in Rawls' original A Theory of Justice.)"
I think we should use these two principles to structure society
Log in to comment