Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

Living in a city that has suffered because of homelessness, I can attest that even thinking completely selfishly, it is in the interest of the well off to address the homeless problem (even if one believes in the "right" of the wealthy/lucky to "their" good fortune).

I agree that builders logically make decisions based on their best interest, thus it falls onto the government to address issues such as less profitable housing that is in the public interest. The government should do this for many reasons. It is in the interest of the homeless, current homeowners, and everyone in the community.

[GE Morton]

The only "right to+ housing" that anyone has is his right to a house he has built, or acquired via a chain of consent from the builder.

in 1066 William invaded Britain, he divided the country between his generals. They took land and property that did not belong to them and taxed the population to fund their lifestyles. Many of the Lords today can trace their ancestry and wealth back to 1066.

Europeans stole land from the native Indians in America through land transfers.

The "right" you assert is a fiat right (a "fright") conjured from thin air by lefty ideologues in the mid-20th century. It is a fiction, without any moral or historical basis,

It is the right people in power gave themselves to take land and property.

I'm not sure I'm following your argument. Are you saying that because someone in the past got away with murdering, plundering, and enslaving, that everyone now has a "right" to do those things?

Methinks you need to research the meaning of that word.

[GE Morton]

The correct name for that claim is "slavery."

You are not doing your argument any favors with this comment. Marx claimed capitalism was "slavery" because the owners of the means of production were able to control the products created by the labor of their employees.

Oh, yes indeed. Marx was the first of the modern purveyors of Newspeak, indulging in it before Orwell gave the tactic a name.

No, "slavery" does not mean, "ability of employers to control the products created by the labor of their employees." It means forced labor --- uncompensated labor compelled under threat of physical punishment or death.

No employees (in Western countries) are forced to work by their employers, and no employer will inflict any punishment on any employee who quits his job. Nor are the company's products "created by the labor of their employees." They are created by the company, which supplied the concept and design of the product, as well as the raw materials, tools, machinery, power, and the shop premises where it was produced. The workers only contributed to the creation of the product, and were paid for their contribution via their wages, which they agreed to accept when taking the job, just as the contributors of the raw materials, machinery, etc., were paid for their contributions.

Taxes (in general) RESEMBLE slavery in some ways. So does limited ownership of the means of production. That doesn't mean that either one IS slavery.

Taxes resemble slavery to the extent that they seize, by force, a portion of the products of someone's labor to pay for goods or services which do not benefit the taxpayer. Voluntary employment in a free market does not resemble slavery in ANY way.

[GE Morton]

I agree with you, of course, but I don't think the issue is that anyone is going around tearing down the homes of the poor (one relevant exception is that we often destroy tent cities of homeless people, and these are the only homes they have at that moment). Rather, we don't find any incentive in the free market to create proper housing for the poor.

We allow the market to decide what is built, and things get built that best benefit the builders. They build the largest houses that people in the particular market are willing and able to buy, as that is what creates the most profit for them in the particular instance.

What benefits the builders is profits. Unless those builders build what customers are able and willing to buy, there are no profits. Customers decide what is built; not the builders.

Add up all those instances, and we end up with a lot of homes that are bigger than they need to be.

"Need to be"? Per what criterion? To whose "needs" do you refer? Are you presuming to decide for Alfie what his housing needs are?

You're correct that there is no incentive in a free market to build houses for the poor, since the poor, by hypothesis, can't pay for them.

We should have some incentives to build houses that fit the people that badly need them. I don't know how we could make that happen in our current political environment in the US, where any attempt to make things better by public means is met with accusations of socialism, which is a four letter word here. So, if you think not depriving people of homes actually means providing housing opportunities for them (I do), then it will be a tough sell.

Actually there are two ways to make that happen: First, provide some sound and convincing moral arguments as to why Alfie should provide housing for Bruno, i.e., showing that Alfie has some obligation to do that. Second, persuade everyone who professes to believe they have such an obligation to "put their money where their mouths are" --- to invite a few homeless persons to share their homes. Perhaps start a registry, where people who share that belief can post their offerings: "I can accommodate 3 homeless persons in my home," etc. Unless those homeless advocates are hypocrites, that could put a big dent in the homeless problem.

But most of those advocates are, I suspect, "humanitarians by proxy" --- they're all for helping the poor, provided they can do it with someone else's money.

[Ecurb]

Oh, yes indeed. Marx was the first of the modern purveyors of Newspeak, indulging in it before Orwell gave the tactic a name.

No, "slavery" does not mean, "ability of employers to control the products created by the labor of their employees." It means forced labor --- uncompensated labor compelled under threat of physical punishment or death.

No employees (in Western countries) are forced to work by their employers, and no employer will inflict any punishment on any employee who quits his job. Nor are the company's products "created by the labor of their employees." They are created by the company, which supplied the concept and design of the product, as well as the raw materials, tools, machinery, power, and the shop premises where it was produced. The workers only contributed to the creation of the product, and were paid for their contribution via their wages, which they agreed to accept when taking the job, just as the contributors of the raw materials, machinery, etc., were paid for their contributions.


Taxes resemble slavery to the extent that they seize, by force, a portion of the products of someone's labor to pay for goods or services which do not benefit the taxpayer. Voluntary employment in a free market does not resemble slavery in ANY way.

Bunk, bullocks, and balderdash! Apparently, you don't know what "slavery" means, or what "forced labor means" or what logical thinking or rational argument involves.

Slavery: the condition of being enslaved, held, or owned as human chattel or property; bondage.
a practice or institution that treats or recognizes some human beings as the legal property of others.

Slavery does not mean "uncompensated or forced labor". That's only part of the meaning of bondage. It also means being owned by another person (which taxation does not involve); the loss of freedom of movement (which taxation doesn't involve) and the legal right of your owner to separate parents from children and husbands from wives (which taxation doesn't involve).

Tax payers are not "owned" by those for whom they pay taxes to provide housing. They live in a democratic society that decides to distribute taxes in that manner. Marx's error (OH no! Newspeak! Call the Libertarian Police!) was not to object to the owners of the means of production having the legal right to control the proletariat. It was to compare that right to chattel slavery -- an error almost (but not quite) as egregious as your own.

When you say that taxation IS slavery, you prove only that you lack the rhetorical skill to make your case. Movies and stage plays both involve actors reciting scripted lines. That doesn't mean movies ARE stage plays. Nor does some slight similarity of forced taxation and slavery mean that taxation IS slavery. How you are unable to see this is a mystery, as it is obvious to any third grader.

[GE Morton]

Bunk, bullocks, and balderdash! Apparently, you don't know what "slavery" means, or what "forced labor means" or what logical thinking or rational argument involves.

Slavery: the condition of being enslaved, held, or owned as human chattel or property; bondage.
a practice or institution that treats or recognizes some human beings as the legal property of others.

Slavery does not mean "uncompensated or forced labor".

"SLAVERY (noun)
"1a: the practice of slaveholding
" b: the state of a person who is held in forced servitude"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery

"SLAVERY (noun)

"1. the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his or her life, liberty, and fortune
"2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work"

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... sh/slavery

"SLAVERY, noun [See Slave.]

"1. Bondage; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another. slavery is the obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract of consent of the servant."

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/slavery

That's only part of the meaning of bondage. It also means being owned by another person . . .

Ownership is merely a legal pretext for the forced labor. ("He is my property, so I may do with him what I will"). The original and primary meaning was to denote forced labor (which, was, of course, the purpose of the property claim). Not all slavery is chattel slavery.

Tax payers are not "owned" by those for whom they pay taxes to provide housing.

Not necessary. And taxation (to pay for something of no benefit to the taxpayer) is not slavery; nor did I so claim. I said it resembles slavery, in that the taxpayer is forced to work for another's benefit. It is simply theft.

When you say that taxation IS slavery . . .

Didn't say that. Go back and read it again, this time actually paying attention to the words.

[Belindi]

A dwelling place is an inalienable human right.

Well, no, Belindi, it is not. At least, not according to the understanding of "rights" found throughout the classical liberal tradition. No such "right" is to be found in the US Bill of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of Rights, or anywhere in the common law. The only "right to housing" that anyone has is his right to a house he has built, or acquired via a chain of consent from the builder.

The "right" you assert is a fiat right (a "fright") conjured from thin air by lefty ideologues in the mid-20th century. It is a fiction, without any moral or historical basis, invented to induce those who believe the world owes them a living to confer power, via their votes, on the ideologues.

The term "rights" carries much moral weight, because it denotes those things someone has gained righteously, i.e., without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else. Your frivolous Newspeak definition turns that meaning on its head, purporting to confer "rights" to the services of other people and to the products of their labor. The correct name for that claim is "slavery."

Oh yes it is! It's odd that libertarians choose to play the pantomine villain!

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.(1948 NB more up to date than any other declaration you cite).

Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

[Gertie]

A dwelling place is an inalienable human right.

Well, no, Belindi, it is not. At least, not according to the understanding of "rights" found throughout the classical liberal tradition. No such "right" is to be found in the US Bill of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of Rights, or anywhere in the common law. The only "right to housing" that anyone has is his right to a house he has built, or acquired via a chain of consent from the builder.

The "right" you assert is a fiat right (a "fright") conjured from thin air by lefty ideologues in the mid-20th century. It is a fiction, without any moral or historical basis, invented to induce those who believe the world owes them a living to confer power, via their votes, on the ideologues.

The term "rights" carries much moral weight, because it denotes those things someone has gained righteously, i.e., without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else. Your frivolous Newspeak definition turns that meaning on its head, purporting to confer "rights" to the services of other people and to the products of their labor. The correct name for that claim is "slavery."

Oh yes it is! It's odd that libertarians choose to play the pantomine villain!

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.(1948 NB more up to date than any other declaration you cite).

Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Rights are whatever we decide they are, and those look like the right sort of Rights to me!

[Ecurb]

Didn't say that. Go back and read it again, this time actually paying attention to the words.

I hate to be unneighborly, GE, but you're prevaricating again. Here's what you wrote:

The term "rights" carries much moral weight, because it denotes those things someone has gained righteously, i.e., without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else. Your frivolous Newspeak definition turns that meaning on its head, purporting to confer "rights" to the services of other people and to the products of their labor. The correct name for that claim is "slavery."

Now, Karl Marx (who I also think is prevaricating) called Capitalism "slavery" because the owners of the means of production had a "right" to control the products of the workers' labor. You call taxation "slavery" because some people (Gertie for one) think poor people have a "right" to tax dollars. Then you say, "The correct name for that claim is "slavery'." Marx's claim makes more sense than yours, given the definitions of slavery you offered above. But everyone knows what slavery means. We might say we're "slaving away in the coal mine" when we're working in a comfortable office -- but when we do, we're prevaricating -- exaggerating to make a point.

Let me ask, is the "correct term" for taxing people to pay teachers, police, soldiers, bureaucrats, and other public emploees "slavery"? If these peope have a right to be paid, they (like those living in public housing) are being paid with tax money -- the forcibly collected product of other people's labor. Trying to distinguish the two based on what the taxed RECEIVE is, again, dissembling. Some people don't (directly) receive anything from the services of teachers.

The "correct name" for a thing is the name for that thing, not some other word which is freighted with negative emotional resonance. The correct name for taxation is not "slavery". It is (wait for it.......... wait for it....) "taxation". If you want to argue that some uses of tax dollars are morally insupportable, you are free to do so. Calling them "slavery" does not further your cause or support your argument. Is medicare (conferring as it does a "right" to health care) slavery because it is paid for with tax dollars?

[GE Morton]

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.(1948 NB more up to date than any other declaration you cite).

Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Oh, yes. The UN Declaration was the first "formal" compilation of the fiat "rights" I mentioned. Those "frights" bear no relation to rights as understood in the liberal tradition or the common law; they were conjured from thin air by Eleanor Roosevelt, and unlike real rights, have no rational or moral basis.

They also contradict two other rights codified in that Declaration:

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

There is no way to satisfy Article 25 without violating Articles 3 and 17.

The problem with the UN Declaration is found in Article 1:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Human beings do not constitute a brotherhood; nor do the members of any modern political society. Nor will they ever "act toward one another" as though they are. That sophomoric ethical imperative rests on the organic fallacy.

The UN Declaration is not an "update" of the concept of rights. It is a perversion, a parody, of it.

[GE Morton]

Rights are whatever we decide they are, and those look like the right sort of Rights to me!

Oh, no! The Humpty Dumpty theory of linguistics: "'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’"

https://www.thoughtco.com/humpty-dumpty ... ge-2670315

[Belindi]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages. The UDHR is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels (all containing references to it in their preambles).

[GE Morton]

Didn't say that. Go back and read it again, this time actually paying attention to the words.

I hate to be unneighborly, GE, but you're prevaricating again. Here's what you wrote:

The term "rights" carries much moral weight, because it denotes those things someone has gained righteously, i.e., without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else. Your frivolous Newspeak definition turns that meaning on its head, purporting to confer "rights" to the services of other people and to the products of their labor. The correct name for that claim is "slavery."

Yes, someone who claims a "right" to the services of other people or to the products of their labor is advocating slavery. Er, where is the "prevarication"?

You call taxation "slavery" because some people (Gertie for one) think poor people have a "right" to tax dollars.

Again, I did NOT call taxation "slavery." You repeat the misquote earlier pointed out. I said that taxes, when seized to pay for goods or services of no benefit to the taxpayer, RESEMBLE slavery, in that they confiscate the products of the taxpayer's labor for the benefit of someone other than the taxpayer. They are not exactly slavery, however, in that the taxed person is not forced to work and produce the wealth the government steals. He can quit producing, leaving the government nothing to steal, without punishment.

And, of course, neither poor people or any other people have any "right" to the services of other people or to the products of their labor. Anyone who so claims does not know what the term "right" (in the sense relevant here) means. (Gertie, above, seeks to avoid this charge by adopting the Humpty Dumpty theory of meaning).

Then you say, "The correct name for that claim is "slavery'." Marx's claim makes more sense than yours, given the definitions of slavery you offered above. But everyone knows what slavery means. We might say we're "slaving away in the coal mine" when we're working in a comfortable office -- but when we do, we're prevaricating -- exaggerating to make a point.

Oh, yes. There are many metaphorical, hyperbolic, polemical uses of "slavery." We're speaking here of the literal meaning.

Let me ask, is the "correct term" for taxing people to pay teachers, police, soldiers, bureaucrats, and other public emploees "slavery"?

If the services of those teachers, police, etc., confer no benefits on the taxpayer, then forcing him to pay for them RESEMBLES slavery --- for the reasons just given.

[Gertie]

Rights are whatever we decide they are, and those look like the right sort of Rights to me!

Oh, no! The Humpty Dumpty theory of linguistics: "'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’"

https://www.thoughtco.com/humpty-dumpty ... ge-2670315

Humpty -

''I hereby invent the concept of Laws. And the Law is:

It is Forbidden to have Eggs for Breakfast.''


And there was never another law ever, henceforth and for always, because it was so written that the Law is thus.

[GE Morton]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights.

It is that. Is marks the formal birth of fiat "rights" --- "rights" conjured into existence by decree.