National Collective Responsibility

[mr friendly guy]

Does the direct victims include children of the murdered / tortured person, since relatives in American civil cases are entitled to that money in wrongful death suits due to suffering. One can imagine if you were a child when your parent (a civillian) was murdered by Japanese soldiers then that child should be entitled to some money.

[Serafina]

This seems to greatly contradict the commonly held idea that people are free to live their own lives- are you saying that anybody (including, presumably, non-nationals who could have influence on the decision if they put enough effort into preventing it) is obliged to spend their lives preventing such things if they can?

The less your ability (and that includes knowledge) to influence something, the smaller your responsiblity about it.
If an earthquake knocks over an antique vase, i have little responsibility for it. At best i could have tried to put it into a more secure place, more so if i had foreknowledge about the possiblities of earthquakes.
If i open a window on a windy day and the vase get's knocked over by that, i would have more responsibility, since it was indirectly caused by my actions. If someone else did open it in my presence, i still have some responsibility because i could have stopped him.
If my cat knocks over the vase, i have responsiblity depending on my ability to train the cat not to do that or to keep it away from the vase. The same applies if my child does it.
If i have no way of knowing that the vase will get knocked over and/or no way of preventing it, i have no responsibility when it happens.

We apply this concept all the time. We have criminal neglicience in our legal books, and insurances work like that as well. I don't see why we can't apply it to nations and their citizens.
Of course the responsibility of the average citizen will be quite limited - a single vote doesn't change that much - but it's still there.

-Not all Germans (for example) were intelligent or insightful enough to realise that electing Hitler to power would lead to the Holocaust at the very least- if they had no way of knowning or didn't realise due to lack of intelligence can they really be held responsible?

Already addressed - knowledge, intelligence and the like are part of your "ability to prevent". If you lack them, your responsiblity is lower or non-existent.

-Why should people be obliged to fix the mistakes of their ancestors? They didn't cause their actions.

They ARE responsible for fixing the damage done that way. Why? Because someone has to do it, and assigning that task to those most closely related is the most logical action.
Furthermore, even if you want to argue that individuals are not responsible for doing so, nations certainly are. It's generally accepted that a nation, even a reformed one (say, Germany after WW II) inherits the responsibilities of it's past.
If we don't apply that principle, then it would be ludicrously easy for a nation to shed itself from any responsibility. In most cases, that's simply not acceptable.

[Carinthium]

1- You haven't adressed my objection that people are free to live their own lives. This also presumably applies if the Holocaust is going around them.
2- Even if criminal negligence weren't something which can only be caused by a person's actions, it would still be worth pointing out that legal and moral rules are not the same thing.
3- How is it logical? Your claim sounds more like Vulcan logic then real logic.
4- Just because something is generally accepted doesn't mean it is right.
5- Why treat nations like persons and assign them moral responsibilities anyway? As shown by the areas in which nationality is ambigious, even the idea of a nation is abstract.

It is more reasonable to say that stolen property should be given back to those it belongs to even after several generations, but forcing compensation punishes people for things they didn't do.

[mr friendly guy]

Also:
-Why should people be obliged to fix the mistakes of their ancestors? They didn't cause their actions.

If you want to play it that way, its more of a government is obligated to fix the actions of its predecessor(s). The same logic applies to legal entities which are counted as "a person", for example companies. To elaborate further, if you do not think a government (or company) is obligated to fix the actions of its predecessors, explain why

a) a country still owes financial debt despite a change in government, after all current British people weren't fighting in WWII, yet only in the last few years did the UK pay off its war debt. The same rationale can be used by any country to avoid paying its debt. If you think financial debt in the form of lending is different from debt in the form of reparations / compensation / money spent to correct mistakes etc, explain why.

b) how can Australian company James Hardie be forced to pay compensation to its workers from asbestos exposure, after all, the current board weren't responsible for those policies.

On another note its hilarious but sickening at the same time, that in my country we bitch about compensating Aborigines for trying to culturally genocide steal them away from their parents to extinguish their culture and teach them about Jesus and all that shit, on the grounds that it happened a long time ago (1970s was when it finally ended) and that I wasn't responsible, yet we do not object whatsoever when the government compensates military personel for a peace time disaster, even though that happened even before the Aboriginal kidnappings, and I certainly wasn't responsible because you know, I wasn't born yet and my parents weren't living in Australia nor citizens or permanent residents at the time, but whatever.

[Carinthium]

Most of your points can be countered with the fact that just because something is the way of things does not mean it is morally right. Given that people choose to invest in a company on the understanding that it will be liable for it's debts,

If I was actually in a position to influence matters, I would advocate an international system in which it would be a conventional constitutional or quasi-constitutional principle that countries would not be allowed to go into debt for the reasons you've mentioned. Also, I point out that nobody has refuted my argument that collective responsibility is close to slavery.

Finally, I'm not sure if this is the right thread for it but I'd be willing to debate the righteousness of the actions seen as part of the "stolen generation"- there is a good case for what the government did.

[Serafina]

1- You haven't adressed my objection that people are free to live their own lives. This also presumably applies if the Holocaust is going around them.

Okay, so if you are run over by a car and i am capable of CPR and other first aid measures, i have no responsibility to help you?
That's the exact argument you are making - that you are free to live your own life, even if you have the chance of helping someone. You apparently reject the concept of responsibility altogether.

2- Even if criminal negligence weren't something which can only be caused by a person's actions, it would still be worth pointing out that legal and moral rules are not the same thing.

Wrong. Criminal negligience can, by definition, be caused by a persons inaction as well. See my example above.

5- Why treat nations like persons and assign them moral responsibilities anyway? As shown by the areas in which nationality is ambigious, even the idea of a nation is abstract.

In other words, you demand that nations do not follow any moral guidelines. Germanies actions during WW II, including the Holocaust, were therefore no moral problem at all.


You see where you are going here? You reject the concept of responsibility altogether unless it is direcly caused by the actions of a real person. This would inevitably cause all sorts of problems, since governments and other legal entities could not be held responsible for anything, and real persons would not be obliged to help anyone.

Morality is ultimately a set of guidelines that's supposed to benefit society. Assigning such guidelines to governments and to inactions carries a benefit - an incentive to fix things even if you are not direcly involved.

[Carinthium]

What I reject is the concept of enforced responsibilities a person has never chosen and cannot chose to reject- my argument is that such responsibilities reduce a person to little more then a slave.

I assumed you were talking about moral responsibility- I checked a lawyer's opinion (by chance there's one in the house while I'm typing this) and at least where I live it isn't legally. As I understand it (though I didn't check this), one has to have gotten oneself into a situation where there is a duty of care (e.g.- adopted or had a child, driven on the streets and thus risked running somebody over, etc).

My view on nations is that individuals controlling nations are morally obliged to act in a certain way, but that it is morally wrong to penalise people indirectly (through penalising nations they happen to be part of) if they had little to no choice in the matter. Like Stas Bush, I ignore pragmatic considerations but dispute that there are so many:
-People could be more careful to deal with their property, or could informally agree on things such as saving each other's lives if it was only a small amount of inconvienience. (Given people aren't forced to obey social conventions, it would be at worst morally dubious for it to be a social rather than legal rule)
-If citizenship did not exist automatically but had to be accepted (a person at the age of adulthood would have to formally accept citizenship or else be stateless by default, but considerable benefits such as healthcare and education would exist for citizens), most of my objections wouldn't exist- this would get around most of the pragmatic problems.

The flaw in your view that morality is meant to benefit society is that the idea that it is a good thing to benefit society is itself rooted in morality- amoral people simply don't care.

[D.Turtle]

If country A had looted country B a generation ago, thereby raising its own standards of living from second world to first world but lowering the living standards of country B from second world to third world, would you still say that country A has no (moral) responsibility of paying reparations, etc. to country B?

The thing is, that you can profit from decisions made in the past - even if you weren't born yet. And thats where some of the responsibility comes from.

[Carinthium]

The only obligations would be to return the property actually stolen or compensatory money from the individuals who actually profited to the individuals actually stolen from. Involving whole nations may be simpler, but it's less fair.

[Serafina]

I assumed you were talking about moral responsibility- I checked a lawyer's opinion (by chance there's one in the house while I'm typing this) and at least where I live it isn't legally. As I understand it (though I didn't check this), one has to have gotten oneself into a situation where there is a duty of care (e.g.- adopted or had a child, driven on the streets and thus risked running somebody over, etc).

You know, it's quite funny - first you say

2- Even if criminal negligence weren't something which can only be caused by a person's actions, it would still be worth pointing out that legal and moral rules are not the same thing.

and then you respong with a legal argument.
Not to mention that this would be different in, say, Germany. In my example with the car accident above (with myself as a bystander), i am required to help depending on my capabilities and within the limits that don't endanger myself (this also applies to other emergency situations). If i have a mobile phone, or can access one nearby, i am required to call the police/fire department/ambulance/whatever. If i am capable of performing first aid, i am required to do so (you will rarely get punished just because you had some first aid lessons, not having the nerves to do it is a valid excuse if you are an amateur). Basically, i have a duty to perform any action that will help those endangered and which does not engader me which i am capable of performing.
The whole concept is called "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung", which roughly translates as "failure to render aid" (tough not failing while doing so). It can actually get you into prison for up to a year, at least if you are doing absolutely nothing without a good reason.

According to your argument, this makes me a slave and is morally wrong. You clearly reject the notion that you might be required to help someone unless you directly caused his problems. I don't see how this is a moral (or legal) argument, since you are merely waving "freedom!" around, as if personal freedom was capable of ruling your responsibilities for society.


You apply the same logic to nations, apparently because you fail to graps the concept of a society and collective responsibilit.
I could use your exact argument to argue against ANY responsibility for a nation, even if it is doing something right now.
And since it's so easy, i will do so right now:

-If citizenship did not exist automatically but had to be accepted (a person at the age of adulthood would have to formally accept citizenship or else be stateless by default, but considerable benefits such as healthcare and education would exist for citizens), most of my objections wouldn't exist- this would get around most of the pragmatic problems.

By that logic, you are not required to pay taxes if you never voted - after all, you never agreed to be a citizen of that state.

This logic simply does not work. You are part of a society regardless of whether you choose to be or not. You inherently benefit fronm and contribute to it regardless of your choices. And since you are a part of that society, you also share responsibility on the societies actions, depending on your influence you had on them.

The flaw in your view that morality is meant to benefit society is that the idea that it is a good thing to benefit society is itself rooted in morality- amoral people simply don't care.

Morality is an intrinsic property of any society. A society simply needs SOME rules in order to function - otherwise it's just a bunch of individuals in the same place that do not interact. Calling that a societ is nonsensical.
Obviously, and society which has rules that benefit it will thrive better than a society which has rules that are detrimental. In fact, having beneficial rules is also a intrinsic property of a society, since it can not work without them.

Therefore, unless you want to disband society altogether, arguing for amorality is simply nonsensical.

[Serafina]

The only obligations would be to return the property actually stolen or compensatory money from the individuals who actually profited to the individuals actually stolen from. Involving whole nations may be simpler, but it's less fair.

You evidently fail at not only morality, but also law.
If i take an action that causes damage, then i am not only obliged to compensate for the damage caused, but also for all the follow-up damages. For example, if i ruin your roof, not only do i have to pay to fix the roof, but i am also required to fix your property that was damaged due to rain.

Also, your logic doesn't work - we are not only talking about individuals here. If a nation steals the entire gold reserve (and similar stragetic reserves) of a nation, there are no individuals who can repay other individuals. The money or property is often transfered from one nation to another.
And again, follow-up damage is important. If a nation loots all the factories in another nation, it's not sufficient to merely compensate the factory owners. You will also have damaged the nation itself, as well as other citizens, due to the weakened industry you have caused, with the resulting unemployment, tax losses and so on.

[Carinthium]

The only obligations would be to return the property actually stolen or compensatory money from the individuals who actually profited to the individuals actually stolen from. Involving whole nations may be simpler, but it's less fair.

You evidently fail at not only morality, but also law.
If i take an action that causes damage, then i am not only obliged to compensate for the damage caused, but also for all the follow-up damages. For example, if i ruin your roof, not only do i have to pay to fix the roof, but i am also required to fix your property that was damaged due to rain.

Also, your logic doesn't work - we are not only talking about individuals here. If a nation steals the entire gold reserve (and similar stragetic reserves) of a nation, there are no individuals who can repay other individuals. The money or property is often transfered from one nation to another.
And again, follow-up damage is important. If a nation loots all the factories in another nation, it's not sufficient to merely compensate the factory owners. You will also have damaged the nation itself, as well as other citizens, due to the weakened industry you have caused, with the resulting unemployment, tax losses and so on.

1- I was arguing morally, not legally.
2- Not necessarily- I was thinking of more medieval-style looting, in which the main plunder comes from individual's homes. If it was, hypothetically, a direct transfer from national treasury to national treasury national repayment makes sense.
3- People do not have a moral right to be employed, nor to a strong industry. To the extent they have agreed to tax obligations, they don't have the right to low taxes (unless that has somehow become part of a deal with the state or something). Because of this, they don't need to be compensated.

[mr friendly guy]

Most of your points can be countered with the fact that just because something is the way of things does not mean it is morally right.

Yet strangely despite giving you the option, you refuse to explain why its wrong. You just state its wrong morally (but not legally). So now explain why is it wrong morally. And if only "most" of my points can be countered, which ones cannot be countered, and in which case why don't you concede on those points?

Given that people choose to invest in a company on the understanding that it will be liable for it's debts,

Ok, so what happens if I inherit stock / ownership then making me the majority stockholder. Does that mean the company no longer pays its debts because I didn't choose to invest in it.

If I was actually in a position to influence matters, I would advocate an international system in which it would be a conventional constitutional or quasi-constitutional principle that countries would not be allowed to go into debt for the reasons you've mentioned.

Just to clarify, do you mean debt from loans or debts through reparations / compensation?

Also, I point out that nobody has refuted my argument that collective responsibility is close to slavery.

Because you haven't demonstrated it, merely stated it via authorial fiat. Your premise uses a black /white fallacy. Not to mention if we take your premise to the logical conclusion, its anarchy, because I am a slave since I can't opt out of breaking the law (because I would be punished, forced to conform).

Finally, I'm not sure if this is the right thread for it but I'd be willing to debate the righteousness of the actions seen as part of the "stolen generation"- there is a good case for what the government did.

Forcibly indoctrinating someone in a religion is good. Taking someone away from their parents, not because they are "bad parents", but because they are poor and the wrong ethnic group is good? What, can't you educate them without taking them away.

Yeah, just like there was a good case for invading Iraq..... if you accept the lies and false premises. In any event the government has already apologised for the action admitting it was wrong.

But its quite funny how you say not having the ability to choose and opt out is akin to slavery, yet support a measure where parents were not able to choose to have their child taken away.

Further note I decided to do a quick read on the subject, and justifications like this "Eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white", we can add genocide to the list of what was wrong with that plan.

[Carinthium]

Yet strangely despite giving you the option, you refuse to explain why its wrong. You just state its wrong morally (but not legally). So now explain why is it wrong morally. And if only "most" of my points can be countered, which ones cannot be countered, and in which case why don't you concede on those points?

1- I was refuting the argument.
2- It would be morally wrong because it would be stealing from people to give their possessions to others.
3- You said, for example, that the same logic for government being obliged to fix the actions of their predecessors apply to legal entities (probably the moral reasoning behind the laws being made). That's probably right.

Ok, so what happens if I inherit stock / ownership then making me the majority stockholder. Does that mean the company no longer pays its debts because I didn't choose to invest in it.

The only things you lose from the company paying it's debts is property gained from your parents- it follows the same principle as an estate paying a dead man's debts.

Just to clarify, do you mean debt from loans or debts through reparations / compensation?

All debt from loans, most debt from reparations/compensation.

Because you haven't demonstrated it, merely stated it via authorial fiat. Your premise uses a black /white fallacy. Not to mention if we take your premise to the logical conclusion, its anarchy, because I am a slave since I can't opt out of breaking the law (because I would be punished, forced to conform).

I said close to slavery- not slavery. A person cannot be considered free if they have responsibilties placed upon them- if they choose to give up their freedom or if their freedom is incompatible with someone elses there is a good case for it (total freedom is impossible due to somebody having to give when people's desires conflict), but if somebody has responsibilities placed on them from birth (even for future life) that they cannot get out of it it is obvious that they have lost their freedom from birth.

Forcibly indoctrinating someone in a religion is good.

Well, better then the alternative. British Protestantism at the time was more progressive then Aboriginal superstitions.

Taking someone away from their parents, not because they are "bad parents", but because they are poor and the wrong ethnic group is good?

Half-castes were badly discriminated against in Aboriginal society (if I remember right, some were even killed)- they were probably better off in white Australia.

But its quite funny how you say not having the ability to choose and opt out is akin to slavery, yet support a measure where parents were not able to choose to have their child taken away.

Parents don't have property rights over children. I am not claiming the government's actions were right, just claiming that it isn't as open-and-shut as you seem to claim it is.

[Lusankya]

Also, I point out that nobody has refuted my argument that collective responsibility is close to slavery.

That's because it's a stupid argument. I'm fairly certain that you don't even know what slavery means.

The responsibilities that one faces as a citizen of a society are the price you pay for having the rights granted to you by society. If you want and use things like roads and supermarkets and X-boxes, then you have to realise that the only reason you have these things is because you live in society. As long as you take advantage of these things, then you are taking advantage of the privileges provided to you by society, and as far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than theft if you then refuse to pay back in the form of your societal responsibilities. If you don't like it, then pick up a stick and go and live in the woods (don't cheat and take a gun, because the ability to buy guns and ammo are also gifts given to you by society.)

It's all very well for you to say "oh, well maybe citizenship can be something that people can opt into", but the actual benefits that you receive from living in society are much greater than the benefits provided by citizenship. For example, your mother is currently not getting raped by Warlords. This is a benefit of society, and one that even non-citizens can benefit from. The fact that when you cross the road, you can largely expect all the cars to be following the road rules (something they are mainly doing under a coercive influence) is a benefit of society. Even if you "opt out" of being able to sue restaurant owners for violating Health and Safety Standards, if others in society are paying for the inspections, then the inspections still benefit you, even if you are a non-citizen. You can't "opt out" of receiving these benefits unless you completely remove yourself from society. Saying that it's not fair that humans have to operate under some kind of societal rules is a bit like saying that it's not fair that humans can't swim in lava: you can whinge all you want, but your ideal is still unrealistic.

As for "people being free to live their own lives", look at it this way: do you honestly think the total amount of "freedom" lost from Germany being required to take responsibility for the way it acted in the 1930s and 40s is less than the total amount of "freedom" that the German government took away from people during the Holocaust and World War II? Forcing later generations to take responsibility for the actions of their ancestors also has the effect of making others less likely to make the same actions in the future, because it keeps the memory of the mistake alive longer, and increases the cost of the misdeed. If the national cost of the misdeed is high enough, then even if it removes a small amount of "freedom" from those who are blameless in regards to the misdeed, the total amount of "freedom" in the world is higher. More freedom = good, right?

I always think it's funny the way that the people who talk the most about "individual freedom" always seem to care the least about the individual freedom of others.

[Carinthium]

1- The social contract theory (which states that by living in society people consent to it's rules) is flawed due to the fact that there are few places left for a would-be tribalist to live- the countryside is all under national laws, and under your rules I can't live in international waters. That plan wouldn't work.
2- Objects such as guns are not bought from society- under a capitalist system, any gun I might have (I don't) would be purchased in exchange for money from a shop-owner (almost certainly). I would have paid my debt to the shop-owner, and thus have no obligations left.
3- If the citizens had a problem with non-citizens living in society, they could always let them sell off their lands and exile them.
4- I never entered into a contract with society for those benefits, so I am not obliged to pay society for them. If the alternative principle was applied, then logically people would be obliged to (for example) pay money for things given to them they hadn't asked for.
5- I'm not a utilitarian (if you want to debate that principle, add your arguments!)- even I were, the argument would still remain that if hypothetically (assuming for the sake of argument- from what I know of history it's ludicrously unlikely) all but the Nazi "war criminals" were left unpunished it would have little effect on future freedom-restricting reigmes- democratic reigmes which restrict freedom in the ways most common in modern times have no fear of such punishment, after all. The dictatorships closest to Hitlers in modern times are in the Third World, and correctly do not fear Western intervention to stop them anyway.
6- Even if hypothetically I were a hypocrite, that wouldn't invalidate my argument.
7- If societies can be seen as people and hypocrisy invalidates arguments, then there is a rather strong argument against society- the idea of an implicit contract accepted merely by accepting gifts (most people aren't educated about social contract theory, so that doesn't count) would be thrown out of court.

[hongi]

Well, better then the alternative. British Protestantism at the time was more progressive then Aboriginal superstitions.

Aw hell no. The alternative was...letting them practice the religion of their culture and parents. The alternative was leaving them in peace, not converting them against their will. Indoctrinating and destroying their culture and sense of spiritual worth wasn't better. Religion was a part of their social fabric, guess what happens when you start unspooling the threads?

Half-castes were badly discriminated against in Aboriginal society (if I remember right, some were even killed)- they were probably better off in white Australia.

Evidence? And even if there was discrimination, I guarantee you that it was worse in white Australia. And even if there was discrimination, that doesn't justify taking them away from their fucking families.

[Carinthium]

letting them practice the religion of their culture and parents.

Given the children have no moral obligations to their culture (and never made a contract with their parents), the good of the child is most important here.

not converting them against their will

Still an indoctrination, and still teaching them lies. Their parents would have indoctrinated them first.

Indoctrinating and destroying their culture

Cultures do not have rights.

sense of spiritual worth

What about the doctrine of the immortal soul? What about the idea of being a citizen of the British Empire for a sense of tribal worth? Arguably not as good as being a full-blooded member of an Aboriginal tribe, but that was not avaliable to them.

Religion was a part of their social fabric, guess what happens when you start unspooling the threads?

They are no longer part of the tribe or Aboriginal society. The psycological benefits of animism tend to be merely part of a sense of tribal inclusion anyway.

Evidence? And even if there was discrimination, I guarantee you that it was worse in white Australia. And even if there was discrimination, that doesn't justify taking them away from their fucking families.

I can't find my original source, so using an indirect one.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ra ... 5809998531

Nobody disputed discrimination against half-castes. Life in white Australia would lead to a much higher material living standard (obvious- stone-age v.s 1800-1900s level). Finally, people tend to get over being seperated from their families, especially when taken away at a very young age.

[K. A. Pital]

British Protestantism at the time was more progressive then Aboriginal superstitions.

In this case forcible indocrination of people into atheism is a completely morally viable view because atheism is more progressive than any of the pathetic superstitions that religions are.

A person cannot be considered free if they have responsibilties placed upon them- if they choose to give up their freedom or if their freedom is incompatible with someone elses there is a good case for it (total freedom is impossible due to somebody having to give when people's desires conflict), but if somebody has responsibilities placed on them from birth (even for future life) that they cannot get out of it it is obvious that they have lost their freedom from birth.

Responsibilities are placed on a person from birth whether one likes it or not, and in this sense nobody, except psychopatic jackasses, who as we know are void of empathy and reject even the very concept of social responsibility, is free. But I wouldn't call the freedom of psychopaths "freedom". A child is fed and clothed and paid for, and often the parents expect of him to behave responsibly and in general have certain responsibilities or meet certain goals. I am not sure what is unreasonable here. Same with a nation-state's misdeeds.

[Lusankya]

1- The social contract theory (which states that by living in society people consent to it's rules) is flawed due to the fact that there are few places left for a would-be tribalist to live- the countryside is all under national laws, and under your rules I can't live in international waters. That plan wouldn't work.

When did I say you couldn't live in international waters? In any case, if you were willing to hole up somewhere in Alaska or the Appalachians or wherever, where influence from government was close to nonexistent, I would consider that close enough to removing yourself from society. There are also plenty of places in the desert in Australia where you could go. Or the Amazon. Or Antarctica.

In any case, I'm not really sure why you "I didn't choose to live" to be a valid moral argument. It's the kind of whiny bitching that emo teenagers engage in when their parents ask them to do their homework and tidy their room. Fuck, I didn't choose to live either, and now I'm forced to eat and drink and sleep and shit, and I don't really have any option to stop doing that unless I kill myself. Oh no. Living is flawed.

2- Objects such as guns are not bought from society- under a capitalist system, any gun I might have (I don't) would be purchased in exchange for money from a shop-owner (almost certainly). I would have paid my debt to the shop-owner, and thus have no obligations left.

You think in terms far too small. How much monetary value would you place on the existence of guns (or Playstations or X-boxes, or whatever it is you want to buy) in the first place?Are you aware of the amount of cooperation that goes into making a gun? Guns are the product of thousands of years of teaching and learning and planning and incremental improvements in design, none of which would be possible without the various people working in concert with society. If you choose to take advantage of their cooperative skills without putting back into society yourself, then you are freeloading. Maybe you're not freeloading in a mere monetary sense, but society is more than just money.

3- If the citizens had a problem with non-citizens living in society, they could always let them sell off their lands and exile them.

I said nothing about citizens having a problem with this. I am saying that it is impossible for someone to live in society without taking advantage of that. Do you think it is moral for people like you to be freeloading?

4- I never entered into a contract with society for those benefits, so I am not obliged to pay society for them. If the alternative principle was applied, then logically people would be obliged to (for example) pay money for things given to them they hadn't asked for.

People are obliged to pay money for things given to them that they hadn't asked for. It's called "taxes". If you don't pay them, then these nice men come and put you in prison. Last year the government gave me $950 that I didn't ask for, but was obliged to pay back as much as possible through taxes. It was really awesome.

What you're trying to engage in here, though, is a no-limits fallacy. "Because I'm expected to have certain responsibilities, therefore it follows that I should be expected to have all of these other responsibilities which are unreasonable to ask of someone."

5- I'm not a utilitarian (if you want to debate that principle, add your arguments!)- even I were, the argument would still remain that if hypothetically (assuming for the sake of argument- from what I know of history it's ludicrously unlikely) all but the Nazi "war criminals" were left unpunished it would have little effect on future freedom-restricting reigmes- democratic reigmes which restrict freedom in the ways most common in modern times have no fear of such punishment, after all. The dictatorships closest to Hitlers in modern times are in the Third World, and correctly do not fear Western intervention to stop them anyway.

You're the one who claims that "leaving people free to live their own lives" is a moral good here, not me. By "leaving people free to live their own lives", do you really mean "not forcing me to think about anything difficult"? I ask, because the only way to maintain freedom is if the majority of people in society look out for each others freedom. You can't guarantee your own freedom without guaranteeing the freedom of your neighbour, because if your neighbour loses their freedom, then that's one less person to protect your freedom once your freedom becomes threatened. With I see people preaching about rights without any accompanying responsibilities, I always worry that the person I'm talking to is not only selfish, but short-sighted and stupid too.

Keep in mind that one could view the fact that shitty evil dictators now only exist in craphouse third world countries as a result of the success of punishing the Nazi war criminals. Back before World War II, it was quite popular in some parts of the world (like the US) to be a fascist who supported eugenics and so on. These days, however, Nazi sympathisers are ostracised and sidelined - thus preventing them from having a greater say in government and restricting the freedoms of others. The only places where one can get away with being a shithead dictator these days are the craphole countries that nobody cares about anyway. That's a far better situation than before, when the shitty evil dictators were in charge of more powerful countries like Germany.

6- Even if hypothetically I were a hypocrite, that wouldn't invalidate my argument.

I wouldn't call you a hypocrite, just selfish, short-sighted and stupid, and this is reflected in your morality system.

7- If societies can be seen as people and hypocrisy invalidates arguments, then there is a rather strong argument against society- the idea of an implicit contract accepted merely by accepting gifts (most people aren't educated about social contract theory, so that doesn't count) would be thrown out of court.

I have no idea what this sentence means, and I rather doubt anyone else does either.


Look, it seems that everyone's going to be talking past each other for this argument unless we all know what moral system the other person is using. You apparently don't subscribe to utilitarianism, so tell me: what do you think the primary goal of a moral system should be?

[D.Turtle]

The only obligations would be to return the property actually stolen or compensatory money from the individuals who actually profited to the individuals actually stolen from. Involving whole nations may be simpler, but it's less fair.

Except that the entire society/population from country A benefited and profited, while they entire society/population from country B became poorer. Even if a person from country A didn't loot the other country, that person still benefited from the increased wealth of country A. At the same time, even if a person from country B didn't have anything directly stolen from themselves, they still lose because of the decreased wealth of country B.

The same thing holds true in a modern society. You profit from decisions made by others in your country - even when you weren't born yet. This profit can (and often does) come from disadvantaging other countries - making people in those other countries poorer. Thats why there is collective responsibility: If an entire society profits from actions, then that entire society is also responsible for adverse effects from those actions.

Even before you were born you received benefits from society. There simply isn't a realistic assessment of the facts that could enable you to support the argument that you haven't benefited from society and should therefore be exempt from the responsibility (scant as it often is) for actions taken by your society.

[D.Turtle]

Or hey, an easier example: If somebody gave you a million Dollars, and you use this to educate yourself, buy a house, and live a very comfortable life. A few years later, you learn that the million Dollars were stolen from some other people, forcing them into homelessness and begging in the streets.

Would you feel morally obliged to help those people who the million Dollars were stolen from?

[Bakustra]

The only obligations would be to return the property actually stolen or compensatory money from the individuals who actually profited to the individuals actually stolen from. Involving whole nations may be simpler, but it's less fair.

Carinthium, I'd like to pick up on this if you have a moment. What about cases such as the US? There the land taken from the various tribes generally was held in common by the tribe as a whole. No individual was stolen from, but the tribes themselves often still exist today. Shouldn't they receive recompense for the property taken from them. Similarly, most of the land was taken by the US government, so shouldn't they pay, then, under this system?

[mr friendly guy]

1- I was refuting the argument.

No you did not you lying dipshit. You just stated it was wrong because just because something is the norm it doesn't make it right. It didn't explain why it was wrong.

2- It would be morally wrong because it would be stealing from people to give their possessions to others.

So explain how a government taxing its people to pay off its debt is wrong, since you youself stated people do not have a right to pay low tax. Bet you will avoid this point like you did Serafina's argument about not saving you when they have the power to.

Ok, so what happens if I inherit stock / ownership then making me the majority stockholder. Does that mean the company no longer pays its debts because I didn't choose to invest in it.

The only things you lose from the company paying it's debts is property gained from your parents- it follows the same principle as an estate paying a dead man's debts.

So now explain why its wrong for the government to do similar even though the principle is the same.

All debt from loans, most debt from reparations/compensation.

So your superior ethical system leads to people not willing to lend to countries, because when the government changes all debts are called off. Explain how this makes things better. At least with the lending, it helped Britain fight WWII, and borrowing from Asia helped America improved their already high standard of living (until they took on too much debt, but until then it improved standard of living).

I said close to slavery- not slavery.

Then I will rephrase to "close to" a slave. Happy now. Still makes no difference showing how retarded your argument is.

A person cannot be considered free if they have responsibilties placed upon them-

By that logic even in the "free world" no one is free, since they have the responsibility to pay taxes. You are taking the word "free", stretching the boundaries of what it means till its not the same as commonly used. Its akin to religious people saying atheists are also religious, but taking the definition of religious to be so wide encompassing that it becomes meaningless.

if they choose to give up their freedom or if their freedom is incompatible with someone elses there is a good case for it (total freedom is impossible due to somebody having to give when people's desires conflict), but if somebody has responsibilities placed on them from birth (even for future life) that they cannot get out of it it is obvious that they have lost their freedom from birth.

See above argument.

Forcibly indoctrinating someone in a religion is good.

Well, better then the alternative. British Protestantism at the time was more progressive then Aboriginal superstitions.

So you admit it wasn't good to indoctrinate.

Half-castes were badly discriminated against in Aboriginal society (if I remember right, some were even killed)-

What the fuck have you been smoking? Seriously. How many Aborigines are "full blooded."

they were probably better off in white Australia.

Or they could have been provided an education without removing them from them parents like how white kids were. Like how sane societies do it.

Parents don't have property rights over children.

1. Neither does the government. So why then was it right to take away those kids? You fail at consistentcy.

2. My argument is not dependent on this axiom because the right for a parent to look after their kids doesn't come under the "property rights."

In fact explain why its ok to kidnap children, since parent's don't have property rights over children. And before you try to dodge the point, you used that line to justify kidnapping Aboriginal children, so now justify your assertion. But I bet you will avoid this point or reply to a slight strawman.

I am not claiming the government's actions were right, just claiming that it isn't as open-and-shut as you seem to claim it is.

Oh realllllly.

Finally, I'm not sure if this is the right thread for it but I'd be willing to debate the righteousness of the actions seen as part of the "stolen generation"- there is a good case for what the government did.

they were probably better off in white Australia.

Combine with what else you wrote in this thread its clear you do see benefits to it. This I am "just claiming that its not open and shut is a case" is you wanting your metaphorical cake and eating it too. So it shows you are a lying dipshit as well.

And you still haven't explain why your moral system finds it bad when freedom is curtailed by the government (in the form of higher taxes to pay off debts) but ok for the government to do so when its something you like (kidnapping). And no this line doesn't explain it.

6- Even if hypothetically I were a hypocrite, that wouldn't invalidate my argument.

No shit Sherlock. However you clearly cannot tell the difference between an ad hominem tu quoque and a self contradictory argument. The former just makes you look bad, but doesn't have a bearing on your argument, the latter kills your argument. Guess which one you fall under.


Guys its clear moron boy is a fucking Randroid.

[mr friendly guy]

Finally, people tend to get over being seperated from their families, especially when taken away at a very young age.

Seriously. I guess all those members of the Stolen Generation crying after Kevin Rudd's apology was all an act right?

You whine about governments taxing more to pay off debt, but have no sympathy for people being kidnapped? Wow you are a piece of work.