|
>> You claim here that "you cannot morally own someone else" which seems
>> inconsistant with you definition of morality which states: >> * It is your right to do anything, except initiate force against
>> another person or their property. >> From this follows the corollaries: >> * You are responsible for all your own choices.
>> * You are not responsible for any of the choices of anyone else.
>> * More choice does not make you a victim. >> So while I would not choose to live in a country where adults could sell
>> themselves into slavery (that would certainly encourage careful reading of
>> small print) why is it immoral? How much freedom do you have if you cannot give
>> it away? > Selling yourself into slavery is like consenting to being raped - it isn't rape
any more if you consent to it.
Hmmmmm. Have you considered a career in politics. I would not have used the word slavery but for your first definition:
"Ownership of a human being". What I am disputing is that "you cannot morally own someone else". Force is not required
to take ownership, although the history of slavery is such that this meaning is hardly used.
From ownership:
- You do not own something unless you can destroy it.
You morally have the right to kill youself
- You do not own something unless you can freely sell it
You morally have the right to sell your labour for whatever you want
up to and including all your life. You morally have a right to sell your organs
(maybe you need to pay for your childs life saving operation) Where is the moral limit?
- You do not own something unless you can freely trade it for something else.
as above
- You do not own something unless you can give it away.
as above
In conclusion if you deny people the ability to sell (or give away) themselves you deny them ownership of themselves.
Some may want the state to own them, I don't.
>> I think the description is possibly a bit harsh on Africa > I would be happy to change the entry if you could provide the name of one
successful African country.
"Africa is rich in resources - probably richer than North America. Yet every country in South America is a basket case"
On a couple of related notes, resources seem to have little correlation with success even in less screwed up places [japan, hong kong]. How long would
a sucessful country last (if one should spring up in africa), surrounded by countries with no food. The rewards of war
would be high for them and little to lose so our new democracy would be in trouble without outside help. Perhaps another reason
why corrupt african rulers like to rant about colonialism (besides distraction). Also Africa did spawn humanity which I would be inclined to count
as a sucess.
>> Have you been spending some time in the ministry of love learning to count for
>> this difinition. [prisons]. > I feel like I'm in the ministry of love every time I turn on the ABC. Being
forced to pay taxes to professional victims so that the Australian government
can show how much we all care.
Would you like to swap for our BBC and an annual AU$320 licence fee after taxes? ;)
and one last point from selfishness
"All creatures are selfish because the genes which comprise them are selfish. Ultimately all actions are designed to act in the interests of replicating their genes."
I'm suprised you can post so much about selfish gene thoery and forget about memes. A rather virulant set in the
middle east certainly promotes spreading of genes, just not reproduction of genes. Memes are selfish too.
Literal Elite
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
| 
