“Not quite. What you’re suggesting is to pay in order to prevent people from becoming criminals. My law enforcement only deals with punishing those who have become criminals.”

Still the purpose is the same; to prevent crime. once again i here propose a little less rigidity. But let’s discuss crime some other time. ;)

Naturally there are multiple reason why people become criminals but predetermination is not one of them.

No—but you’re forgetting about choice.

By that reasoning law enforcement is ‘pay up or someone will come along and take all your stuff’.

Not quite. What you’re suggesting is to pay in order to prevent people from becoming criminals. My law enforcement only deals with punishing those who have become criminals.

“Then you’re presuming that under the right circumstances, everyone will be a criminal.”

In a word, yes. Naturally there are multiple reason why people become criminals but predetermination is not one of them.

“Why should I have to pay money so that others don’t turn to crime? It almost sounds like a threat: “pay up, or I’ll become a criminal.””

By that reasoning law enforcement is ‘pay up or someone will come along and take all your stuff’. It’s about being smart on crime. Though if you want to throw that away based on your principles go ahead.

“I think once you start violating a person’s right to property all other rights will eventually succumb. Its just a matter of which ones and when.”

This sounds like a contradiction to me. You have already established that the right to property do not exists (since you do pay taxes) and that the state can draft you into the military and yet have your rights disappeared? Taxes are a far older phenomena then these rights and yet they appeared without fuzz. The support for rights of life and liberty are far more anchored then your clearcut version of property rights so why should they be as endangered. you are of course few to believe what you will but pardon me if i am not convinced.

“Thinking has to be done by individual human minds – there is no way to socialize this process. In that very important respect humans are and must be one hundred percent individualistic and selfish or not act in this respect as humans at all.”

Yet since complex thinking is fundamentally based on knowledge and experience, the process is partially socialized. You are still underestimating the effect of the society outside the individual.

“You cannot restrict action without to some extent restricting thought as well (and vice versa of course).”

This sounds like one of those ridiculous scifi scenarios where people get arrested for thinking about committing murder. But anyway;

“There is no way to get around that and this necessarily, leads to the fact that a society in which thought and action are free MUST be the best society for human beings. You cannot restrict action without to some extent restricting thought as well (and vice versa of course).”

This I do not really dispute. Yet I think you and I can agree that actions that cause harm should be regulated. Our main difference here lies in what actions we perceive as causing harm.

What can be proven, really, is that people do not agree. I still hold to my deduction that morals are not given by nature but abstract sociological thought patterns fundamentally based on consensus. Your morality is an example of this; if you cannot convince enough people to agree then it will hold no sway. It has no existence of its own. I still hold that you underestimate the effects of the group, both detrimental and positive, both direct and indirect, consensus and not, on the individual. Progress requires flexibility; setting strict definitions of certain right will not help this.

And of course I do believe that people should, if at all possible have the right to healthcare.

But as I said we have been doing this for weeks and have fallen of the main page so how about we end it here?

No, that’s just one type of slavery (chattel) although I admit you may define other forms of forced labor as not exactly slavery. In any event, its not really critical to the argument; even if it is not slavery, taking resource belonging to another by force is definitely theft and still wrong in any circumstances.

Since I have to work in order to live I am pretty much forced into giving my resources by taxes. Not much different in that essential respect to involuntary servitude. (what are my choices – go on the dole and depend upon the servitude of others?) It’s still essentially forced labor.

There is no real distinction between my life and property in respect to my rights. The proof of this is that society does claim to own my life. Otherwise how could they draft me and send me off to war to die whenever they want? The government obviously doesn’t believe I have a right to life or there could never be any such thing as the draft.

I think once you start violating a person’s right to property all other rights will eventually succumb. Its just a matter of which ones and when.

“So how do you prove that humans are naturally one hundred percent individualistic and selfish then?”

I don’t have too. People can act however they want. It’s how they think (not what they think but the process itself) which is important. Thinking has to be done by individual human minds – there is no way to socialize this process. In that very important respect humans are and must be one hundred percent individualistic and selfish or not act in this respect as humans at all.

I think the fundamental difference between us is that I do not see any difference in principle between thought and action (with respect to how they should be treated morally or legally). A man has to think to survive but in order to survive he has to translate thought into action. Both are necessary for his survival but the thought process has to be done by each human individually. There is no way to get around that and this necessarily, leads to the fact that a society in which thought and action are free MUST be the best society for human beings. You cannot restrict action without to some extent restricting thought as well (and vice versa of course).

If you correctly induce the metaphysical nature of man and the nature of force, then the fact that selfishness is the optimal morality and capitalism is the ideal society is a necessary deductive conclusion.