The right to not be robbed doesn't preclude the obligation to give, it simply restricts others from enforcing this obligation through theft.

[Slashragequit]

"The right to not be robbed does not preclude the obligation to give, it simply restricts others from enforcing this obligation through theft."

What do people think of this argument?

[Alan C.]

Giving is kind, and it perpetuates a meme of generosity, but it's not an obligation.

[Magnus]

Where does "the obligation to give come" from? What are its parameters? How is it universally applicable? Why is it not equally applicable in the other direction? How is it to be enforced if not through force?

[jpahmad]

"The right to not be robbed does not preclude the obligation to give, it simply restricts others from enforcing this obligation through theft."

 

What do people think of this argument?

 

 

 

In a free society, there are no "obligations."  You could say: "if you want to do business with someone, you are obligated to keep your word."  That's the only way I see the term being used in a free society.

[Pepin]

To quote the applicable definition from Webster's Dictionary:

 

Give

1. To freely transfer the possession of (something) to (someone); hand over to.

 

Giving by definition is voluntary, as giving is a free choice. Mandates by definition are not free choices. To combine the concepts is to combine oil and water. To put this into full context.

 

"The right to not be robbed does not preclude the unchosen action of a freely chosen action to transfer possession, it simply restricts others from enforcing this unchosen action."

 

To reduce the statement and to make what is being said more clear:

 

"Unchosen action x is chosen. Enforcing unchosen action X is not valid".

 

The issue is obviously the blatant contradiction and that once something an action unchosen, it is by definition enforced, provided that it is unchosen due to the actions of people.

 

The statement is confusing in that it is either making an exception for theft, by claiming that something like taxation is voluntary, and therefore not theft; or that there are actions which people must commit, that people do not wish to commit to such an action but must for an unstated reason, and that such actions are nonenforceable.

 

I don't have a clue what the second case is talking about, mostly because of the unstated reason. Must people commit such an action for fear of enforcement? Do they value the benefits over the costs of the action? Is there some sort of societal out-casting which is the disincentive. Perhaps I am missing something on this, having not heard it, but I don't understand the point unless it is the first case.

 

Also, please note that this is not an argument. It is a statement. It does not imply that it is wrong, but it leaves the audience to figure out what the possible arguments for the conclusion are. It is like if I were to make the statement "the JFK assassination was a conspiracy". If you are going to pick this apart, you'd have to figure out what arguments I have to make such a claim. You could just make the opposite argument and find evidence to show it wasn't, but this only refutes the conclusion and not the evidence which may have been used to support the claim.

[Slashragequit]

Giving is kind, and it perpetuates a meme of generosity, but it's not an obligation.

 

Where does "the obligation to give come" from? What are its parameters? How is it universally applicable? Why is it not equally applicable in the other direction? How is it to be enforced if not through force?

 

In a free society, there are no "obligations."  You could say: "if you want to do business with someone, you are obligated to keep your word."  That's the only way I see the term being used in a free society.

 

To quote the applicable definition from Webster's Dictionary:

 

 

 

 

Giving by definition is voluntary, as giving is a free choice. Mandates by definition are not free choices. To combine the concepts is to combining contradictory concepts. To put this into full context.

 

"The right to not be robbed does not preclude the unchosen action of freely choosing to transfer possession of something, it simply restricts others from enforcing this unchosen action."

 

To reduce the statement and to make what is being said more clear:

 

"Unchosen action x is chosen. Enforcing unchosen action X is not valid".

 

The issue is obviously the blatant contradiction and that once something an action unchosen, it is by definition enforced.

 

The statement is confusing in that it is either making an exception for theft, by claiming that something like taxation is voluntary, and therefore not theft; or that there are actions which people must commit, that people do not wish to commit to such an action but must for an unstated reason, and that such actions are nonenforceable.

 

I don't have a clue what the second case is talking about, mostly because of the unstated reason. Must people commit such an action for fear of enforcement? Do they value the benefits over the costs of the action? Is there some sort of societal out-casting which is the disincentive. Perhaps I am missing something on this, having not heard it, but I don't understand the point unless it is the first case.

 

Also, please note that this is not an argument. It is a statement. It does not imply that it is wrong, but it leaves the audience to figure out what the possible arguments for the conclusion are. It is like if I were to make the statement "the JFK assassination was a conspiracy". If you are going to pick this apart, you'd have to figure out what arguments I have to make such a claim. You could just make the opposite argument and find evidence to show it wasn't, but this only refutes the conclusion and not the evidence which may have been used to support the claim.

 

Great points everyone, cheers. You're right it was just a statement. I'll try to devise an argument, but thanks to these replies realize I will have to be very clear with the language I use - or give clear definitions of the important terms, such as "give" and "obligations" etc. Feedback was very much appreciated.