Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

doucy

10-29-2007, 12:41 AM

Maybe not ALL pro-choicers, but at least the vast majority of them.

One of the major justifications for abortion is something along the lines of "it is immoral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. Mothers should not be forced to give their bodily resources to the fetus, even if revoking those resources will result in the fetus' death." Fair enough.

But if that is a person's stance, then that person should also believe that government-imposed taxation is immoral. ie, "it is immoral to force people to pay taxes to the government. Citizens should not be forced to give their money to the government, even if revoking that money will result in the government's collapse." It seems perfectly analogous.

Is there any way a person can subscribe to the former belief, while rejecting the latter belief? It would seem hypocritical to me but perhaps someone can rationalize it.

luckyme

10-29-2007, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It seems perfectly analogous.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no perfect analogies.
The role of analogies in argument is to highlight the nature or portion of the nature of a situation you are highlighting. Nothing carries over from one to another.
They can give you a hint to how to approach another situation or inspire a different viewpoint on it, but there is no argument that takes on the conclusions from an analogy.

luckyme

furyshade

10-29-2007, 12:58 AM

by your logic pro-lifers should be against the death penalty, why is it okay for the government to force a woman to have a baby then let a judge decide if a man should be given the death penalty or not. just because the two scenarios deal vaguely with the same point doesn't make the analogous

MiloMinderbinder

10-29-2007, 01:21 AM

Yes, because one's body and one's wages are "perfectly" analogous.

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 01:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, because one's body and one's wages are "perfectly" analogous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily close enough. EASILY.

And I agree with the OP.

Caesar88

10-29-2007, 02:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way a person can subscribe to the former belief, while rejecting the latter belief? It would seem hypocritical to me but perhaps someone can rationalize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there is. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion as it seems to be pretty ridiculous. However seeing as how you have, here are some of the many reasons why you can be pro-life and not anti-tax.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the major justifications for abortion is something along the lines of "it is immoral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. Mothers should not be forced to give their bodily resources to the fetus, even if revoking those resources will result in the fetus' death."

[/ QUOTE ]

I've known women that have had abortions, and heard about others, and in all cases, none of them were arguing for the abortion because they were "forced to give their bodily resouces to the foetus." They had one because they had never wanted it in the first place, or because they were raped, or because it would shame their parents, etc. The bodily resources argument, although sound for legality, is bureaucratic and devoid of emotion. Probably the only woman in the world who would have an abortion because the foetus was 'sucking her resouces dry' would be Paris Hilton.

[ QUOTE ]
But if that is a person's stance, then that person should also believe that government-imposed taxation is immoral. ie, "it is immoral to force people to pay taxes to the government. Citizens should not be forced to give their money to the government, even if revoking that money will result in the government's collapse." It seems perfectly analogous.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't, because they are completely separate concepts. Having an abortion is done when a woman reaches her emotional cusp and decides it is the only option. It is a decision based mostly on emotion. Paying taxes is different. You pay taxes, in theory, because it is the right thing to do; you are being forced to give something back (as you probably wouldn't if you weren't forced). It is a decision based on logic and reasoning. WHEN YOU LEARN THE CONCEPTS BEHIND BOTH IDEAS, YOU LEARN THAT THEY ARE INHERENTLY DIFFERENT AND COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE. So much so that they cannot be used in your analogy.

However most obvious reason would be that you would have heard about it by now, instead of inventing the idea yourself. Have you heard of an anti-tax group, or at least one that is linked to pro-choice groups? I'm going to guess you haven't, probably because I don't think any exist. If your connection between these two groups is anything more than your own strange logical reasoning, the proof would lie in said group's existence. If it doesn't exist, then neither does the truth behind belief.

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 02:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way a person can subscribe to the former belief, while rejecting the latter belief? It would seem hypocritical to me but perhaps someone can rationalize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there is. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion as it seems to be pretty ridiculous. However seeing as how you have, here are some of the many reasons why you can be pro-life and not anti-tax.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the major justifications for abortion is something along the lines of "it is immoral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. Mothers should not be forced to give their bodily resources to the fetus, even if revoking those resources will result in the fetus' death."

[/ QUOTE ]

I've known women that have had abortions, and heard about others, and in all cases, none of them were arguing for the abortion because they were "forced to give their bodily resouces to the foetus."

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have stopped posting in this thread right after this comment, because clearly the OP was not for you, or you didn't understand it.

Siegmund

10-29-2007, 04:38 AM

I do believe there are a lot of people, both pro-choice and not, who are anti-tax.

There is a strong parallel, yes, and it is this: many of the people who want abortions and who want to not pay taxes have selfish reasons for their position, in addition to the lofty ideals they espouse. Some are sincere about the ideals, some less so.

tame_deuces

10-29-2007, 05:06 AM

Wealth != body

JayTee

10-29-2007, 06:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

Drag

10-29-2007, 07:06 AM

I don't agree with this analogy.

The government provides services to the society, and to finance them it needs money/taxes.

The baby doesn't provide any service to its mother.

AlexM

10-29-2007, 07:18 AM

tame_deuces

10-29-2007, 07:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is not necessarily true:
A is X
B is X
A is B

So there is no 'logical fallacy' in disagreeing with the OP. You can choose freely without being wrong.

ChrisV

10-29-2007, 07:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not ALL pro-choicers, but at least the vast majority of them.

One of the major justifications for abortion is something along the lines of "it is immoral to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. Mothers should not be forced to give their bodily resources to the fetus, even if revoking those resources will result in the fetus' death." Fair enough.

But if that is a person's stance, then that person should also believe that government-imposed taxation is immoral. ie, "it is immoral to force people to pay taxes to the government. Citizens should not be forced to give their money to the government, even if revoking that money will result in the government's collapse." It seems perfectly analogous.

Is there any way a person can subscribe to the former belief, while rejecting the latter belief? It would seem hypocritical to me but perhaps someone can rationalize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The above is actually the hardcore libertarian position and I don't think you'll hear very many liberals using it. The normal pro-choice position is that the fetus is not a person and that its death is not relevant. Liberals believe that it can be moral to compel someone to do something if it is necessary for the welfare of another person or other people. The fetus not being a person, there is no case for the government to use compulsion. There is nothing inconsistent about this.

Liberals have similar opinions on issues like gay rights and drug use - that is, that compulsion is not justified - but tend to be in favor of using government compulsion to solve problems where peoples welfare is at stake - health, social security, occupational health and safety, etc.

chezlaw

10-29-2007, 09:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The above is actually the hardcore libertarian position and I don't think you'll hear very many liberals using it. The normal pro-choice position is that the fetus is not a person and that its death is not relevant. Liberals believe that it can be moral to compel someone to do something if it is necessary for the welfare of another person or other people. The fetus not being a person, there is no case for the government to use compulsion. There is nothing inconsistent about this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dead on. There's also the similar barbaric/civilised argument:

Anyone who believes taxes are a prerequisite of a civilised society and that forcing a women to have a baby is barbaric can be pro-chice and pro-taxes. Its a pretty common view.

chez

Roland32

10-29-2007, 10:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is not necessarily true:
A is X
B is X
A is B

So there is no 'logical fallacy' in disagreeing with the OP. You can choose freely without being wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

^^^^^
This is exactly right.

There seems to be a tendency to paint everything into two worlds, and make a conclusion from that. Of course that just isn't true.

foal

10-29-2007, 10:23 AM

To make this claim logically you have to take the approach:

People believe in X, because of reason A
Reason A supports Y
Therefore people who believe in X should believe in Y

The approach the OP took was:
People support X, because of reason A
Reason A is similar to reason B
Reason B supports Y
Therefore people who believe in X should believe in Y

It's not logically sound and not very convincing. If you think reason A and reason B are both the result of a common reason C then you need to explain reason C and explain why you think pro-choicers are basing their position on it.

foal

10-29-2007, 10:25 AM

An example would be "no one should be forced to give up resources against their will".

doucy

10-29-2007, 10:36 AM

One of the assumptions I made in the OP (in hindsight I guess I should have mentioned it) is that people have (or should have) equal control over their bodies as they do over their money. If you believe that people should have less control over their money than they should over their bodies, then the two scenarios are probably not analogous to you. But I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that.

chezlaw

10-29-2007, 10:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To make this claim logically you have to take the approach:

People believe in X, because of reason A
Reason A supports Y
Therefore people who believe in X should believe in Y

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not valid either. There may be a reason B against supporting Y that doesn't apply to X (or applies relatively weakly)

chez

doucy

10-29-2007, 10:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

you get wealth by performing labor. I would assert labor is a bodily resource.

foal

10-29-2007, 11:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To make this claim logically you have to take the approach:

People believe in X, because of reason A
Reason A supports Y
Therefore people who believe in X should believe in Y

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not valid either. There may be a reason B against supporting Y that doesn't apply to X (or applies relatively weakly)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, the word "support" should have been "necessitate". In order for that to be the case, reason A will have to be something absolutist so as to disallow for any exceptions. E.g. "it is ALWAYS immoral to make anyone provide resources for anything else".

Hopey

10-29-2007, 11:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
One of the assumptions I made in the OP (in hindsight I guess I should have mentioned it) is that people have (or should have) equal control over their bodies as they do over their money. If you believe that people should have less control over their money than they should over their bodies, then the two scenarios are probably not analogous to you. But I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the majority of the people who are anti-abortion hold that view due to religious grounds. They believe that at conception, god has infused the fetus with a soul and that it is a sin to terminate the life that god has created.

When considering those with the above beliefs, you cannot possibly consider abortion to be in any way analogous to taxation.

doucy

10-29-2007, 11:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the assumptions I made in the OP (in hindsight I guess I should have mentioned it) is that people have (or should have) equal control over their bodies as they do over their money. If you believe that people should have less control over their money than they should over their bodies, then the two scenarios are probably not analogous to you. But I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the majority of the people who are anti-abortion hold that view due to religious grounds. They believe that at conception, god has infused the fetus with a soul and that it is a sin to terminate the life that god has created.

When considering those with the above beliefs, you cannot possibly consider abortion to be in any way analogous to taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP was about people who are pro-choice, not anti-abortion.

EDIT: and it wasn't even about ALL pro-choicers. It was only referring to those pro-choicers who subscribe to the first belief I mentioned in the OP.

bocablkr

10-29-2007, 11:16 AM

Pro-choice
Pro-taxes
pro-death penalty

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 11:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is not necessarily true:
A is X
B is X
A is B

So there is no 'logical fallacy' in disagreeing with the OP. You can choose freely without being wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

^^^^^
This is exactly right.

There seems to be a tendency to paint everything into two worlds, and make a conclusion from that. Of course that just isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not really the point though. Sure, tamedeuces is allowed to logically disagree. What was asked of him is if he ACTUALLY disagrees. IOW, do you ACTUALLY disagree that wealth=property=body, in the sense that anything that hurts your property is equivalent to it hurting you? Its more of a "what are the premises with which you see the world" kind of question. Its logically consistent to believe we do not have individual property rights. What JayTee was asking is if anyone actually DOES believe that. It leads to all sorts of complications and most people will claim they do, in fact, believe in self-ownership of body and property. At THAT point, they are being logically inconsistent if they don't agree with the OP.

doucy

10-29-2007, 11:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Pro-choice
Pro-taxes

[/ QUOTE ]

plz to be explaining how/why people should have less control over their money than they should over their bodies.

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 11:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To make this claim logically you have to take the approach:

People believe in X, because of reason A
Reason A supports Y
Therefore people who believe in X should believe in Y

The approach the OP took was:
People support X, because of reason A
Reason A is similar to reason B
Reason B supports Y
Therefore people who believe in X should believe in Y

It's not logically sound and not very convincing. If you think reason A and reason B are both the result of a common reason C then you need to explain reason C and explain why you think pro-choicers are basing their position on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reason C is self-ownership and that is clearly the basis for the pro-choice position outlined in the OP. And it leads to both A and B, and X and Y. But some people get lost along the way.

kerowo

10-29-2007, 11:32 AM

If someone steals money from you it can be replaced. If someone steals body parts from you they cannot be replaced.

foal

10-29-2007, 11:34 AM

"I own myself" leads to neither X nor Y.

foal

10-29-2007, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If someone steals body parts from you they cannot be replaced.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do fetuses steal body parts? Nutrients can be replaced.

doucy

10-29-2007, 11:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If someone steals money from you it can be replaced. If someone steals body parts from you they cannot be replaced.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your argument is "money can be replaced, therefore people should not have as much control over their money." You'll have to explain because I don't follow.

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If someone steals money from you it can be replaced. If someone steals body parts from you they cannot be replaced.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I punch you it will heal. This seems completely irrelevant though.

Also, how does money get magically replaced? If I have to work more to earn more money it is not being replaced. I am just getting more, new money. That money is gone. You've taken it from me, and I will never get it back. This impacts my happiness to varying degrees, depending on how much you took, just like a physical assault would.

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 11:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"I own myself" leads to neither X nor Y.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesnt?

foal

10-29-2007, 11:56 AM

Can you explain how it does?

Phil153

10-29-2007, 11:59 AM

I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body.

I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since

- that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and
- society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income.

Besides, taxation has a legitimate basis. If you don't think laws make it legitimate, then consider that the government could easily charge a road/water/electricity levy for land it legitimately owns (since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government). Such a levy could be made equivalent to taxation.

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 12:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain how it does?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you own yourself, you cannot be forced to submit your body for any other purpose. IOW, taxation and pro-life arguments seem to rest on the assumption that someone else is ENTITLED to your body. This is at direct odds with the idea that I own my own body. If I have self-ownership, no one else can be ENTITLED to my body, which leads to X and Y.

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 12:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body.

I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since

- that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and
- society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income.

Besides, taxation has a legitimate basis. If you don't think laws make it legitimate, then consider that the government could easily charge a road/water/electricity levy for land it legitimately owns (since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government). Such a levy could be made equivalent to taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer.

foal

10-29-2007, 12:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you own yourself, you cannot be forced to submit your body for any other purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. That probably means my concept of ownership is much weaker than yours.

[ QUOTE ]
IOW, taxation and pro-life arguments seem to rest on the assumption that someone else is ENTITLED to your body.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you agree that money is part of your body. Most would not agree.

Phil153

10-29-2007, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer.

[/ QUOTE ]
How you could refuse to pay it? If the private corporation called government holds legitimately owned lands (roads) then according to AC stupidity, they could legitimately shoot anyone who goes on their road without permission - or require them to sign a taxation contract. People would have no choice but to pay. Thus you have taxation with perfect moral legitimacy under AC philosophies.

tame_deuces

10-29-2007, 12:18 PM

So basically

A is X
B is X

and if we accept the opinion Y about X

then A is B

I can live with that, and I'll go on and be pro-choice and pro-tax without a single conflict of logic since I don't agree with Y.

B&W definitions and politics/ethics discussions sure changes alot!

Bork

10-29-2007, 12:50 PM

Yeah and they should be be for allowing murder, pedophilia, theft, etc. too! They should also be for legal permission to let their own children starve to death. Forcing people to take care of their kids is wrong.

If you think one kind of restraint/limitation is wrong then you must (ought to) think all of them are wrong..

Wow, you suck at reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
one of the major justifications for abortion is something along the lines of

[/ QUOTE ]
The rare person who does believe the extreme principle that we shouldn't be forced to do/not-do stuff ought to be pro-choice, and anti-tax. However they are mostly just dumb or haven't thought through the implications of that general principle.

Anti-Stealing must be Anti-War, NO?:

One of the major justifications for prohibition on stealing is something along the lines of people shouldn't have their things taken from them. If one has that stance then they should be against all wars because in wars people have their lives taken from them. It seems perfectly analagous..

No it isn't. Just because some of the sentence structure and words are similar doesn't make it perfectly analagous or even at all relevant. Not only that but the "major reasons for most people" is just a complete strawman that very few people actually believe.

soon2bepro

10-29-2007, 12:56 PM

The prisoner's dillema. If you believe the government can act as a useful tool to force people to cooperate, this could be better than everyone on their own.

On the other hand, no one is forcing you to live in a particular country... You can just leave.

AlexM

10-29-2007, 04:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer.

[/ QUOTE ]
How you could refuse to pay it? If the private corporation called government holds legitimately owned lands (roads) then according to AC stupidity, they could legitimately shoot anyone who goes on their road without permission

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false.

[ QUOTE ]
- or require them to sign a taxation contract. People would have no choice but to pay. Thus you have taxation with perfect moral legitimacy under AC philosophies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Now just work on convincing every property owner in this country to sell their land to the government and lease it back.

bocablkr

10-29-2007, 04:42 PM

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer.

[/ QUOTE ]
How you could refuse to pay it? If the private corporation called government holds legitimately owned lands (roads) then according to AC stupidity, they could legitimately shoot anyone who goes on their road without permission - or require them to sign a taxation contract. People would have no choice but to pay. Thus you have taxation with perfect moral legitimacy under AC philosophies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. So you just dont go over their roads for 5 seconds. They become instantly bankrupt and must start selling all their land. How do they make money if not for labor? We would still own all that. Property is no good without labor. Whoever these eight guys you are calling "the government" are, they are going to be screwed.

madnak

10-29-2007, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, what? Not even close. Let's just ignore all the questionable means in general, the characterization of the government as a private corporation (never) etc and talk about the fact the land was already inhabited before the colonists even arrived. The government has no legitimate claim.

Even if they did have a legitimate claim "according to the rules," AC is about flexibility, not rigidity. I know some of the posters here get lost on that, but it's true. There is absolutely nothing in AC society that prevents breaking the rules in some cases when they're being applied in silly ways. See all the responses to the "Bill Gates buys one square inch in the middle of the river and then charges everyone who tries to use it ten hojillion dollars!" scenarios in politics.

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 05:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body.

I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since

- that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and
- society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income.

Besides, taxation has a legitimate basis. If you don't think laws make it legitimate, then consider that the government could easily charge a road/water/electricity levy for land it legitimately owns (since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government). Such a levy could be made equivalent to taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk01,

When did you become an ACer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure exactly. 6 months ago maybe? There wasnt exactly a lightbulb moment or anything. I resisted it for a while because it seemed like such a pejorative term and I didnt want to call myself that, but then I got over that.

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So basically

A is X
B is X

and if we accept the opinion Y about X

then A is B

I can live with that, and I'll go on and be pro-choice and pro-tax without a single conflict of logic since I don't agree with Y.

B&W definitions and politics/ethics discussions sure changes alot!

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. As long as you plan on accepting that you do NOT believe in self-ownership, thats fine. You just must then accept the consequences that result from their being no right to self-ownership. Like me enslaving you.

vhawk01

10-29-2007, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The prisoner's dillema. If you believe the government can act as a useful tool to force people to cooperate, this could be better than everyone on their own.

On the other hand, no one is forcing you to live in a particular country... You can just leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

You leave. No one is forcing you to be an ACer, so leave if you dont like vhawkland. Vhawkland is defined as all my property. You can do whatever you want outside of that property, I cant stop you. You can even vote. However, if I live next to Madnakland, you cant stop me from associating with him, right?

I like your solution, love it or leave it, right? I will tell people to GTFO of Vhawkland all the time now.

Phil153

10-29-2007, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, what? Not even close. Let's just ignore all the questionable means in general, the characterization of the government as a private corporation (never) etc and talk about the fact the land was already inhabited before the colonists even arrived. The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then neither does just about any other owner, smart guy. You can be the first to do the right thing and vacate America so that the Indians can have it back...

I don't think you understand the private corporation comment either.

To better understand what I'm getting at, imagine a scenario where the first settlers had taken over an empty country, and decided to form a collective that owned all the common land and administered it (by some AC definition of ownership). Then, anyone coming onto their land, and wanting to settle there, had to sign a contract agreeing to abide by the rules of the private collective. All dandy in AC world. 300 years later, you have a US government which is identical to the one today - and yet according to AC rules, the first is legitimate but the second one isn't. Can you spot the gaping hole in AC theory now?

[ QUOTE ]
Even if they did have a legitimate claim "according to the rules," AC is about flexibility, not rigidity. I know some of the posters here get lost on that, but it's true. There is absolutely nothing in AC society that prevents breaking the rules in some cases when they're being applied in silly ways. See all the responses to the "Bill Gates buys one square inch in the middle of the river and then charges everyone who tries to use it ten hojillion dollars!" scenarios in politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which is why AC doesn't work. It's nothing but popular will, but instead of having a government to embody it, there's nothing. So if 90% of the people in a county want black people gone, they can drive them out. It's about flexibility, after all, and there is no rule of law.

You either have people who respect private property and agreed laws (and the legitimacy of the scenario I describe above), or you have a mess. You want to have your cake and eat it too - which only happens in a theory world.

tame_deuces

10-29-2007, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So basically

A is X
B is X

and if we accept the opinion Y about X

then A is B

I can live with that, and I'll go on and be pro-choice and pro-tax without a single conflict of logic since I don't agree with Y.

B&W definitions and politics/ethics discussions sure changes alot!

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. As long as you plan on accepting that you do NOT believe in self-ownership, thats fine. You just must then accept the consequences that result from their being no right to self-ownership. Like me enslaving you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, things like these aren't black and white, right or wrong (the Y statement is that they are). So I don't have to agree with that either.

foal

10-29-2007, 05:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Legitimate according to who? Legitimacy is generally defined as 'legally acceptable'. So who made the laws that said the US government could not have the land?

foal

10-29-2007, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Right. As long as you plan on accepting that you do NOT believe in self-ownership, thats fine. You just must then accept the consequences that result from their being no right to self-ownership. Like me enslaving you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not owning myself does not equate to you owning me.

tame_deuces

10-29-2007, 05:31 PM

Well, its moot anyway. There is nothing illogical about separating body and possessions into two different categories. That some wish to put them into one category based on some superficial similarity and then use this to claim logical fallacy of an opposing political view is just rhetorical spew.

madnak

10-29-2007, 05:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Legitimate according to who? Legitimacy is generally defined as 'legally acceptable'. So who made the laws that said the US government could not have the land?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean within the context of the typical AC view (ie no use of force).

I think the conventional definition of "legitimate" is absurd. Legally acceptable according to what standard? Why, the standard set by a legitimate legislative authority! And what kind of legislative authority is legitimate? One that's legally acceptable!

pvn

10-29-2007, 05:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've known women that have had abortions, and heard about others, and in all cases, none of them were arguing for the abortion because they were "forced to give their bodily resouces to the foetus." They had one because they had never wanted it in the first place, or because they were raped, or because it would shame their parents, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to get rid of my tax burden because I never wanted it in the first place. It also shames my family.

[ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't, because they are completely separate concepts. Having an abortion is done when a woman reaches her emotional cusp and decides it is the only option. It is a decision based mostly on emotion. Paying taxes is different. You pay taxes, in theory, because it is the right thing to do;

[/ QUOTE ]

Who decided this for me?

[ QUOTE ]
you are being forced to give something back (as you probably wouldn't if you weren't forced).

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I wouldn't! And if the guy mugging you didn't have a knife, you probably wouldn't give him your wallet.

[ QUOTE ]
However most obvious reason would be that you would have heard about it by now, instead of inventing the idea yourself. Have you heard of an anti-tax group, or at least one that is linked to pro-choice groups? I'm going to guess you haven't, probably because I don't think any exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appeal to majority.

pvn

10-29-2007, 05:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with this analogy.

The government provides services to the society, and to finance them it needs money/taxes.

The baby doesn't provide any service to its mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm providing a service to you right now (explaining how your rationale for taxes is flawed and morally bankrupt). To finance this, I need money. Please PM me and I'll give you my PS screenname for the transfer. Clearly, you agree that you owe me for this helpful service I have provided.

pvn

10-29-2007, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body.

I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since

- that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and
- society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income.

[/ QUOTE ]

Labor theory of value!

Those costs should have been alredy accounted for in the transactions. If people do a poor job of accounting for those costs, they'll eventually be driven out of the market by those who do a better job of it.

The pencil I used three minutes ago required a lumberjack to cut the tree down, a driver to haul the tree to the mill, a mill operator to process the wood, another truck driver to take the processed wood to the pencil factory, a pencil maker guy to make the pencil, another driver to haul the pencil to WalMart, a WalMart stock guy to put the pencil on the shelf, and a cashier to process the transaction.

I don't owe any of theose people anything. Each person is compensated appropriately (by their own subjective valuations!) at each step along the way.

pvn

10-29-2007, 05:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the private corporation called government holds legitimately owned lands

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. States cannot legitimately own property.

States acquire land either by buying it (with stolen funds), by decree (which does not confer a legitimate property right) (also note escheat would fall into this category), by conquest (effectively robbery), by emminent domain (a subset of conquest), or by "working" the land (which would not confer property rights in the case of government, since they are working the land either with conscripted labor or they are purchasing labor with stolen funds).

tame_deuces

10-29-2007, 05:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Legitimate according to who? Legitimacy is generally defined as 'legally acceptable'. So who made the laws that said the US government could not have the land?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean within the context of the typical AC view (ie no use of force).

I think the conventional definition of "legitimate" is absurd. Legally acceptable according to what standard? Why, the standard set by a legitimate legislative authority! And what kind of legislative authority is legitimate? One that's legally acceptable!

[/ QUOTE ]

The dawn of the modern term state was made in large part of the principle to protect rights and mainly property rights of the people that inhabit a certain piece of land (nation if you will), from this the principle of the state as a legal entity with obligations and rights was born.

Before this 'state' meant people and its other form 'status' meant someone who rules them. Which if you think about it, tells a story of its own.

pvn

10-29-2007, 05:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To better understand what I'm getting at, imagine a scenario where the first settlers had taken over an empty country, and decided to form a collective that owned all the common land and administered it (by some AC definition of ownership). Then, anyone coming onto their land, and wanting to settle there, had to sign a contract agreeing to abide by the rules of the private collective. All dandy in AC world. 300 years later, you have a US government which is identical to the one today - and yet according to AC rules, the first is legitimate but the second one isn't. Can you spot the gaping hole in AC theory now?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I can spot the gaping hole in your post. Simply decree does not confer legitimate property rights. It's ridiculous. And *even if it did* your post doesn't describe the US, since north american wasn't "an empty country" (as many statists love to point out in their "ZOMG stolen indian lands, therefore AC is impossible" gotcha posts.

AWoodside

10-29-2007, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Exactly, which is why AC doesn't work. It's nothing but popular will, but instead of having a government to embody it, there's nothing. So if 90% of the people in a county want black people gone, they can drive them out. It's about flexibility, after all, and there is no rule of law.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this criticism of AC is that it sets up a false dichotomy. You seem to be implying that, unlike in AC-land, these black people would be fine and dandy if there were a government in place to make everything right. That simply isn't the case. If there is a region where 90% of the population are violent bigots the black people in that region are going to be screwed regardless of the type of government (or lack thereof) instituted there.

foal

10-29-2007, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Legitimate according to who? Legitimacy is generally defined as 'legally acceptable'. So who made the laws that said the US government could not have the land?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean within the context of the typical AC view (ie no use of force).

[/ QUOTE ]
This view makes little sense since AC is an absence of governmental law, so "no use of force" might be your personal preference, but there's no reason everyone else has to go along with it. Or, more to the point, you have no basis for calling it "illegitimate".

[ QUOTE ]
I think the conventional definition of "legitimate" is absurd. Legally acceptable according to what standard?

[/ QUOTE ]
What is your standard of legitimacy and why are you in a position to set what is legitimate?

Phil153

10-29-2007, 05:57 PM

pvn,

I never made an argument about stolen indian lands - it's the ACists who invoke that. And it applies equally to most private property.

[ QUOTE ]
Simply decree does not confer legitimate property rights

[/ QUOTE ]
What does though? You guys flip in and out of the concept of legitimacy. Am I "allowed" to keep my 2000 acres if I don't graze cattle and only use a tiny portion of it? What about if my ancestors used it, but it hasn't been worked for 30 years?

AC property theory is a joke. You fudge answers to questions like the above, or if you do take a position then you take the exact opposite one when confronted with another situation (i.e. government ownership).

madnak

10-29-2007, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Then neither does just about any other owner, smart guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. It's a tough issue. I don't accept that difficult situations necessitate governmental solutions (particularly when the "solution" is just handing everything to the government).

[ QUOTE ]
To better understand what I'm getting at, imagine a scenario where the first settlers had taken over an empty country, and decided to form a collective that owned all the common land and administered it (by some AC definition of ownership). Then, anyone coming onto their land, and wanting to settle there, had to sign a contract agreeing to abide by the rules of the private collective. All dandy in AC world. 300 years later, you have a US government which is identical to the one today - and yet according to AC rules, the first is legitimate but the second one isn't. Can you spot the gaping hole in AC theory now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I started with KK once and got busted by a boat. Then I started with 96o and again, busted by a boat! Clearly the situations are analogous, because the results were the same.

Property claims are tricky, and I don't want to go too deeply into them. I don't accept AC on moralistic grounds, and certainly not on the kinds of moralistic grounds that would entail letting someone starve because the alternative would be to trespass or something.

But in this situation I don't think I need to bother with those gray areas. When did the AC society start using force? When did it trash property rights? When it did either of those things, it became corrupt and that's when the trouble started.

The whole "private collective" scenario could be used in a discussion of how to prevent coercive bodies from forming in a free market, but that is way off topic.

[ QUOTE ]
So if 90% of the people in a county want black people gone, they can drive them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that they don't own any property in that county, yes, the people who do own that property can kick them out. In general, if 90% of the people living under a given system want something badly enough to make a personal investment, they'll get what they want. If 90% of Americans wanted blacks kicked out of the US, do you really believe our constitution would protect them? In theory, perhaps. But in theory, the ACists won't use force.

In reality, things get messy. There is no system of organization that will prevent this. The best we can do is minimize it and mitigate any harm done.

[ QUOTE ]
It's about flexibility, after all, and there is no rule of law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there's rule of law. Who says there isn't? I won't go into detail, because again it's a massive derailment, but of course there would be courts and legislators and law enforcement and everything under AC. It just wouldn't be government enforcing it.

foal

10-29-2007, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with this analogy.

The government provides services to the society, and to finance them it needs money/taxes.

The baby doesn't provide any service to its mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm providing a service to you right now (explaining how your rationale for taxes is flawed and morally bankrupt). To finance this, I need money. Please PM me and I'll give you my PS screenname for the transfer. Clearly, you agree that you owe me for this helpful service I have provided.

[/ QUOTE ]
Besides the point, you're responding to a claim about why two things are not analagous.

Phil153

10-29-2007, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the private corporation called government holds legitimately owned lands

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. States cannot legitimately own property.

States acquire land either by buying it (with stolen funds), by decree (which does not confer a legitimate property right) (also note escheat would fall into this category), by conquest (effectively robbery), by emminent domain (a subset of conquest), or by "working" the land (which would not confer property rights in the case of government, since they are working the land either with conscripted labor or they are purchasing labor with stolen funds).

[/ QUOTE ]
That's amusing.

Why can a group of citizens own a parcel of land, and delegate someone to manage it via majority vote, but not do the same thing with a government? And you're using an argument based on an action taken centuries ago, which if used equivalently with private property, more likely than not invalidates the title to the land you're standing on right now.

You can't have it both ways.

madnak

10-29-2007, 06:06 PM

I base my view of legitimacy on principle. I don't think there has to be any single "official" view, nor do I think there can be. Legitimacy is largely subjective, so at best it can only be established based on either the opinions of the majority or the opinions of a certain group of elites. I think these are very arbitrary standards (especially in the latter case).

foal

10-29-2007, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I base my view of legitimacy on principle. I don't think there has to be any single "official" view, nor do I think there can be. Legitimacy is largely subjective, so at best it can only be established based on either the opinions of the majority or the opinions of a certain group of elites. I think these are very arbitrary standards (especially in the latter case).

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you should admit this

[ QUOTE ]
The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
is a weak argument. According to the opinions of the majority, the government has 'legitimate' rule of the land.

Phil153

10-29-2007, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body.

I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since

- that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and
- society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income.

[/ QUOTE ]

Labor theory of value!

Those costs should have been alredy accounted for in the transactions. If people do a poor job of accounting for those costs, they'll eventually be driven out of the market by those who do a better job of it.

The pencil I used three minutes ago required a lumberjack to cut the tree down, a driver to haul the tree to the mill, a mill operator to process the wood, another truck driver to take the processed wood to the pencil factory, a pencil maker guy to make the pencil, another driver to haul the pencil to WalMart, a WalMart stock guy to put the pencil on the shelf, and a cashier to process the transaction.

I don't owe any of theose people anything. Each person is compensated appropriately (by their own subjective valuations!) at each step along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying the market doesn't account for costs. But if you think most of those earning much more are being compensated according to the value of the wealth they create, I think you're mistaken.

Some people benefit greatly from society, while others working the exact same hours benefit little. Part of taxation is a recognition that those working and earning in the bottom rungs are probably not being compensated fairly by the market (by fairly I mean, according to wealth created vs utility received). So I do not think those who have to pay taxes have any natural, god given right to retain every cent of their money. Certainly not the same kind of right that says a woman has an absolute right to determine what happens in her own body.

And I don't think the market accounts for society wide costs. Your point about going broke and being forced from the market breaks down when you look at country wide and global effects IMO.

pvn

10-29-2007, 06:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why can a group of citizens own a parcel of land, and delegate someone to manage it via majority vote, but not do the same thing with a government?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can!

That's not how the USA was founded, though. DUCY?

[ QUOTE ]
And you're using an argument based on an action taken centuries ago, which if used equivalently with private property, more likely than not invalidates the title to the land you're standing on right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to have to get more specific since I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

madnak

10-29-2007, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Then you should admit this

[ QUOTE ]
The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
is a weak argument. According to the opinions of the majority, the government has 'legitimate' rule of the land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, in general. But in Phil's context of "under AC definitions of ownership," I think assuming the implication of an AC conception of legitimacy was justified.

bocablkr

10-29-2007, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body.

I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since

- that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and
- society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income.

Besides, taxation has a legitimate basis. If you don't think laws make it legitimate, then consider that the government could easily charge a road/water/electricity levy for land it legitimately owns (since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government). Such a levy could be made equivalent to taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they could do that and then we could refuse to pay it for about 15 seconds until the government went bankrupt and had to sell us their land. Except they've already sold us their land. So no worries. They may have acquired it and owned it once but they do not any longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk01,

When did you become an ACer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure exactly. 6 months ago maybe? There wasnt exactly a lightbulb moment or anything. I resisted it for a while because it seemed like such a pejorative term and I didnt want to call myself that, but then I got over that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's next - you going to start believing in God?

madnak

10-29-2007, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What's next - you going to start believing in God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he will, but Nielso will have to make some pro-religion videos first.

foal

10-29-2007, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then you should admit this

[ QUOTE ]
The government has no legitimate claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
is a weak argument. According to the opinions of the majority, the government has 'legitimate' rule of the land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, in general. But in Phil's context of "under AC definitions of ownership," I think assuming the implication of an AC conception of legitimacy was justified.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's an AC conception of legitimacy? I thought when you answered that "legitimacy is largely subjective" you were dismissing any hard AC definition of legitimacy. If your personal definition of legitimacy is different from "an AC conception of legitimacy" could you please explain the latter to me?

madnak

10-29-2007, 08:06 PM

A group of people can share a standard of legitimacy. That doesn't make it any less subjective. But this is a semantic point.

foal

10-29-2007, 08:56 PM

How do you acquire land legitimately under AC principles?

doucy

10-29-2007, 10:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you think one kind of restraint/limitation is wrong then you must (ought to) think all of them are wrong..

Wow, you suck at reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misrepresenting my argument. I didn't say "if you are against A, and A is coercive, then you must be against everything that is coercive."

I said "if you are against A because it is coercive, then you should be against everything that is coercive."

It's easy to say someone sucks at reasoning if you completely misconstrue their argument.

doucy

10-29-2007, 10:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The prisoner's dillema. If you believe the government can act as a useful tool to force people to cooperate, this could be better than everyone on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better for whom, and by what definition of "better"? You might think you're making things better, but the people you are coercing might think otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, no one is forcing you to live in a particular country... You can just leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But then I guess all authoritative activity can be justified. The government wants to murder you? Quit yer bitchin, you can always leave.

doucy

10-29-2007, 10:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pro choice because I believe people should have very strong rights over their own body.

I'm pro tax because I don't believe people have very strong rights over every cent of the income they earn, since

- that money is gained in large part from interacting with society, and
- society itself has costs (current, future and historical) which go into providing this person with income.

Besides, taxation has a legitimate basis. If you don't think laws make it legitimate, then consider that the government could easily charge a road/water/electricity levy for land it legitimately owns (since most land under AC definitions of ownership was legitimately acquired by the private corporation that is the government). Such a levy could be made equivalent to taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil,

You wrote that you are in favor of people having strong rights over their body, but you didn't explain why. Please:

1. Explain why you are in favor of strong bodily rights.
2. Why those reasons do not apply to money.

This thread devolved into the usual AC/statist crapfest but I'd like to steer it back on track if I can.

moorobot

10-29-2007, 11:24 PM

No it does not seem analogous at all, as you have no theory demonstrating who owns what. Put differently, you haven't shown why self-ownership leads to world-ownership, or how much world-ownership people should have or how they are allowed to legitimately come to own the external world.

BTW-I think that is an awful argument against abortion anyway. How could threatening somebody be worse than killing somebody? The general argument used by pro-choicers is: fetus is not a human being yet.

moorobot

10-29-2007, 11:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]

you get wealth by performing labor. I would assert labor is a bodily resource.

[/ QUOTE ] This has nothing to do with anything (even when true); where you get something doesn't tell you anything about that things essence. To illustrate, consider this argument using your form and logic: you can get killed by eating something with protein in it. I would assert that protein is a bodily resource. Therefore, killing yourself is part of your body. And this is a statement that doesn't even make any sense, of course. So your logic is faulty.

moorobot

10-29-2007, 11:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I said "if you are against A because it is coercive, then you should be against everything that is coercive."

[/ QUOTE ] This argument, while not as completely and obviously groundless and question begging as your explicit OP, fails as well. It presupposes that there is only one good thing or value in the world, namely lack of coercion. In A's case, the other values to be gained from using coercion may be low, but in the case of B, other values gained from using coercion may be high, and hence we may favor using coercion in case B without any inconsistency, because the trade offs between values makes using coercion worth it it in case B may be high.

doucy

10-29-2007, 11:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I said "if you are against A because it is coercive, then you should be against everything that is coercive."

[/ QUOTE ] This argument, while not as completely and obviously groundless and question begging as your explicit OP, fails as well. It presupposes that there is only one good thing or value in the world, namely lack of coercion. In A's case, the other values to be gained from using coercion may be low, but in the case of B, other values gained from using coercion may be high, and hence we may favor using coercion in case B without any inconsistency, because the tradeoffs between values makes using coercion worthi it in case B.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the values gained from using coercion are relevant, then you must mention them in order for the statement to be completely true.

If your stance is "I am against A because it is coercive, and because the values gained from using coercion are low" that's not the same as "I am against A because it is coercive." I don't see any problem with assuming that lack of coercion is the only good thing relevant to the discussion.

moorobot

10-30-2007, 12:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If your stance is "I am against A because it is coercive, and because the values gained from using coercion are low" that's not the same as "I am against A because it is coercive." I don't see any problem with assuming that lack of coercion is the only good thing relevant to the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ] Well than the statement "I am against A because it is coercive" simply begs the question: In basically all cases of coercion, somebody is coerced for/in order to bring about something that many other people think is valuable, and usually correctly so (positive liberty, stability, equal substantive self-ownership, efficiency, art, education, defense, safety, public health, protection from human rights abuse abroad, utility etc.) and sometimes even for things that the person being coerced themselves think is valuable (this is the case during coercive actions that solve prisoner's dilemmas, coordination problems, weakness of will problems, tragedies of the anti-commons, etc.). That's why they are coerced!

To assume that no other values are at stake in this situation would be like assuming that, when arguing that a baseball team should spend its money entirely on pitching, that fielding, management, hitting, advertising, etc. are not at all important. But the premise is clearly false, so the conclusion is not true. So there is an enormous problem with the assumption you claim is acceptable.

NickMPK

10-30-2007, 12:26 AM

I am pro-choice because I don't think there is anything wrong with abortion, and I think it is a good thing for society to have fewer unwanted children born. It really has nothing to do with property rights. I don't see how this has anything to do with your argument vis-a-vis taxation.

doucy

10-30-2007, 12:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If your stance is "I am against A because it is coercive, and because the values gained from using coercion are low" that's not the same as "I am against A because it is coercive." I don't see any problem with assuming that lack of coercion is the only good thing relevant to the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ] Well than the statement "I am against A because it is coercive" simply begs the question: In basically all cases of coercion, somebody is coerced for/in order to bring about something that many other people think is valuable, and usually correctly so (positive liberty, stability, equal substantive self-ownership, efficiency, art, education, defense, safety, public health, protection from human rights abuse abroad, utility etc.) and sometimes even for things that the person being coerced themselves think is valuable (this is the case during coercive actions that solve prisoner's dilemmas, coordination problems, weakness of will problems, tragedies of the anti-commons, etc.). That's why they are coerced!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the point you're making. Let's use the example of public education.

Some authority charges you $x for public education. You are willing to pay $y. If x > y, then you are being coerced into paying for something that you don't want to pay for. Sure, you are still getting something "good" in that you will benefit from the education, but it is coming at a cost that is not worth it to you. In this way, your net utility decreases.

But then you might ask "but what about all those people for whom y > x?" Those people would pay for the education whether the authority mandated it or not. So although the authority is still requiring those people to pay for it, they really aren't doing any coercing, since the people would pay for it anyway.

In this way, coercion cannot be a good thing under any circumstances, because coercion must ALWAYS decrease the individual's net utility, regardless of the other values at stake.

doucy

10-30-2007, 12:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I am pro-choice because I don't think there is anything wrong with abortion, and I think it is a good thing for society to have fewer unwanted children born. It really has nothing to do with property rights. I don't see how this has anything to do with your argument vis-a-vis taxation.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't subscribe to the belief in the OP then the post is not directed at you.

Bork

10-30-2007, 02:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
uote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think one kind of restraint/limitation is wrong then you must (ought to) think all of them are wrong..

Wow, you suck at reasoning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are misrepresenting my argument. I didn't say "if you are against A, and A is coercive, then you must be against everything that is coercive."

I said "if you are against A because it is coercive, then you should be against everything that is coercive."

It's easy to say someone sucks at reasoning if you completely misconstrue their argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh your 'new' argument is invalid and just as stupid. Mostly because it's the same basic argument I represented you as having. It's an unjustified universal generalization. Did you even read the rest of my post with the 'against stealing then against all wars' argument?
yeesh

If you are trying to make the actual valid argument that the retards who think any act involving coersion must be wrong ought to think taxes are wrong, then please please don't represent that as some kind of common standard view of pro-choicers.

Almost nobody believes any act which involves forcing somebody to do something is wrong. You made the principle sound vague and non-threatening, but then you make huge generalizations based on that principle. In order to validly make such generalizations then the principle has to be explicitly universal and obviously false, unbelievable, etc..

[ QUOTE ]
coercion cannot be a good thing under any circumstances, because coercion must ALWAYS decrease the individual's net utility, regardless of the other values at stake.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't possibly believe this.. I guess we should release all the serial killers from jail and get rid of all the police forces, no? Trolling?

madnak

10-30-2007, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How do you acquire land legitimately under AC principles?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can purchase it. How it's distributed "originally" is trickier, there's no clear consensus, and it would depend on the circumstances. But the thread is back on-topic so let's not discuss it.

furyshade

10-30-2007, 02:39 AM

i honestly don't know how the commitment of the rest of a woman's and potentially many other's lives to a child that will not have a good living condition and most likely end up a burden on society. if two crack heads have a baby and don't want to raise a child that child will either be neglected, put into the foster system, or most likely both.

i argue that, the opposite of your point, if you are pro-life you had better be pro-tax, because if you want to make the decision that a woman must bring an unwanted child into the world you better be willing to pay for it. you should be willing to pay the required tax to feed, shelter, and raise that child if the mother can't. it is remarkably hypocritical to say that it is okay for the government to force a child into existence but after that the government can say sorry, its your problem now

foal

10-30-2007, 11:22 AM

Just to reinforce the point moorobot already made:

[ QUOTE ]
I said "if you are against A because it is coercive, then you should be against everything that is coercive."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is like saying "if you don't want to eat that sandwhich, because it tastes bad then you should never take cold medicine. otherwise you're a hypocrite." Or "if you don't want to buy that watch, because it's expensive, then you should never buy a house or a car."
Most pro-choicers are not of the position that "coercion is always wrong no matter what".

soon2bepro

10-30-2007, 01:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The prisoner's dillema. If you believe the government can act as a useful tool to force people to cooperate, this could be better than everyone on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better for whom, and by what definition of "better"? You might think you're making things better, but the people you are coercing might think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Better for all individuals.

I agree with most of what AC proposes, but I can't yet get around the prisoner's dillema. Sure you can say the iterated prisoner's dillema, but I don't think that works.

See for example, if you and me and 2,000,000 other americans are concerned about national security, we can pay for it if it's +EV. I understand that. But if I choose to claim I don't care about it, you can never know that I'm just freeriding on the rest of you.

You can say that it's still +EV for you to pay for it, but that doesn't mean I haven't stold from you.

If it's +EV for you to run a company even when I'm stealing profit from it, that doesn't mean you're ok with me stealing a portion of your company's profits.

This applies to other areas aswell, such as outright theft, violence, enviromental issues, etc.

Now I'm not saying a government is great at preventing these, but at least theoretically it should be better than no government at all. However that doesn't mean I think it's ok for a few people to take decisions for many. I think it'd be better if everyone had a say in decisions. Direct democracy FTW. Though not necessarily 1 man = 1 vote: I think what each person is considered to contribute to society should have at least some weight here.

Also as others may have pointed out, when you can own land, you can easily establish unpenetrable monopolies in mostly every field in the market.
You say taxation is theft, and I partially agree with that, but land ownership is a much more serious and undeniable theft.

Bottomline is, I'm a pro-choicer because I don't think abortions can be said to directly, materially affect anyone else other than the mother. (I don't consider fetuses to be a "someone"). I'm not so sure about being anti-tax because your not being taxated does materially affect others. And I don't think taxation is fundamentally wrong, even though it tends to be.

soon2bepro

10-30-2007, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you acquire land legitimately under AC principles?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can purchase it. How it's distributed "originally" is trickier, there's no clear consensus, and it would depend on the circumstances. But the thread is back on-topic so let's not discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there isn't. You buy it from a guy who bought it from another guy who bought it from another guy... etc... until down the line someone invaded the land, probably killing whoever lived there, and proclaimed the land as their own. In fact you can be certain that before this invasion came, there was another invasion, where another group of people stold the land from the last people who owned it... And so on and so forth, back to the beginning of the human species.

Face the truth. Land ownership is nonsensical under legal terms.

AceLuby

10-30-2007, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal
Cat != Dog

Bork

10-30-2007, 04:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal
Cat != Dog

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently he also has some principle built in, analagous to all Mammals should be treated the same, and then concluding that cats and dogs should be treated the same. Whales, humans, bears, mice, would all make the list too. This makes the logic valid, but it's a stupid strawman principle he is attributing as the major basis for pro-choicers.. It is either invalid or based on a false strawman premise though, and when you call him on one he switches to the other.

Your mammal point is a fairly good way to illustrate how obvious it as that all acts of coersion are not wrong. It's so obvious that one wonders why we should even care about these mythical pro-choicers who base their view on such an obviously false principle.

MaxWeiss

10-31-2007, 01:57 AM

vhawk01

10-31-2007, 07:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal
Cat != Dog

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get it...where are you "completely disagree"-ing? He asked if you thought the cat and dog were both mammals, you say you do, and then you say you completely disagree? Explain.

vhawk01

10-31-2007, 07:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal
Cat != Dog

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently he also has some principle built in, analagous to all Mammals should be treated the same, and then concluding that cats and dogs should be treated the same. Whales, humans, bears, mice, would all make the list too. This makes the logic valid, but it's a stupid strawman principle he is attributing as the major basis for pro-choicers.. It is either invalid or based on a false strawman premise though, and when you call him on one he switches to the other.

Your mammal point is a fairly good way to illustrate how obvious it as that all acts of coersion are not wrong. It's so obvious that one wonders why we should even care about these mythical pro-choicers who base their view on such an obviously false principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

His mammal point is terrible at demonstrating that. It doesnt do anything like that. And no one bases their pro-choice position on the premise that ALL acts of coercion are wrong. Merely the initiation of violent coercion.

foal

10-31-2007, 08:11 AM

is there such a thing as non-violent coercion?

Bork

10-31-2007, 11:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
His mammal point is terrible at demonstrating that. It doesnt do anything like that. And no one bases their pro-choice position on the premise that ALL acts of coercion are wrong. Merely the initiation of violent coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, reading comprehension? Half my point is that nobody holds the completely general principle.

Also his point does demonstrate that the silly general principle is necessary to make the OP's argument valid. It's a criticism that can only be avoided by offering the principle, so it forces OP to either give up the argument or claim that pro-choicers base their view on that principle. Technically it doesn't demonstrate the falsity of the principle, but it forces the arguer to come up with a completely generalizable explicit principle which non-idiots will immediately recognize as false. It leads down the road to disaster.

pvn

10-31-2007, 11:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal
Cat != Dog

[/ QUOTE ]

But his point wasn't that "wealth = body".

Do you agree or disagree with the proposition AS POSED?

wealth = property
body = property

?

cat != dog

does NOT invalidate

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal

tame_deuces

11-01-2007, 05:06 AM

The point is that dog = cat is a simplification of the OP point that their shared properties mean they should for all purposes be treated the same in this debate.

This isn't a 'political shootdown' of a view, its pointing out the the logic used isn't valid unless you agree with the statement Y about WHY they should be treated the same.

For this debate it is probably healthy to apply the logic in analogues, because the terms in the OP are so loaded on this forum that it will overshadow the pure logic debate.

Like this:

A is X
B is X

A & B should be treated equally.

As should be evident, this statement is only valid if you accept the notion that all X should be treated equally. Which puts you back to square one - political debate.

soon2bepro

11-02-2007, 06:52 AM

But cat doesn't = mammal, just like dog doesn't = mammal, and wealth or body doesn't = property.

Mammal is a classification for many different things. A dog is classified as a mammal, but a dog doesn't = the term mammal, as the mammal classification is more than just a dog. Just like the property classification is about more than just wealth or body.

However, if you say that dog = mammal then any other mammal = dog. Likewise for property. Since if A = C and B = C, A = B. Basic logic principle.

If I say blondness = my girl, that's wrong, since she is not equal to blondness, she's just blond. However if I say blondness = the color of my girls' hair, that's true (as long as there's only 1 possible shade of blonde, which there isn't but you get the idea.)