Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
No one believes that there should be no property rights over land?

[/ QUOTE ]

The term "property rights" is pretty subjective, but yes, everyone believes in property as far as I know. Lots of people say they don't when they actually do though, like ASists who completely believe in communal property.

[ QUOTE ]
More generally, I think a lot of people (myself included) would believe that the only property rights we have are the ones the state guarantees to protect as determined through a democratic process. I don't believe in any sort of inherent property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

So obviously if something caused our government to collapse, then during the transitional period before a new government is established, you'd do your best to loot your neighbors' homes?

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. AC doesn't require any objective morality. If your subjective morality says taxation is not theft, that's great. Note, however, that if morality is subjective and personal, you don't have any right to impose your morality upon others.

The morality argument reduces to the negative rights argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC definitely requires the acceptance of an objective morality, one that values self-ownership and freedom from coercion above other possible values.

As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've mentioned it numerous times, but never actually demonstrated it.

[/ QUOTE ]
He's probably correct, as I hoped to discuss in my threads on DCists and nomads. Certainly the landed will come to oppress the landless (irrespective of the property-related beliefs of the landless).

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I believe you got an answer numerous times from pvn and perhaps others, but please link the thread if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the thread in question. The relevant discussion starts on page 5 or so. Pvn does come closest to giving an answer, which is basically, "if we don't have property, then we have nothing," but that still sound like a mandatory belief in property rights to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the thread where you said you wanted to use a utilitarian calculus, then admitted that such is impossible. Well, that certainly is helpful. Personally, I advocate the use of timetravel. All of our problems will be solved if we would just use this wonderful tool.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you just proposed something even less practical than DCism. Way to go! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Circular how?

[ QUOTE ]
The behavior that is restricted is not any behavior that you had any right to engage in to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's circular, you use your view of property rights to prove that he doesn't have the right to be on your property.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, once again, I'm using HIS view. He admitted he has no entitlement to be anywhere in particular, only where he currently is. So, once again, by moving, he's moving to a location that he has no right to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under the previously stated view of self-ownership rights, I don't have an entitlement to be a particular place only in a the case where someone else is already there; that is I never have the right to eject someone from a place because I want to be there. And I'm not trying to eject you from your "property". I am just standing in a place that you say you own, although you are not physically there.

But this is all from a previous discussion, and not responsive to the general point that I'm making that the AC view of rights coercively restricts the behavior of other people.

You can't respond to this by saying, "You don't have the right to engage in the behavior I am coercing you from engaging in," because it is only you, not me, that believes I don't have that right. Such a response is simply choosing to enforce your morality ahead of mine in same coercive manner that the state does.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
More generally, I think a lot of people (myself included) would believe that the only property rights we have are the ones the state guarantees to protect as determined through a democratic process. I don't believe in any sort of inherent property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

So obviously if something caused our government to collapse, then during the transitional period before a new government is established, you'd do your best to loot your neighbors' homes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if that actually happened, I'm such the instinct for self-preservation would be pretty strong. But I hope that I would act in a way that was consistant with my non-rights-based view of morality. This morality would dictate that looting is generally wrong, but it would depend on the actual situation.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you believe any property rights are revocable by 51% of the population, and that they only exist as long as they are tolerated by the whim of the majority (as expressed by the representative-democratic process). I believe that is what's referred to as a "privilege", not a right.

But my question is whether you have similar beliefs about other rights. Freedom of speech? Do you believe in an absolute right to free speech, or is this also subject to democratic referrendums? For instance if the Democrats sweep the next election, can they oversee the media to ensure that their viewpoint is well-represented, to the detriment of their opposition? After all, theirs is the majority viewpoint.

What I am asking is whether you disavow ALL absolute rights (believeing only in privileges)(with the possible exception of the right to vote) or whether you believe in SOME absolute rights but property is not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't believe in any absolute rights.

However, I also don't believe that "democracy" demands that our entire social system be instantly responsive to the whim of the majority. We have a constitutional process of representation, checks and balances, judicial review, amendment, etc., to assure that the "democratic" process doesn't do long-term damage to society to satisfy short-term desires. It obviously doesn't always work well, and nations disagree about exactly how to structure this process, but it is more or less the right idea.

Fundamentally, the basis for the legitimacy of the state, the constitution, democracy, and whatever rights are guaranteed under it, is that people like it. They are happier with a state than without it. If they weren't, at some point they would revolt and we would have something different.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Circular how?

[ QUOTE ]
The behavior that is restricted is not any behavior that you had any right to engage in to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's circular, you use your view of property rights to prove that he doesn't have the right to be on your property.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, once again, I'm using HIS view. He admitted he has no entitlement to be anywhere in particular, only where he currently is. So, once again, by moving, he's moving to a location that he has no right to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under the previously stated view of self-ownership rights, I don't have an entitlement to be a particular place only in a the case where someone else is already there; that is I never have the right to eject someone from a place because I want to be there. And I'm not trying to eject you from your "property". I am just standing in a place that you say you own, although you are not physically there.

But this is all from a previous discussion, and not responsive to the general point that I'm making that the AC view of rights coercively restricts the behavior of other people.

You can't respond to this by saying, "You don't have the right to engage in the behavior I am coercing you from engaging in," because it is only you, not me, that believes I don't have that right. Such a response is simply choosing to enforce your morality ahead of mine in same coercive manner that the state does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you are saying you have a *right* to go to a particular place? How is this different than owning that particular place?

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fundamentally, the basis for the legitimacy of the state, the constitution, democracy, and whatever rights are guaranteed under it, is that people like it. They are happier with a state than without it. If they weren't, at some point they would revolt and we would have something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Coke, so it's OK for me to use force to prevent my neighbor from drinking milk and to make sure he only drinks Coke? I mean, I REALLY like it. His preference for milk isn't very strong at all.

You're looking at aggregates and ignoring individuals. This is the first step towards oppression.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you are saying you have a *right* to go to a particular place? How is this different than owning that particular place?

[/ QUOTE ]

In that hypothetical, I have a right to move freely as long as I am not interfering with anyone else. Whether this somehow equates with "ownership" is a purely semantic question that depends on how you define ownership.

Why is it so difficult to get an answer?

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you are saying you have a *right* to go to a particular place? How is this different than owning that particular place?

[/ QUOTE ]

In that hypothetical, I have a right to move freely as long as I am not interfering with anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we might need to define "right" here. Do I have a right to eat ice cream? In the general case, I'd say no, you have no *right* to eat ice cream. In a specific case, for example a case where you own a particular quantity of ice cream, I'd say you have a right to dispose of that property in a manner you see fit; nobody can stop you from eating it.

If I build a wall between you and some place you want to move to, am I violating your rights, even if I'm not occupying your desired destination?

[ QUOTE ]
Whether this somehow equates with "ownership" is a purely semantic question that depends on how you define ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, how do you define it?

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it so difficult to get an answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a question you asked that I missed?