Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
But does anyone other than Constantine have any thoughts on the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I guess not.

This forum has really degenerated to the point where you might as well just say "AC debate. GO!" Why bother trying to look at something from a new angle when everyone is just concerned with arguing their off topic semantical points? This will probably be the last OP I bother making on this forum for a while.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Two questions, I guess:

A.) It is morally acceptable for you to force me off land that you claim to own if I don't believe in ownership?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Because all I have to do is say I don't beleive in a right to not be assaulted. If you're not violating anything, then neither am I.[/i]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm stipulating that the land owner is an ACist...in which case I assume he believes in a right to not be assaulted, right? Are you just saying that the ACist has a right to suspend his own morality in order to coerce/assault someone who doesn't agree with that morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't he? Are you saying that morality is subjective, but you can't change your mind about it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
B.) If the answer to (A) is "yes", isn't the person you are forcing off the land being involuntarily coerced into accepting your view of morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. He doesn't have to accept anything. He's just removed from that piece of land. He can then accept whatever view of morality he wants.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess "accept" is the wrong word. Perhaps I should say "obey". My point is that he is coerced by the ACist in the same was that the ACist is coerced by the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the state acknowleges property (to an extent), and imposes its power anyway.

Since your hypothetical person doesn't recognize property, the "coercion" he experiences is effectively nothing different than the "coercion" you would experience if you tried to pitch a tent in a bear's den. The bear doesn't "own" the cave. What are you going to do when he violates your rights and assaults you?

Without property, we devolve to might makes right.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, I don't own any property. I'm just building a wall where I happen to be at a particular time. I then leave later. You're in mexico, you want to go to canada, I build a wall in between. You aren't strong enough to climb over or to break through it.

Nobody owns anything. You can't get around the wall, are your rights violated?



[/ QUOTE ]

Because you are creating an entirely new hypothetical here, I'm not totally sure who "you" and "me" are anymore.

But I don't think the person who does not believe in property rights would think his rights were violated in this case. What does this have to do with anything else?

[/ QUOTE ]

You said you have a right to move freely. But now you're saying that my restriction of your free movement isn't a violation of your right. So, which is it?

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But does anyone other than Constantine have any thoughts on the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I guess not.

This forum has really degenerated to the point where you might as well just say "AC debate. GO!" Why bother trying to look at something from a new angle when everyone is just concerned with arguing their off topic semantical points? This will probably be the last OP I bother making on this forum for a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry for that. Collectively, 2+2 is one the best public forums on the net. I'm willing to tolerate some mindless AC evangelism to engage some of the minds on the site. I think that the real problem with some ACers is not that they hijack threads, but cannot engage in the forum if their AC assumptions are at all questioned. ALaw wasn't talking about the viability of property rights; he was talking about rhetorical strategies and appeals to people who don't believe in individual property rights characteristic of libertarianism and ACism. I have yet to see a single "known" ACer engage him on this issue. Seeing that, the "cause" would undoubtedly fail and is not really different from any other radical ideological stance.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Two questions, I guess:

A.) It is morally acceptable for you to force me off land that you claim to own if I don't believe in ownership?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Because all I have to do is say I don't beleive in a right to not be assaulted. If you're not violating anything, then neither am I.[/i]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm stipulating that the land owner is an ACist...in which case I assume he believes in a right to not be assaulted, right? Are you just saying that the ACist has a right to suspend his own morality in order to coerce/assault someone who doesn't agree with that morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't he? Are you saying that morality is subjective, but you can't change your mind about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the ACist changes his morality to something that disgrees with AC, you are changing the premise of the question rather than answering it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
B.) If the answer to (A) is "yes", isn't the person you are forcing off the land being involuntarily coerced into accepting your view of morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. He doesn't have to accept anything. He's just removed from that piece of land. He can then accept whatever view of morality he wants.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess "accept" is the wrong word. Perhaps I should say "obey". My point is that he is coerced by the ACist in the same was that the ACist is coerced by the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the state acknowleges property (to an extent), and imposes its power anyway.

Since your hypothetical person doesn't recognize property, the "coercion" he experiences is effectively nothing different than the "coercion" you would experience if you tried to pitch a tent in a bear's den. The bear doesn't "own" the cave. What are you going to do when he violates your rights and assaults you?

Without property, we devolve to might makes right.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bear is not a moral actor. You are. You have the ability to make decisions as to what it moral and what is not. We could all decide that assault is immoral without recognizing property, and simply allow people to go where they wish and do what they want. They would be more "free" under this system than the AC one. In fact, they would be most "free" without any restrictions on assault either.

AC limits freedom and imposes coercion by forcing people to obey property rights and prohibiting assault, whether they agree with these principles or not. (You could say that someone who assaults another person has voluntarily chosen to engage in their social system, but you can't necessarily say the same thing about someone who wanders onto another's property.)

Statism does the same thing, based on different and/or additional underlying principles. But the difference is one of degree and not category.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry for that. Collectively, 2+2 is one the best public forums on the net. I'm willing to tolerate some mindless AC evangelism to engage some of the minds on the site. I think that the real problem with some ACers is not that they hijack threads, but cannot engage in the forum if their AC assumptions are at all questioned. ALaw wasn't talking about the viability of property rights; he was talking about rhetorical strategies and appeals to people who don't believe in individual property rights characteristic of libertarianism and ACism. I have yet to see a single "known" ACer engage him on this issue. Seeing that, the "cause" would undoubtedly fail and is not really different from any other radical ideological stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bkholdem is the only "utilitarian" ACist on this board who might have an answer for you beyond "That violates my rights, so you can't do that". So you'd have to ask him.

As for starting non-AC threads, if you want to discuss Obama's poll numbers in Iowa, I and a couple other people would certainly discuss them with you, but you probably would not get that much response. If you want to discuss Obama's health care plan, you might get a lot of responses, but that would be because the discussion devolved into an AC debate, more often than not because of some trollish comment by Nielso.

Re: a quick thought
 

after this series of threads it is the ACists who are trolling? lollll

edit- yes, nielso does sidetrack a lot of threads. it wouldn't derail threads if people just ignored him.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bkholdem is the only "utilitarian" ACist on this board who might have an answer for you beyond "That violates my rights, so you can't do that". So you'd have to ask him.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so all the other ACers agree that you have to share their morality to agree with AC?

!!!!!!!!!

Really?

You're saying that someone who rejects the morality of natural rights might still not be able to be swayed by the practical benefits of AC? I don't think this is what many ACers believe.

Thus, I don't see why they should just ignore the question, since (unless I'm mistaken, or they're lying) they also believe in the practical benefits of AC beyond simply the moral aspect.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bkholdem is the only "utilitarian" ACist on this board who might have an answer for you beyond "That violates my rights, so you can't do that". So you'd have to ask him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying that someone who rejects the morality of natural rights might still not be able to be swayed by the practical benefits of AC? I don't think this is what many ACers believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Someone who rejects the morality of natural rights might be swayed by the practical benefits of AC.

But they will never be swayed by most the AC posters on this board, because those posters will never admit that such a person can have a coherent sense of morality without accepting natural property rights.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
Someone who rejects the morality of natural rights might be swayed by the practical benefits of AC.

But they will never be swayed by most the AC posters on this board, because those posters will never admit that such a person can have a coherent sense of morality without accepting natural property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you. But I don't think this belief is shared by the ACers.

Let's forget about "rights" and "morals." Those are the terms ACers insist on forming the discussion around. Let's talk about the guy that wants poor people to get money. That's his preference. I think ACers would argue (as I tend to agree with) that in the absence of government, charity would work more efficiently. Is that a fair claim, ACers?

So then, if you believe in the practical benefits of AC, why not dwell on them? Why dwell on a side of it that people don't necessarily agree with?