Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is about why you think people or states should refrain from taking what they need from you.

[/ QUOTE ]
The OP asked why people shouldn't take whatever they want from me. "Whatever they want" includes a lot of stuff, and self-defense is ultimately the bottom line for me personally.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, it makes little difference, but I did say whatever they need. Don't know if you were disagreeing with foal on that or just using "want" as a synonyme for "need". It wouldn't be too far from a synonyme in this scenario anyway.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most people think selling drugs is wrong, yet you think it's perfectly fine. Your moral views don't appear to come from most people

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think selling some drugs is morally wrong. I just don't think anyone has the right to use force to stop someone from selling drugs.

[ QUOTE ]
There is still a point here: I have lots of moral views, but the only view I want to impose on others is the one that says violence against other people is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to 'impose' any moral view on anyone. I'm not a moral subjectivist or relativist, so I don't believe that anyone's moral view is true for them, or equally right, or whatever. If the libertarian theory of self-ownership is 'correct', then it is not an imposition of aggressive force to see that they are followed. Just because A doesn't personally believe in property rights or whatever, if A steals B's watch then A is the aggressor, nothing is being 'imposed' on A.

[ QUOTE ]
If people respect property rights, like they do in the US and still would if the US was an anarchy, property rights will exist. But they only exist to the degree that they are respected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on which kind of 'right' you are talking about. My natural right to my property exists even if it isn't respected (natural rights pick out what *ought* to be protected, not what necessarily is protected or can be protected at the time). But my de facto and de jure rights to property clearly only exist to the extent that they are 'respected', and that clearly turns on questions about the existence of States, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
You say that societies that have not respected property rights have tended not to prosper. I agree with that, and that should be an incentive for people to respect property rights and to enact economical sanctions against thieves. But it does not justify the use of force. If people don't think property rights will be necessary for prosperity, or don't value prosperity enough that they want your view on property rights in their society, who are you to tell them otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily I think this question need not be answered with violence! I think both views can coexist in an anarchist society, since a stateless society will be highly decentralized and allow for a great variety of local custom and law.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have lots of moral views, but the only view I want to impose on others is the one that says violence against other people is wrong. I think it's ok to stop someone from forcefully imposing their will onto you or others, even if you have to use force yourself. You agree with this, but then you want to impose your view on private property on top of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not on top of it, it's part of it. If I own something and someone else tries to steal it or harm it or do anything to it that I don't like, they are forcefully imposing their will onto me and I have every right to respond with force.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to 'impose' any moral view on anyone. I'm not a moral subjectivist or relativist, so I don't believe that anyone's moral view is true for them, or equally right, or whatever. If the libertarian theory of self-ownership is 'correct', then it is not an imposition of aggressive force to see that they are followed. Just because A doesn't personally believe in property rights or whatever, if A steals B's watch then A is the aggressor, nothing is being 'imposed' on A.

[/ QUOTE ] Something is being imposed on A if violence is used to stop him. Go back to when slaves are property. If I help a slave run away from his owner, I am the aggressor, right? Nothing is being imposed on me if I'm violently stopped from doing so?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If people respect property rights, like they do in the US and still would if the US was an anarchy, property rights will exist. But they only exist to the degree that they are respected.

[/ QUOTE ] Depends on which kind of 'right' you are talking about. My natural right to my property exists even if it isn't respected (natural rights pick out what *ought* to be protected, not what necessarily is protected or can be protected at the time). But my de facto and de jure rights to property clearly only exist to the extent that they are 'respected', and that clearly turns on questions about the existence of States, etc.

[/ QUOTE ] If what you mean by a natural right is the right to use violence to enforce them, I'm saying you don't have a natural right to unlimited property rights. A lot of people think everyone has a natural right to food, water, shelter and so on. Right to not be discriminated against because of race, sex, opinions, retardation, chronic illness, so on. Maybe we can use violence to enforce all of that too. It would be some "anarchy".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You say that societies that have not respected property rights have tended not to prosper. I agree with that, and that should be an incentive for people to respect property rights and to enact economical sanctions against thieves. But it does not justify the use of force. If people don't think property rights will be necessary for prosperity, or don't value prosperity enough that they want your view on property rights in their society, who are you to tell them otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]
Luckily I think this question need not be answered with violence! I think both views can coexist in an anarchist society, since a stateless society will be highly decentralized and allow for a great variety of local custom and law.

[/ QUOTE ] And some local customs could envolve violently enforcing "law" on people that had not agreed to it?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to 'impose' any moral view on anyone. I'm not a moral subjectivist or relativist, so I don't believe that anyone's moral view is true for them, or equally right, or whatever. If the libertarian theory of self-ownership is 'correct', then it is not an imposition of aggressive force to see that they are followed. Just because A doesn't personally believe in property rights or whatever, if A steals B's watch then A is the aggressor, nothing is being 'imposed' on A.

[/ QUOTE ] Something is being imposed on A if violence is used to stop him. Go back to when slaves are property. If I help a slave run away from his owner, I am the aggressor, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The slave owner is aggressing against the slave by trying to own him.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
No. The slave owner is aggressing against the slave by trying to own him.

[/ QUOTE ] He thought it was his natural right to own black poeple. Enforcing natural rights, like property, justifies violence, no?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. The slave owner is aggressing against the slave by trying to own him.

[/ QUOTE ] He thought it was his natural right to own black poeple. Enforcing natural rights, like property, justifies violence, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to initiate force on a person to make them your property. You do not initiate force on inanimate objects to make them your property. The very idea is ludicrous. Your analogy fails completely.

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. The slave owner is aggressing against the slave by trying to own him.

[/ QUOTE ] He thought it was his natural right to own black poeple. Enforcing natural rights, like property, justifies violence, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to initiate force on a person to make them your property. You do not initiate force on inanimate objects to make them your property. The very idea is ludicrous. Your analogy fails completely.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, to make it easier for you imagine I "steal" some of your cattle or your cat.

nobody owns a cat. lol

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

In a more serious vein, note that I did not ask if the slave owner imposed anything on the slave. It is obvious that you will think so. I asked if the slave owner imposed anything on me if he used violence to stop me from freeing his slave. The analogy works perfectly. He thought owning slaves was his natural right. You think owning land is your natural right. Does that mean he could use violence? Does that mean you can use violence?

Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. The slave owner is aggressing against the slave by trying to own him.

[/ QUOTE ] He thought it was his natural right to own black poeple. Enforcing natural rights, like property, justifies violence, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to initiate force on a person to make them your property. You do not initiate force on inanimate objects to make them your property. The very idea is ludicrous. Your analogy fails completely.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, to make it easier for you imagine I "steal" some of your cattle or your cat.

nobody owns a cat. lol

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly are you stealing this cat? If you're picking it up, putting it in your car and taking it across the city, that's definitely initiating force on the cat. No different than doing the same thing to a child despite the fact that I don't "own" my child.