Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're determined to look at it as some subjective "it can be right sometimes" type of thing, then you must hold the axiom that -EV poker decisions can be "right" when they work. Or you must think there exist instances where theft can be +EV. I don't agree with either claim.
[/ QUOTE ]
You said in your last response that theft in self-defense is okay. This seems to contradict that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I also said that you still owe the owner compensation for what you took. I don't really consider that theft anyways (but that's beside the point); particularly because the owner would almost certainly voluntarily agree to let you have the food if he was given an option. Murder in self-defense is fine too. Rape in self-defense is, if nothing else, interesting and fairly erotic.
If you don't like the "self-defense" exception, consider that the whole rationale behind the AC/voluntaryism/property rights ideology is that we humans understand and evaluate future consequence. So, if you're about to die, the concept is irrelevant. Sounds silly, but hopefully that helps clarify.
Foal, I'll have to reply to you later.
|