|
|
#1
08-21-2007, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchy vs. Anarchy
Ok, it's not really a fight. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Anyway, I decided that I wanted to have a discussion about AC vs. AS (which is what I believe Kaj is, he can correct me if I'm wrong), but it was kind of lost in a giant thread with a lot of shouting. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So, what are the implications of this? If individuals do not have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for exclusive use, what does that mean? How would everyone in the world not immediately die out if this "right" were not recognized? [/ QUOTE ] Do monkeys immediately die out just because they don't formally recognize a "right" to exclusive use of the land? Did the Inuits or Lakota? [/ QUOTE ] Who said anything about "formal recognition"? Perhaps we are getting off track because of the use of the term "right" (which I put in quotes for a reason). Let me ask again in a different way: Is it wrong for a individual human being to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Is it wrong for individual monkeys to appropriate natural resources for their exclusive use? [/ QUOTE ] No, it isn't wrong to use a resource exclusively. To claim one has a right to this exclusive use based on the concept of self-ownership is wrong, however. Once we all admit it isn't wrong to use the earth's resources, but also not a right, then you can begin a meaningful debate on the merits of different social structures. [/ QUOTE ] What exactly does it mean to say that a person doesn't have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use if, as you agree, it is not wrong, and he's going to do it anyway, lest he die? Does this mean he must somehow get someone's (perhaps "society"'s) permission to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Imagine Robinson Crusoe stranded on an island by himself. Is there any meaningful way in which he does not have a "right" to appropriate whatever he likes? In any event, he's certainly not doing anything wrong, correct? 
|
|
#2
08-21-2007, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
My God, man. You've really lost it.
|
|
#4
08-21-2007, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
It would probably help a fair bit if the two of you would define the meaning of "appropriate for his exclusive use." [/ QUOTE ] How could one possibly get a clearer definition of "appropriate for exclusive use" than "appropriate for exclusive use"? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] And judging by what I've read Kaj is not an AC'ist. [/ QUOTE ] I know that. He's AS. Isn't that what I said?
|
|
#5
08-21-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
AS is close enough.
[ QUOTE ] Kaj: No, it isn't wrong to use a resource exclusively. To claim one has a right to this exclusive use based on the concept of self-ownership is wrong, however. Once we all admit it isn't wrong to use the earth's resources, but also not a right, then you can begin a meaningful debate on the merits of different social structures. [/ QUOTE ] What exactly does it mean to say that a person doesn't have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use if, as you agree, it is not wrong, and he's going to do it anyway, lest he die? As you already agreed ref, there is no such thing as an absolute "right" in this matter, but that what we call rights are basically social norms/conventions. So the only way to define "wrong" is to use these social norms/conventions and/or our fundamental moral system (subjective). Your painting a bit of a false dichotomy -- I have to agree that everything regarding ownership is right or wrong. But why can't a society be based on the principle (just an example) that it's acceptable to "own" the fruits of your own individual labor but not to "own" the land and the fruits of all labor associated with this land or resources. Since you've agreed that rights stem from social norms, then you should have no trouble accepting this as a possibility. Your added phrase of "lest you die" merely reinforces how false this dichotomy is, as if no society could exist without direct land ownership (the Indians did it for thousands of years). Does this mean he must somehow get someone's (perhaps "society"'s) permission to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Possibly. Depends on the specific society and the specific resource. An Indian didn't need permission to get a few logs for the fire, but if he tried to claim a new forest as his own and started cutting down all the trees, I imagine it would be different. Think of a commune model. A group can live over a territory and not have private ownership of the land, and decisions regarding forestation, mining, agriculture would be made by the group not the individual. Imagine Robinson Crusoe stranded on an island by himself. Is there any meaningful way in which he does not have a "right" to appropriate whatever he likes? In any event, he's certainly not doing anything wrong, correct? When you're alone in isolation, you are the whole society, correct? So if "wrong" is defined by the society you are a part of, and you're the whole society, well your answer is obvious.
|
|
#6
08-21-2007, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
At least AS has some sort of period of existence, i.e. spanish civil war, or paris commune. Not a lot, but something.
|
|
#7
08-21-2007, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
AS is close enough. [ QUOTE ] Kaj: No, it isn't wrong to use a resource exclusively. To claim one has a right to this exclusive use based on the concept of self-ownership is wrong, however. Once we all admit it isn't wrong to use the earth's resources, but also not a right, then you can begin a meaningful debate on the merits of different social structures. [/ QUOTE ] What exactly does it mean to say that a person doesn't have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use if, as you agree, it is not wrong, and he's going to do it anyway, lest he die? As you already agreed ref, there is no such thing as an absolute "right" in this matter, but that what we call rights are basically social norms/conventions. [/ QUOTE ] Yep. I'm trying to find out how it can possibly be meaningful to deny something is a "right" if, as you say, it is not wrong, and human beings by their very nature must in fact do that thing or else die. Not that I think the concept of "rights" is essential. But they are mighty convenient, and I don't really understand the reason for eschewing such a convenient label. [ QUOTE ] So the only way to define "wrong" is to use these social norms/conventions and/or our fundamental moral system (subjective). [/ QUOTE ] I mostly agree with this. I think there are objectively identifiable considerations regarding morality. But those things, while objective, I don't think are absolute. I'll get back to that later. [ QUOTE ] Your painting a bit of a false dichotomy -- I have to agree that everything regarding ownership is right or wrong. But why can't a society be based on the principle (just an example) that it's acceptable to "own" the fruits of your own individual labor but not to "own" the land and the fruits of all labor associated with this land or resources. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't paint any such dichotomy, false or otherwise. A society can certainly do exactly that, and many have. That's not the question. The question is, what's wrong with labeling that principle, that social norm, that "it's acceptable to 'own' the fruits of your own individual labor" a "right"? What's the problem? Sure, it's subjective. Ok. No problem, got it. But what's wrong with then labeling that a "right"? Seems like you're just bending over backwards to avoid a really convenient term. [ QUOTE ] Since you've agreed that rights stem from social norms, then you should have no trouble accepting this as a possibility. Your added phrase of "lest you die" merely reinforces how false this dichotomy is, as if no society could exist without direct land ownership (the Indians did it for thousands of years). [/ QUOTE ] No, not at all. I wasn't taking about land (at least not in the economic sense); I was just talking about natural resources. Man must appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use lest he die. Last time I checked, food is fructis naturalis, to eat that food one must appropriate it from nature, and in doing so deny that same use to everyone else in the world. [ QUOTE ] Does this mean he must somehow get someone's (perhaps "society"'s) permission to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Possibly. Depends on the specific society and the specific resource. An Indian didn't need permission to get a few logs for the fire, but if he tried to claim a new forest as his own and started cutting down all the trees, I imagine it would be different. Think of a commune model. A group can live over a territory and not have private ownership of the land, and decisions regarding forestation, mining, agriculture would be made by the group not the individual. [/ QUOTE ] I have no problem with this. [ QUOTE ] Imagine Robinson Crusoe stranded on an island by himself. Is there any meaningful way in which he does not have a "right" to appropriate whatever he likes? In any event, he's certainly not doing anything wrong, correct? When you're alone in isolation, you are the whole society, correct? So if "wrong" is defined by the society you are a part of, and you're the whole society, well your answer is obvious. [/ QUOTE ] Got it. Imagine now a set of islands strung across the ocean, each containing a single stranded Crusoe. Each is his own society, yes? Hence each can appropriate natural resources on "his" (put in quotes because I'm not trying to beg the question) as he wishes, correct?
|
|
#8
08-21-2007, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
At least AS has some sort of period of existence, i.e. spanish civil war, or paris commune. Not a lot, but something. [/ QUOTE ] Are you kidding? AS societies lasted for litterally tens of thousands of years.
|
|
#9
08-21-2007, 07:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] AS is close enough. [ QUOTE ] Kaj: No, it isn't wrong to use a resource exclusively. To claim one has a right to this exclusive use based on the concept of self-ownership is wrong, however. Once we all admit it isn't wrong to use the earth's resources, but also not a right, then you can begin a meaningful debate on the merits of different social structures. [/ QUOTE ] What exactly does it mean to say that a person doesn't have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use if, as you agree, it is not wrong, and he's going to do it anyway, lest he die? As you already agreed ref, there is no such thing as an absolute "right" in this matter, but that what we call rights are basically social norms/conventions. [/ QUOTE ] Yep. I'm trying to find out how it can possibly be meaningful to deny something is a "right" if, as you say, it is not wrong, and human beings by their very nature must in fact do that thing or else die. Not that I think the concept of "rights" is essential. But they are mighty convenient, and I don't really understand the reason for eschewing such a convenient label. <font color="red"> Because the label has the connotation of absoluteness. Most people talk about "natural rights" as if they should be inviolate, not social norms. I think being more precise is important because as we've seen in these recent threads, even many ACists won't acknowledge these rights aren't absolute (nietzrazor a recent example). </font> [ QUOTE ] So the only way to define "wrong" is to use these social norms/conventions and/or our fundamental moral system (subjective). [/ QUOTE ] I mostly agree with this. I think there are objectively identifiable considerations regarding morality. But those things, while objective, I don't think are absolute. I'll get back to that later. [ QUOTE ] Your painting a bit of a false dichotomy -- I have to agree that everything regarding ownership is right or wrong. But why can't a society be based on the principle (just an example) that it's acceptable to "own" the fruits of your own individual labor but not to "own" the land and the fruits of all labor associated with this land or resources. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't paint any such dichotomy, false or otherwise. A society can certainly do exactly that, and many have. That's not the question. The question is, what's wrong with labeling that principle, that social norm, that "it's acceptable to 'own' the fruits of your own individual labor" a "right"? What's the problem? Sure, it's subjective. Ok. No problem, got it. But what's wrong with then labeling that a "right"? Seems like you're just bending over backwards to avoid a really convenient term. <font color="red">Again, the importance is in making it clear that these "rights" aren't absolute. If everybody here acknowledged that rights are subjective social norms, there wouldn't be an issue. As we've already seen, many here can't or won't acknowledge this concept. I wouldn't be bending over backwards the word didn't carry so much extra baggage (some dictionary definitions will even use absolute, truth, and other terms). The false dichotomy is that every question of ownership has to have things like "lest you die" etc. attached, as if societal norms on ownership have to be one size fits all. </font> [ QUOTE ] Since you've agreed that rights stem from social norms, then you should have no trouble accepting this as a possibility. Your added phrase of "lest you die" merely reinforces how false this dichotomy is, as if no society could exist without direct land ownership (the Indians did it for thousands of years). [/ QUOTE ] No, not at all. I wasn't taking about land (at least not in the economic sense); I was just talking about natural resources. Man must appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use lest he die. Last time I checked, food is fructis naturalis, to eat that food one must appropriate it from nature, and in doing so deny that same use to everyone else in the world. <font color="red"> Again a false dichotomy. First, the norms of my society may only be applicable to those who live in my society. So if a man I never met is starving halfway across the world, why is it a necessity for my society to have norms that say we must feed him? Might be nice, but not required. My society/tribe/commune/community doesn't have to treat every member of the planet the same in terms of taking care of them (of course not as this is impossible). So I don't see what your point here is?</font> [ QUOTE ] Does this mean he must somehow get someone's (perhaps "society"'s) permission to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Possibly. Depends on the specific society and the specific resource. An Indian didn't need permission to get a few logs for the fire, but if he tried to claim a new forest as his own and started cutting down all the trees, I imagine it would be different. Think of a commune model. A group can live over a territory and not have private ownership of the land, and decisions regarding forestation, mining, agriculture would be made by the group not the individual. [/ QUOTE ] I have no problem with this. [ QUOTE ] Imagine Robinson Crusoe stranded on an island by himself. Is there any meaningful way in which he does not have a "right" to appropriate whatever he likes? In any event, he's certainly not doing anything wrong, correct? When you're alone in isolation, you are the whole society, correct? So if "wrong" is defined by the society you are a part of, and you're the whole society, well your answer is obvious. [/ QUOTE ] Got it. Imagine now a set of islands strung across the ocean, each containing a single stranded Crusoe. Each is his own society, yes? Hence each can appropriate natural resources on "his" (put in quotes because I'm not trying to beg the question) as he wishes, correct? <font color="red"> When you say "can", the answer is obviously yes since no one can stop him, so the question appears meaningless. If you mean "can" as to mean is he morally justified, well again we get back to subjective values/morals. Sure he "can" cut down every tree on his island, kill every living thing, and dump thousands of gallons poison into the sand. I imagine you're going to try and take this to the "everyman is his own island" line of thinking. But what's the point? I haven't advocated that I can impose my will on Mr Crusoe by force (not that I'm advocating against it either) so long as he lives apart from my community, and such a view is not necessary to an AS society. </font> [/ QUOTE ] Edit: If anything in there appeared snarky, I apologize. Didn't mean for it to ... thread is already getting hard to read [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#10
08-21-2007, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchy vs. Anarchy
Can we please not do this color thing? It's impossible to follow and keep straight when trying to write a reply.
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] AS is close enough. [ QUOTE ] Kaj: No, it isn't wrong to use a resource exclusively. To claim one has a right to this exclusive use based on the concept of self-ownership is wrong, however. Once we all admit it isn't wrong to use the earth's resources, but also not a right, then you can begin a meaningful debate on the merits of different social structures. [/ QUOTE ] What exactly does it mean to say that a person doesn't have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use if, as you agree, it is not wrong, and he's going to do it anyway, lest he die? As you already agreed ref, there is no such thing as an absolute "right" in this matter, but that what we call rights are basically social norms/conventions. [/ QUOTE ] Yep. I'm trying to find out how it can possibly be meaningful to deny something is a "right" if, as you say, it is not wrong, and human beings by their very nature must in fact do that thing or else die. Not that I think the concept of "rights" is essential. But they are mighty convenient, and I don't really understand the reason for eschewing such a convenient label. <font color="red"> Because the label has the connotation of absoluteness. Most people talk about "natural rights" as if they should be inviolate, not social norms. I think being more precise is important because as we've seen in these recent threads, even many ACists won't acknowledge these rights aren't absolute (nietzrazor a recent example). </font> [ QUOTE ] So the only way to define "wrong" is to use these social norms/conventions and/or our fundamental moral system (subjective). [/ QUOTE ] I mostly agree with this. I think there are objectively identifiable considerations regarding morality. But those things, while objective, I don't think are absolute. I'll get back to that later. [ QUOTE ] Your painting a bit of a false dichotomy -- I have to agree that everything regarding ownership is right or wrong. But why can't a society be based on the principle (just an example) that it's acceptable to "own" the fruits of your own individual labor but not to "own" the land and the fruits of all labor associated with this land or resources. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't paint any such dichotomy, false or otherwise. A society can certainly do exactly that, and many have. That's not the question. The question is, what's wrong with labeling that principle, that social norm, that "it's acceptable to 'own' the fruits of your own individual labor" a "right"? What's the problem? Sure, it's subjective. Ok. No problem, got it. But what's wrong with then labeling that a "right"? Seems like you're just bending over backwards to avoid a really convenient term. <font color="red">Again, the importance is in making it clear that these "rights" aren't absolute. If everybody here acknowledged that rights are subjective social norms, there wouldn't be an issue. As we've already seen, many here can't or won't acknowledge this concept. I wouldn't be bending over backwards the word didn't carry so much extra baggage (some dictionary definitions will even use absolute, truth, and other terms).</font> [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. We'll dispense with it. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] <font color="red">The false dichotomy is that every question of ownership has to have things like "lest you die" etc. attached, as if societal norms on ownership have to be one size fits all. </font> [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Again with the false dichotomy? There is no false dichotomoy. If you don't appropriate natural resources for your exclusive use, you will die. You will starve to death. I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Since you've agreed that rights stem from social norms, then you should have no trouble accepting this as a possibility. Your added phrase of "lest you die" merely reinforces how false this dichotomy is, as if no society could exist without direct land ownership (the Indians did it for thousands of years). [/ QUOTE ] No, not at all. I wasn't taking about land (at least not in the economic sense); I was just talking about natural resources. Man must appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use lest he die. Last time I checked, food is fructis naturalis, to eat that food one must appropriate it from nature, and in doing so deny that same use to everyone else in the world. <font color="red"> Again a false dichotomy. First, the norms of my society may only be applicable to those who live in my society. So if a man I never met is starving halfway across the world, why is it a necessity for my society to have norms that say we must feed him? Might be nice, but not required. My society/tribe/commune/community doesn't have to treat every member of the planet the same in terms of taking care of them (of course not as this is impossible). So I don't see what your point here is?</font> [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Huh? Where did this come from? What I'm saying is that individuals must appropriate natural resources for their exclusive use or they will die. This is a simple fact of nature; it's conservation of mass and energy. If I don't eat, I will die. Since food is a product of nature, I must appropriate that product of nature in order to eat it. Once I have eaten it, nobody else can eat it. Hence I have denied them use of it; I appropriated that natural resource for my exclusive use, and if I didn't engage in this, I would die, as would everyone else. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Does this mean he must somehow get someone's (perhaps "society"'s) permission to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Possibly. Depends on the specific society and the specific resource. An Indian didn't need permission to get a few logs for the fire, but if he tried to claim a new forest as his own and started cutting down all the trees, I imagine it would be different. Think of a commune model. A group can live over a territory and not have private ownership of the land, and decisions regarding forestation, mining, agriculture would be made by the group not the individual. [/ QUOTE ] I have no problem with this. [ QUOTE ] Imagine Robinson Crusoe stranded on an island by himself. Is there any meaningful way in which he does not have a "right" to appropriate whatever he likes? In any event, he's certainly not doing anything wrong, correct? When you're alone in isolation, you are the whole society, correct? So if "wrong" is defined by the society you are a part of, and you're the whole society, well your answer is obvious. [/ QUOTE ] Got it. Imagine now a set of islands strung across the ocean, each containing a single stranded Crusoe. Each is his own society, yes? Hence each can appropriate natural resources on "his" (put in quotes because I'm not trying to beg the question) as he wishes, correct? <font color="red"> When you say "can", the answer is obviously yes since no one can stop him, so the question appears meaningless. If you mean "can" as to mean is he morally justified, well again we get back to subjective values/morals. Sure he "can" cut down every tree on his island, kill every living thing, and dump thousands of gallons poison into the sand. I imagine you're going to try and take this to the "everyman is his own island" line of thinking. But what's the point? I haven't advocated that I can impose my will on Mr Crusoe by force (not that I'm advocating against it either) so long as he lives apart from my community, and such a view is not necessary to an AS society. </font> [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] The question is, is anything in the scenario wrong according to your personal morals? Are any of our Crusoes doing anything wrong in your opinion? I'm not accusing you of wanting to impose your will on them. I just want to know, given their situation, are they doing anything wrong according to you personally. [ QUOTE ] Edit: If anything in there appeared snarky, I apologize. Didn't mean for it to ... thread is already getting hard to read [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Nope. It's all good. Just stick to regular quotes instead of that color stuff and you'll make me happy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
