Anarcho Capitalism take 1million

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
But it's not zero, and since there are no laws, who determines whether they are a moral agent? The father? Nope, use of force. Is it the presence of the magic words "I am a moral agent; leave me alone?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why anyone would find this line of reasoning compelling. Of course if any person, 13 or not, has been routinely making their own life decisions, has been providing for themselves, has been taking 100% responsibility for their actions with respect to other moral agents, etc. etc. etc. then they are a moral agent and the father WOULD in this case be initiating violence -- he's what most of us would call a "dead beat dad" who has apparently abandoned his daughter to fend for herself (else she's not a moral agent), and is now attempting to re-assert his dominance over her long after she's become independent. Just because a free moral agent is making a bad life decision doesn't give some relative the right to jump in and initiate violence to counteract that decision.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
That being the case, why is it "QFT" that that it is justified for a man to employ violence against someone who hasn't aggressed against him or his property, and merely acted to facilitate the wishes of a seperate moral agent who just happens to be the daughter of the aggressor?

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'QFT' was mostly because at least Tom seems to recognize that this isn't an especially problematic case for AC since AC, like Statism, has methods for resolcing disputes (courts)--and I agree that in most cases a court would probably find in favor of the father.

But as I said, I'm sure there are cases where a 13 yr old has a legitimate claim. This stuff really has to be figured out on a case-by-case basis.

[John Kilduff]

[ 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 ]

No, because he's WRONG in thinking it is his natural right to own people. Besides being wrong in a moral sense, he's wrong because there is nothing objective that grants him that right and not other people as well. So in the abstract, the slave has just as much natural right to own the master as does the master the slave: in other words, there is nothing that gives him that right in the abstract.

Anyway, if you don't accept that some things simply are right and some are wrong, then there's little point in discussing such things as your fallback rebuttal to ANYTHING will potentially be that it's all just a matter of perspective or that it's relative.

This is exactly what is wrong with the conditioned outlook of so many bright kids graduating from college today, having taken a lot of courses in philosophical and political mental masturbation: they end up thinking that there are no rights or wrongs, that everything is relative, etc. etc. etc. But in the real world, sometimes there IS right or wrong, good or evil. This is where philosophical mental masturbation breaks down and becomes impotent, and where those who have been accustomed to thinking in such flaccid and dispersed weakened fashion find that they can do little more than twiddle their thumbs and conceptualize when they are faced with real-world situations that call for good judgment, a sense of right and wrong, courage, and action.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. I think, wtfsvi, if you'd get your head out of the books and philosophical/political meanderings for a while, and just try to spend a few days going through life observing right and wrong, you'd find many instances (some small, granted) of right and wrong in daily life.

Example: a guy acts like an asshat to you for nothing that you've done: you don't even know the guy: well, he's wrong and that was an evil act, although probably not a severe one. Example: a teenage girl sees an old lady who is on her way home from shopping, drop something and continue on carrying the bags without noticing. The girl picks it up and sees it is an envelope containing 2 twenty-dollar bills. She hurries after the old lady and gives it back to her. That's right, and it was a good act.

I'm just saying you might be better off trying less to analyze all this crap in a vacuum and instead watching and applying it in the real world. Good and evil exist and right and wrong exist, and when you directly see or experience them you know that's what it is. Example: you see three 12-year-old boys tormenting a kitten. That's wrong and evil, and you stop them. That's good that you did that, and the kitten would thank you if it could.

You're actually making things too complicated and getting lost in the maze of philosophical rambling. Right and wrong are occasionally murky, but often they are very clear. Don't let yourself be blinded to what is clear by engaging in too much philosophical conjecturing.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Why did you feel the need to add uneccessary terms such as "13-years-old" and "pedo" to your question if you were honestly seeking answers and not pandering?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because a 13-year old has self-ownership, and she certainly thinks she is a moral agent, and I was curious if the same thought process applied here as does to the analogy with the slave.

If adding more detail such as "age" suddenly makes the entire thought process break down....my apologies.

As for the "pedo" part.....it was not as much relevant to the analogy, as much as it was my own descriptive term of a 40-year old man whisking off a 13-year old girl. I could have easily had said "him" or "the man".

As such, let's just as soon leave that part about him being a "pedo" out.... and assume the man is just a 40-year old man who has a relationship with the 13-year old girl, and he wishes to facilitate her desired escape to freedom by assisting in freeing her from the aggression of her father.

[Archon_Wing]

OP,
How do you determine anything is right or wrong? The core might have been better discussed in SMP. We cannot honestly debate about anything, unless we can get this down.
[ QUOTE ]

You ask me why should you be forced to give anything to this entity called "the people"? Well, I ask you why the people should refrain from taking whatever they need "from you"* (as long as they don't take anything you need for your survival).


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in order to justify doing an action such as taking something, the burden of proof is on you. Now that you brought up "religion" earlier in the post, you might realize that a lot of people use the "You can't prove that God doesn't exist (therefore he does)!" argument.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why did you feel the need to add uneccessary terms such as "13-years-old" and "pedo" to your question if you were honestly seeking answers and not pandering?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because a 13-year old has self-ownership, and she certainly thinks she is a moral agent, and I was curious if the same thought process applied here as does to the analogy with the slave.

If adding more detail such as "age" suddenly makes the entire thought process break down....my apologies.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't make it break down. It doesn't change it at all. So its pointless to add it in. Unless you have some other motive.

Don't act like you were innocent and were not trying some cheap emotional appeal by throwing in "13-year-old" and "pedo". It doesn't even pass the giggle test.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the "pedo" part.....it was not as much relevant to the analogy, as much as it was my own descriptive term of a 40-year old man whisking off a 13-year old girl. I could have easily had said "him" or "the man".

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, you were trolling.

[ QUOTE ]
As such, let's just as soon leave that part about him being a "pedo" out.... and assume the man is just a 40-year old man who has a relationship with the 13-year old girl, and he wishes to facilitate her desired escape to freedom by assisting in freeing her from the aggression of her father.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already answered your question, removing the extraneous inflammatory emotional appeals for you. Do you have something else to add?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course if any person, 13 or not, has been routinely making their own life decisions, has been providing for themselves, has been taking 100% responsibility for their actions with respect to other moral agents, etc. etc. etc. then they are a moral agent and the father WOULD in this case be initiating violence -- he's what most of us would call a "dead beat dad" who has apparently abandoned his daughter to fend for herself (else she's not a moral agent), and is now attempting to re-assert his dominance over her long after she's become independent. Just because a free moral agent is making a bad life decision doesn't give some relative the right to jump in and initiate violence to counteract that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the father being the initiator....but I'm not quite so sure I agree with what you are saying is required to constitute a moral agent....heck it might just disqualify over 50% of the population.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

The 'QFT' was mostly because at least Tom seems to recognize that this isn't an especially problematic case for AC since AC, like Statism, has methods for resolcing disputes (courts)--and I agree that in most cases a court would probably find in favor of the father.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't intending to imply it as being unique to AC.

In fact, regardless of government, I was only addressing the justification of the aggression...and despite Tom's appeal to the majority that the father would be justified for employing violence...I'd disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
This stuff really has to be figured out on a case-by-case basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, the stated fact is that the girl in the analogy is a moral agent. Based on that alone, the father is the aggressor. Right?

Or are you saying that that in AC, much like in statism, a higher authority, ie. court, may have the ability to hear this case and deprive this moral agent of her own moral agency and declare her to not be a moral agent, based on their opinion, and despite her own assertions...thus forcing their determination upon her and in turn, justifying force by the father against the 40-year old man?

If a 13-year old girl declares her own independence and asserts herself as a moral agent....despite that up until that morning her father had been buying her clothes and food....who is he or any court to deprive her of that personal freedom?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't make it break down. It doesn't change it at all. So its pointless to add it in. Unless you have some other motive.

Don't act like you were innocent and were not trying some cheap emotional appeal by throwing in "13-year-old" and "pedo". It doesn't even pass the giggle test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone seemed to be in agreeance on the conclusion of the analogy when the object was a "slave", asserting him to be a moral agent.

Once changed to a "13-year old girl", we're already seeing some posters change their stance on the conclusion and assuming that her moral agency is in doubt, and asserting that the father would be justified in using force against another person that has not initiated any agression either towards him or his property.

To your credit, you've been consistent on both, as have I....others not so much, and I'm just curious as to why the same principle doesn't apply across the board to all moral agents in the exact same situation.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

No, because he's WRONG in thinking it is his natural right to own people. Besides being wrong in a moral sense, he's wrong because there is nothing objective that grants him that right and not other people as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

But what if his assertion was that the other person was not a moral agent?

After all, it appears to be a subjective determination that can be determined by others, and not a clear cut distinction.

It seems if the majority agrees with his position, then he is definately justified.


[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, if you don't accept that some things simply are right and some are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious...how does the exact same situation go from "right" to "wrong" when we change slave/slaveowner to father/daughter?