The difference between being coerced and coercing

[BCPVP]

Yet in this case, the criminal has no right to interact with other people against their will. People do have a right not to be stabbed by other people.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet in this case, the criminal has no right to interact with other people against their will. People do have a right not to be stabbed by other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself) and no one who owns property will allow him reside on their territory or interact with him, that person has been deemed by the others to have no right to live. Is it morally superiour to starve him to death on the basis of property rights rather than to execute him on the basis that he's just a terrible person?

As a side note, I'm not really "challenging" AC here with this edge scenario. I just think it's a more interesting, if somewhat irrelevant, hypothetical.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself)


[/ QUOTE ]


he owns himself and that is the basis of every belief re: property


[ QUOTE ]
Is it morally superior to starve him to death on the basis of property rights rather than to execute him on the basis that he's just a terrible person?

[/ QUOTE ]

either or really .. although killing him causes less suffering that starvation so you could argue that killing him outright is more humane therefore more moral.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself)


[/ QUOTE ]


he owns himself and that is the basis of every belief re: property

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, one of the troubling aspects of this (to me) is that if you own no real estate and no one wants to buy the fruits of your labour, you have the right to self ownership but not the right to live anywhere on earth. It's largely a theoretical "problem" with property rights but it's somewhat disconcerting to link my right to exist with the marketability of my labour.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself)


[/ QUOTE ]


he owns himself and that is the basis of every belief re: property

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, one of the troubling aspects of this (to me) is that if you own no real estate and no one wants to buy the fruits of your labour, you have the right to self ownership but not the right to live anywhere on earth. It's largely a theoretical "problem" with property rights but it's somewhat disconcerting to link my right to exist with the marketability of my labour.

[/ QUOTE ]

i cannot imagine any situation where someone couldn't sell the fruits of there labor. Even the most handicapped person basically sells being handicapped to charities in exchange for goods.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
i cannot imagine any situation where someone couldn't sell the fruits of there labor. Even the most handicapped person basically sells being handicapped to charities in exchange for goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're just sidestepping my issue in the moral code by saying it's not a practical problem. Which is fine. I am not suggesting that this is a fatal flaw that makes the morality system unpracticable. I am just saying that it is hard for me to really buy into a philosophy where a person has a right to exist only after that person has had real property bequeathed to them by someone else or can acquire some through voluntary trade. It means that you don't have a right to exist until someone else "validates" you by choosing to transact with you.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you're just sidestepping my issue in the moral code by saying it's not a practical problem. Which is fine. I am not suggesting that this is a fatal flaw that makes the morality system unpracticable. I am just saying that it is hard for me to really buy into a philosophy where a person has a right to exist only after that person has had real property bequeathed to them by someone else or can acquire some through voluntary trade. It means that you don't have a right to exist until someone else "validates" you by choosing to transact with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when you look at it this way, the only other way somebody could have a 'right to exist' would be by forcibly taking it from somebody else, no? I'm not sure how anyone, in any type of system, could really substantially exist without the help (or at the least being associated with) other human beings.

In any case, I think it is hard to deal with these "fringe" issues by using only a strict and extremely thin conception of libertarianism. Anarchism, or ACism, or whatever, isn't really a separate moral code but rather (hopefully) a part of a more complete one; after all, there clearly seem to be moral issues that fall outside the realm of political structure and questions of 'voluntary transaction vs aggression.' So even though ostracizing someone in such a complete manner falls within the technical bounds of nonaggression and is consistent with libertarian rights theory, I think most would find it inconsistent with a complete ethical theory and work to find ways of non-aggressively fixing the situation (which, in this case, might be as simple as making transactions w/ a fellow human being).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]


i cannot imagine any situation where someone couldn't sell the fruits of there labor. Even the most handicapped person basically sells being handicapped to charities in exchange for goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost anyone probably could sell the fruits of their labor...sure. But in terms of "rights" a non-real estate owning individual in ACland can exist only at the pleasure of property owners. This person does not have a right to travel to his place of labor because all travel is conducted on private property (private roads/waterways.) It would likely not be a problem in real terms (he would probably just trespass, or be given permission to travel on company owned roads), but all of this is at the pleasure of the land owners.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


i cannot imagine any situation where someone couldn't sell the fruits of there labor. Even the most handicapped person basically sells being handicapped to charities in exchange for goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost anyone probably could sell the fruits of their labor...sure. But in terms of "rights" a non-real estate owning individual in ACland can exist only at the pleasure of property owners. This person does not have a right to travel to his place of labor because all travel is conducted on private property (private roads/waterways.) It would likely not be a problem in real terms (he would probably just trespass, or be given permission to travel on company owned roads), but all of this is at the pleasure of the land owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Do you realize that society is a royal mess as it stands right now? We are all paying ~50% of our income in taxes to exist on government territory as it is right now.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost anyone probably could sell the fruits of their labor...sure. But in terms of "rights" a non-real estate owning individual in ACland can exist only at the pleasure of property owners. This person does not have a right to travel to his place of labor because all travel is conducted on private property (private roads/waterways.) It would likely not be a problem in real terms (he would probably just trespass, or be given permission to travel on company owned roads), but all of this is at the pleasure of the land owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing about anarchism precludes land being unowned or 'publicly' owned (though an owning public would probably be more like a community than an entire country). I also think the actual scenario of a person not owning any land would be far less likely to occur.