Got a PM about "Natural Rights"

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
You say people can choose to use violence to defend their property. This is obviously not different from what I think ACism is. I didn't think you thought people had to use violence. But I thought you said it was justified if they wanted to, and you still do.

You also seem to say that you can't blow off someone's head if you can use a milder form of violence to achieve what you want to achieve. This is not surprising either. You still approve of violently imposing your view onto others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think directly defending a personal possession which you highly value is tantamount to "imposing your view on others".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to stop using "you" as a synonyme for "your property". If you honestly believe that these are synonymes, there isn't really anything to discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where am I doing this?

[/ QUOTE ]

bump

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
wtfsvi,

Would you consider it an act of physical agression against you if a thief took your asthema medicine or your insulin?

[/ QUOTE ]

bump

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Another situation. Let's say you and your family move out into the wilderness. You build a house from scratch on this land and you build another part of the land into a farm. This takes years of labor on the part of you and your family, but when you're done, you've built yourself a nice little place to live. You go on like this for 10 years or so, then one of the following two situations happen:

A) A stranger shows up and moves in. He starts sleeping on your bed and eating your food and refuses to ever pitch in and help. You ask him nicely to stop, to leave, and he says "hey, you can't own land, so I have as much right to this stuff as you do." At no time does he do anything that yyou would consider "violence". How do you resolve this situation?

B) A stranger shows up and burns down your house and burns your crops. Before he does this, he says to you, "hey, I like burning stuff, so I'm going to burn down your house and crops. I don't want you to get hurt though, so I'm warning you so you can get out." What do you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

bump

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, the fact that they think they have a "right" to clean water (side questions for anyone that believes this: how clean, exactly, and how much, and who do they get to collect it from?) doesn't mean they have a right to MY water.

For someone to get my water, they'll have to interact with me. And to interact with me legitimately, you need my consent. If we can't agree on rules of interaction - if we can't agree on what is and is not property, for example - then we cannot legitimately interact. Go your way, I'll go mine.

[/ QUOTE ] And since you couldn't agree on who owned the water (or if anyone could own it at all before they needed it to drink), you own it? Makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bump.

(I was curious about this point)

[adanthar]

wtf,

I'll give you this much. I like your society more than the ancap one. At the very least, yours seems viable on a local scale.

With that said, 2+2 currently has an epidemic of transfer scammers (that easily get around IP bans), along with Stevedapimp, who's made a career out of hacking specific HSNL players' AIM's/accounts/transfer scams. Obviously, nobody's gone to the cops even though everyone has his RL info. In turn, though, it seems that shunning people from the community, especially when that community is on the Internet, is totally pointless. Thoughts?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, the fact that they think they have a "right" to clean water (side questions for anyone that believes this: how clean, exactly, and how much, and who do they get to collect it from?) doesn't mean they have a right to MY water.

For someone to get my water, they'll have to interact with me. And to interact with me legitimately, you need my consent. If we can't agree on rules of interaction - if we can't agree on what is and is not property, for example - then we cannot legitimately interact. Go your way, I'll go mine.

[/ QUOTE ] And since you couldn't agree on who owned the water (or if anyone could own it at all before they needed it to drink), you own it? Makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bump.

(I was curious about this point)

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I answered this. If Mr. X doesn't own the water (he doesn't believe in ownership, so he can't possibly be making a claim of ownership to it) then *it doesn't matter* if Mr. Y owns it or not. Since X does not own it, he has no legitimate complaint if he is deprived of it, or prevented from obtaining it.

If he thinks nobody should own the water, and on top of that, that nobody should be prevented from accessing the water and using it, on what basis does he propose to prevent me from drinking it all, or dumping it all on some plants, or pooping in it?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I still lol. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ] Probably because you feel you have the right to use force to make me respect private property rights as you feel they are.

edit: and you find it funny that I disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a pacifist? If not then so do you.

I LOL because you claim I'm not a "real" anarchist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't. You are a pseudo-intellectual that doesn't have the courage to act in the manner you claim others should act.

and there are no "natural rights". All rights are derived from social norms including "self posession"

[/ QUOTE ]

And social norms come out of thin air?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
What puzzles me about your post here is why you feel the desire you do to argue so intensely in favor of ACism or donate money to Ron Paul or engage in political activity at all. Given the "the evolution of society", "natural laws" and the fact that "social norms evolve to reduce costs" it follows that ACism will simply come into existence when and if and only if it contains the system of social norms that are best at minimizing costs at that particular time and place, and disappear just as "naturally" when it no longer does.

[/ QUOTE ]

True and given algebra and limits it only makes sense that calculus will eventually follow. Stupid Newton and stupid Leibniz, what a bunch of morons.

I just realized I'm responding to old posts, oh well.

[Mr_Moore]

[/ QUOTE ]
Since X does not own it, he has no legitimate complaint if he is deprived of it, or prevented from obtaining it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well assuming he is of the opinion that nobody should own anything then yes he can complain if he is deprived of it.