Got a PM about "Natural Rights"

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under what grounds can he complain? If noone owns it noone has the right to stop anyone else using it up.

[/ QUOTE ] I didn't say he thought noone could own the water. I said you couldn't agree on who owned the water.

Earlier in the thread I referred to a person who thought noone could own the water until they needed it to drink.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how bad do you have to "need" it in order to suddenly own the water. And which water do you own? There are two bottles of water, I need (ignore how we define need, or determine it right now) exactly one bottle. Which bottle do I own?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe that's who you're thinking of? He would obviously have a complaint if people were thirsty and you had more water than you needed to drink.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you determine how much I need?

[/ QUOTE ] Ask the guy who thinks this. I don't need to define his view. All I'm saying is his view is as well founded as your view.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing that you write Internet with a big I. We do that in Norwegian, but I thought you didn't in English.

[/ QUOTE ]

Supertechnical nit:

"Internet" with a big I (in American English) is a proper noun referring to THE Internet. On the other hand, "internet" with a little "i" referrs to any collection of connected networks running TCP/IP. Many of these are *part of* the big-I Internet, but there are plenty of isolated private "internets" (though hardly anyone uses the term to refer to these.

The Internet is a internet. Make sense?

More:

http://www.businessreviewonline.com/...et_with_a.html

[wtfsvi]

It makes perfect sense, I just thought you didn't do it. Looks like I was wrong. In Norway Internet is an imported word, so we obviously never use it for anything other than "THE Internet".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
An even easier system to deal with than ACism would be one where the dictator owns everything and decides everything, and the dictator's firstborn son inherits the throne. But I don't think that is a viable argument against ACism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Is the existance of Coke an argument against Pepsi?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
It makes perfect sense, I just thought you didn't do it. Looks like I was wrong. In Norway Internet is an imported word, so we obviously never use it for anything other than "THE Internet".

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people are lazy. Look at how many people don't capitalize their own names or the word "I" when typing on the Internet.

eg "he tabled kings over jacks and i wuz like str8t flush bitches imo" etc.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
A) I feel this is trying to get me to approve of vioelence as a response to non-violence by appealing to emotion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to appeal to emotion at all. I'm trying to provide real world situations where I don't see any solution that doesn't qualify as initiating violence by your rules and find out how you would solve them in a nonviolent way.

[ QUOTE ]
You assume this guy is fine with living in the middle of the wilderness with people that hate him and will take every non-violent action they can think of to make him miserable. You assume that allthough he is obviously a crazy psychopath, he's never violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he's crazy, but from my point of view, anyone who doesn't believe in property and that defending your property is acceptable and good is crazy, so from my point of view, you calling him crazy doesn't say much. I don't understand why you consider him psychopathic though. From what I understand of your views, his behavior should be acceptable.

[ QUOTE ]
And conveniently I'm placed in the middle of the wilderness where there are nobody to help me enact the non-violent sanctions and noone to enact sanctions against me if I kill him. Your hypothetical is pretty far fetched.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it far fetched? I don't see it as being far fetched at all. Some people do like to live away from others and if people could not defend their property, this kind of thing would happen.


[ QUOTE ]
The other interpretation is that he will wait around and eventually burn down your house when you leave it. This is harder for me to answer, and pretty much leads to me having to admit that the position I've been advocating so far in this thread is too extreme. I'm going to go ahead and define destroying something that someone cares a lot about for no other reason than fun or the pleasure of seeing them suffer, as violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You can't own land, so how can anything he does to the land qualify as violence? This isn't even personal property like a bicycle that's being violated, it's land property. This seems counter to everything you've said you believe.

Also, you've just taken what was a black and white line on your beliefs and blurred it so that now the line is in some arbitray place I can't figure out.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
You own your body - you use your body to make something, now you own that thing in the same way that you own your body - you trade that thing for another thing, now you own that new thing in the same way that you own your body.

This is not a chain of logic conclusions, it's a chain of opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's just a set of beliefs, not a statement of reality. By the same token, your belief that land can't be owned is just a set of beliefs, not a statement of reality. We believe that attacks on our property are an act of violent aggression and that it is thus acceptable to retaliate and defend against this, while you do not consider attacks on our property (well, most attacks apparantly) to be violence at all. Both of our positions are merely beliefs.

This is why, in a true anarchist society, both AC and AS have to exist. Anything else would require one side to impose their beliefs on the other, which would not be anarchy! I don't know how it would be arranged for AC and AS to both exist together or if it's even possible in the real world, but as long as both of these beliefs exist, they must somehow figure out a way to coexist or there can be no anarchy.

And this is all why your original posts that spurred this conversation saying "you are an ACist instead of a real anarchist" are insulting and stupid. ACism is just as much anarchy as ASism whether you like it or not. Because your beliefs are ASist, it's very easy to fall into the trap of seeing AC as requiring a state of some sort, because it would indeed be necessary to force those beliefs onto you, but by the same token, the ACist sees AS as requiring a state for the exact same reasons. Both of these are nothing more than failure to be open-minded, tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others... which is a very non-anarchist way of doing things!!!

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? You can't own land, so how can anything he does to the land qualify as violence? This isn't even personal property like a bicycle that's being violated, it's land property. This seems counter to everything you've said you believe.

[/ QUOTE ] I think if something is done with the purpose of hurting you, it must be violence. Be that psychologically hurting you or physically hurting you.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you've just taken what was a black and white line on your beliefs and blurred it so that now the line is in some arbitray place I can't figure out.

[/ QUOTE ] The line is not easy to draw. It never will be and it's not supposed to be. Is it violence if I bump into you unintentionally? If I stroke by you intentionally? If I kiss a girl without asking first, because I think she wants it? If I continue after she says no because I think she's just being playful? Am I allowed to respond with violence if a woman slaps me for saying something inappropriate? What if a man slaps me? What if someone repeatedly hits me really hard in the face for something they found inappropriate?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You own your body - you use your body to make something, now you own that thing in the same way that you own your body - you trade that thing for another thing, now you own that new thing in the same way that you own your body.

This is not a chain of logic conclusions, it's a chain of opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's just a set of beliefs, not a statement of reality. By the same token, your belief that land can't be owned is just a set of beliefs, not a statement of reality. We believe that attacks on our property are an act of violent aggression and that it is thus acceptable to retaliate and defend against this, while you do not consider attacks on our property (well, most attacks apparantly) to be violence at all. Both of our positions are merely beliefs.

This is why, in a true anarchist society, both AC and AS have to exist. Anything else would require one side to impose their beliefs on the other, which would not be anarchy! I don't know how it would be arranged for AC and AS to both exist together or if it's even possible in the real world, but as long as both of these beliefs exist, they must somehow figure out a way to coexist or there can be no anarchy.

And this is all why your original posts that spurred this conversation saying "you are an ACist instead of a real anarchist" are insulting and stupid. ACism is just as much anarchy as ASism whether you like it or not. Because your beliefs are ASist, it's very easy to fall into the trap of seeing AC as requiring a state of some sort, because it would indeed be necessary to force those beliefs onto you, but by the same token, the ACist sees AS as requiring a state for the exact same reasons. Both of these are nothing more than failure to be open-minded, tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others... which is a very non-anarchist way of doing things!!!

[/ QUOTE ] I've never said property can't be owned. I said the fact that you feel that you own something does not mean you can use violence. I'm somewhat understudied on anarchistic theory, so I don't know if that makes me and ASist.

You think that you can use violence to, for example, force someone to move from the land you say you have this special jurisdiction over. How is this different from tha majority's (majority as one entity) view that they can use violence to force the minority to do whatever it wants in the country it says it has this special jurisdiction over? You seem to agree that your special jurisdiction is just a belief of yours, just like the majority's special jurisdiction is just a belief of the theirs.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why? You can't own land, so how can anything he does to the land qualify as violence? This isn't even personal property like a bicycle that's being violated, it's land property. This seems counter to everything you've said you believe.

[/ QUOTE ] I think if something is done with the purpose of hurting you, it must be violence. Be that psychologically hurting you or physically hurting you.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you've just taken what was a black and white line on your beliefs and blurred it so that now the line is in some arbitray place I can't figure out.

[/ QUOTE ] The line is not easy to draw. It never will be and it's not supposed to be. Is it violence if I bump into you unintentionally? If I stroke by you intentionally? If I kiss a girl without asking first, because I think she wants it? If I continue after she says no because I think she's just being playful? Am I allowed to respond with violence if a woman slaps me for saying something inappropriate? What if a man slaps me? What if someone repeatedly hits me really hard in the face for something they found inappropriate?

[/ QUOTE ]

So it is only intent that matters? What if they punch me thinking it will help me?

This is important because I want you to admit that intent isnt the only factor, if it is a very likely, forseeable outcome that the action they take will harm you, that counts too. So for example if they try to steal my Pog collection.