Got a PM about "Natural Rights"

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
also an excellent post! "Violently imposing their will" IS enforcing their view of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Yes. Among other things.

edit: Or maybe not? You make a very interesting point. I don't see how it serves the ACist case, though.

[Borodog]

it does
can't explain now
driving

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
You can violently impose your view on private property on me as long as you can get away with/it's ok within the societal norms. But the same does not apply to the majority(a lot of individuals) and all the views they want to impose on you? Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I'm not trying to impose anything on you, I'm trying to defend my rights. When the majority wants to impose itself forcefully on me in a way that violates my right, I object. This is NOT that same as world consisting of anarchists who hold opposing views regarding property rights, where the views of those who believe in property rights prevail. In such a world, when I defend my property rights I don't violate any of your rights. On the other hand, if you take my property then you are violating my rights. This asymmetry is what makes anarchy without property rights unappealing to me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't admit that intent is not the only factor, but I admit that someone's intent can sometimes be impossible to know, so if they act as if their intent is to hurt you, you get to assume their intent is to hurt you.

If someone steals your pog collection because they want it, it's not violence. If they steal it to scar you emotionally, or "because they think it will help you in the long run", it's violence.

edit: actually if you know that someone's intent is not to hurt you, but still think that is the main thing their action will accomplish, you probably get to act as if their intent was to hurt you. As far as you can see, they are clearly acting in an irrational way and it will harm you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good. And all theft and trespassing falls under that umbrella. Problem solved.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not done with the purpose of hurting you. It's done with the purpose of gaining a bicycle.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the inevitable consequence of hurting me. I REALLY like my bicycle.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Because I'm not trying to impose anything on you, I'm trying to defend my rights. When the majority wants to impose itself forcefully on me in a way that violates my right, I object.

[/ QUOTE ] The majority thinks it has the right to x% of your property and y% of what you make and use it for what the percieve to be the common good. If you refuse to give it, you are violating their rights. Why is this not correct? Why is your view on property rights the only one that can be violently imposed because "it isn't really imposing, it's defending my right". In the majority's mind it is their right to rule, so by violently ruling they are not imposing anything, just "defending their right".

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't admit that intent is not the only factor, but I admit that someone's intent can sometimes be impossible to know, so if they act as if their intent is to hurt you, you get to assume their intent is to hurt you.

If someone steals your pog collection because they want it, it's not violence. If they steal it to scar you emotionally, or "because they think it will help you in the long run", it's violence.

edit: actually if you know that someone's intent is not to hurt you, but still think that is the main thing their action will accomplish, you probably get to act as if their intent was to hurt you. As far as you can see, they are clearly acting in an irrational way and it will harm you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good. And all theft and trespassing falls under that umbrella. Problem solved.

[/ QUOTE ] That's ridiculous. Taking something that someone else thinks they own is always irrational?

I'm guessing you will say: no, just things someone else actually owns.

The only way you can differentiate between what someone thinks they own and what they actually own, is by appealing to public opinion. And if you say violence is ok if it's ok in public opinion, you say all the organized violence the state does is ok.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is your view on property rights the only one that can be violently imposed because "it isn't really imposing, it's defending my right".

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's based in defense, not offense. I'm not imposing anything on anyone by reacting to their actions. I don't see how you can argue from the standpoint that somebody actively taking something from me is the same as me waiting until someone takes something from me and then reacting.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The only way you can differentiate between what someone thinks they own and what they actually own, is by appealing to public opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You own that which you can defend, either through agreement or force.

That you easily relinquish your ownership and neglect to employ force to defend it....that's on you. I don't have that problem.

In fact, I wish everyone were like you...it'd be more stuff for me.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is your view on property rights the only one that can be violently imposed because "it isn't really imposing, it's defending my right".

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's based in defense, not offense. I'm not imposing anything on anyone by reacting to their actions. I don't see how you can argue from the standpoint that somebody actively taking something from me is the same as me waiting until someone takes something from me and then reacting.

[/ QUOTE ] You make up rules. (Don't set foot on my land, don't take my property.) If someone breaks your rules, you use violence against them. This is the same thing the majority does. They are also "defensive". First they make up a rule, then they wait until someone breaks it before they react.

You feel you are entitled to make the rules you make and use violence to enforce them, they feel they are entitled to make the rules they make and use violence to enforce them. Your view is anchored in the current societal norms, their view is anchored in the current societal norms.