Anarcho Capitalism take 1million

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Stop playing games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, I won't talk about any realistic scenarios, and we'll just keep the discussion focused on stuff like slavery and lobbing up softball analogies that have simple, easy answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exhibit A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pony Analogy - Exhibit B. Hot Dogs - Exhibit C. Death Star - Exhibit D. These games are fun.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
We agree on that....but I think we disagree on who determines if she is a moral agent. Whether it be AC or the state, I don't think a court of outsiders has any right to determine her moral agency any more so than her father, and especially not herself.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, outsiders can't "determine" the girl's moral agency. Either she is a moral agent or she's not. At best, people can recognize it. And I think you need to present an argument for why the father's decision should trump that of everyone else.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, outsiders can't "determine" the girl's moral agency. Either she is a moral agent or she's not.


[/ QUOTE ]

She says she is....he says she's not.

I agree that outsiders shouldn't determine anything...and it's up to her to declare if she is or isn't...not for anyone else to decide.

She may very well think she is, and you may think that she isn't, but that doesn't make it okay for you to determine that against her will and enforce it through some court against her will....either in ACland or Statism.

[ QUOTE ]
And I think you need to present an argument for why the father's decision should trump that of everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think an outside group of people's decision should trump the father? What gives them the right to enforce anything upon him in regards to his daughter?

Frankly, it's none of their goddamn business, that's the argument I would present.

Remember, I think the daughter's decision should trump the father's too, along with that of the outside court.....

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
She says she is....he says she's not.

I agree that outsiders shouldn't determine anything...and it's up to her to declare if she is or isn't...not for anyone else to decide.

She may very well think she is, and you may think that she isn't, but that doesn't make it okay for you to determine that against her will and enforce it through some court against her will....either in ACland or Statism.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't make any sense given what it means to be a moral agent. It's not something you can just declare yourself to be while doing nothing that would indicate that you are indeed a moral agent. And because your example doesn't really tell us anything about this girl so we can't determine from your example whether she is or isn't a moral agent.

So she says she's a moral agent. How does she back up her claim? How does the dad argue that she is indeed not a moral agent (other than just saying no over and over again)? If you understand what moral agency is, you should be able to come up with this stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think an outside group of people's decision should trump the father? What gives them the right to enforce anything upon him in regards to his daughter?

[/ QUOTE ]
For one they don't have an emotional stake in declaring the daughter is not yet an emotional agent. I'm sure if it were up to many fathers, their daughter wouldn't be a moral agent till they were 30.

In reality, if the girl really is a moral agent and wanted to leave, she would leave.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense given what it means to be a moral agent. It's not something you can just declare yourself to be while doing nothing that would indicate that you are indeed a moral agent. And because your example doesn't really tell us anything about this girl so we can't determine from your example whether she is or isn't a moral agent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who says YOU get to determine whether or not SHE is a moral agent, and thus, should not be aggressed upon against her will?

Sure, you can form your opinion on her moral agency, but what gives YOU the right to aggress upon her unprovoked as a result of YOUR opinion?

Why does SHE have to prove anything to you in order to satisfy her own right to personal freedom?

She declares her own personal independence. She declares she is a moral agent. She wants to do what the hell she wants, without hurting anyone else.

Who are YOU to judge differently and force your contrasting opinion upon her and limit her freedom?

Where is the line arbitrarily drawn on who gets to decide who can and can't enforce their own opinions on others through force without provocation?

[ QUOTE ]

So she says she's a moral agent. How does she back up her claim? If you understand what moral agency is, you should be able to come up with this stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is...why does she even have to back up her claim?

Who are you to make a claim otherwise and restrict her freedoms by force, when she has done nothing to aggress upon you or your property.

Why does she need to satisfy YOUR demand for proof of her own desires for personal freedom before being granted it?

She declares her own independence...it's none of your damn business, right? Why do you need to step in and restrict her freedom otherwise based on your belief?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure if it were up to many fathers, their daughter wouldn't be a moral agent till they were 30.


[/ QUOTE ]

And if it were up to some people, entire races/ethnicities wouldn't be determined to be moral agents either....which is kind of what bothers me about giving the ability to decide that to a group of people that run a for-profit arbitration company that shouldn't be sticking their goddamn noses in my business or making any decisions on the personal freedoms of other people against their wishes.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
I must be really dense, I only just worked out what the title of this thread means.

[/ QUOTE ] Probably not, I think it could use a comma. But I'm Norwish, so people go easy on me.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I must be really dense, I only just worked out what the title of this thread means.

[/ QUOTE ] Probably not, I think it could use a comma. But I'm Norwish, so people go easy on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jamougha, if it makes you feel any better, I still haven't got a clue what the thread title means, other than it being about AC....and their taking 1 million something. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

(Presumably not by force, but by voluntary agreement..LDO)

Also, wtfvsi...I haven't got the slightest clue what Norwish is....help me out here...is that what Norwegians call themselves, or is it some sort of Norwegian-Danish/Swedish/Finnish mix?

off topic anecdote now that I'm thinking about the FInnish and the miscommunication issues:

A buddy of mine is Finnish and has a thick accent, along with having just learned our language in the past year or so upon me and his eating lunch in a Cracker Barrel in rural Tennessee on a pit stop during a road trip...

While we're sitting their just about done with our meal, the waitress comes over to the table and in her twangy Tennessee accents asks him:

You want me to take that plate away for you, hun?

To which he doesn't quite understand, and he says:

"Excuse me?"

And she giggles and says:

"Hun, are you done?"

To which he later explains to me he thought she was sarcastically asking "Are you dumb?", because he didn't understand her original question.

So of course, he feels it is an affront, and he replies real slowly and firmly, in his thick accent:

"No. I am FINNISH."

To which she giggles and says "That's what I meant, same thing.", and she takes the plate and leaves the table.

He is in total shock and thinks the waitress has just insulted him for being dumb, and equates being Finnish and dumb as the 'same thing'......while she scampered back to th kitchen thinking the funny talking foreigner was "finished and done".

Good times...

[wtfsvi]

That's a really funny story.

Norwish isn't really anything. Just a word borodog made up in the "pm about natural rights" thread, while telling people to go easy on me.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
If it could be shown that, say, utilitarian concerns could supercede and negate ownership rights, then it would be tantamount to showing that the libertarian conception of self-ownership was false and needed to be amended.

[/ QUOTE ] Fascinating...I guess I disagree with your account of the "nature of the moral universe" so to speak or that I don't think the libertarian view has any kind of plausibility at all. If we have to show that one value, any value, can never be superceded by another one for it to be a legitmate value, that value is clearly not a legitmate value as there is no such value that is overriding in all circumstances.

As for your first reply, I wanted to simply point out the complexity as opposed to ignoring about it. I thought about pointing out that other metaethical theories exist that would preclude the truth of any moral statement, or the unilateral assertion of truth of a value (e.g. Habermas's view), but since I disagree with this, I didn't bring it up.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a really funny story.

Norwish isn't really anything. Just a word borodog made up in the "pm about natural rights" thread, while telling people to go easy on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other option was "Norweej".