Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR) - Page 20

pvn · #**191** 11-05-2007, 05:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He owes you apples according to you. That's fine. Does it mean you will do something to him if he doesn't give you some apples back at one point? Well, that's not fine by me.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not fine if I take his apples? Because that's what he did to me. If it's OK for him to take mine, why is it not fine for me to take his?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes it's fine if you take his apples. That is not "doing something to him".

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so I just keep the apples in the first place. To get them from me, he'll have to use violence.

pvn · #**192** 11-05-2007, 05:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
lol omg seriously. I didn't say it made people starve. this is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you did say that. HERE.

[ QUOTE ]
If someone is starving, and someone else has more food than they need to survive, the people with food force the starving poeple to die.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2: Property rights will sometimes collide with self-ownership. If you can decide where I should go/what I should do if I go to certain places, your property ownership collides with my self ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

You park my car in my driveway. I have it moved. Does this imply that I own your car?

wtfsvi · #**193** 11-05-2007, 05:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol omg seriously. I didn't say it made people starve. this is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you did say that. HERE.

[/ QUOTE ] The ridiculous nature of that argument was the whole point of it. I could just as well have chosen another ridiculous argument.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2: Property rights will sometimes collide with self-ownership. If you can decide where I should go/what I should do if I go to certain places, your property ownership collides with my self ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

You park my car in my driveway. I have it moved. Does this imply that I own your car?

[/ QUOTE ] No, but it means your property ownership (of the driveway) collides with my property ownership (of the car).

pvn · #**194** 11-05-2007, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by "entitled to something", but since you seem to be disagreeing with me I'll assume you mean ownership. I.e. they necessarily believe that they own the person who they are inflicting force upon. Your alternative is that they "subscribe to 'might makes right", which is a meaningless caricature of a statement almost as bad as "the meaning of life is reproduction".

So if you're drunk and planning on driving and I take your keys does this mean I think I own you? If you say yes, then you have a quite different concept of ownership than I do. It's clearly not "might makes right", because I'm deciding what I think is "right" first and then using "might" to enforce it. So which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Temporary, acute restraint is not the same as chronic, systematic restraint (which is what we were talking about).

Regardless, for your intervention to be "right" one of the following must be true:

1) you are entitled to intervene
2) the person you're acting against has no self-ownership
3) the fact that you can do it is enough to make it right

If you have an alternative explanation, please provide it.

foal · #**195** 11-05-2007, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So, instead of telling me I'm wrong, would you be so kind to show me why somebody doesn't become the rightful owner of natural resources by adding his labour in order to turn them into consumer goods?

[/ QUOTE ]
Where's the deduction? "I own myself therefore I own the fruits of my labour" is not a logically sound statement by any means.

wtfsvi · #**196** 11-05-2007, 06:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1) you are entitled to intervene
2) the person you're acting against has no self-ownership
3) the fact that you can do it is enough to make it right

[/ QUOTE ] Ownership of the self is not really relevant in foal's scenario. It's ownership of the carkeys.

pvn · #**197** 11-05-2007, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol omg seriously. I didn't say it made people starve. this is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you did say that. HERE.

[/ QUOTE ] The ridiculous nature of that argument was the whole point of it. I could just as well have chosen another ridiculous argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Upon re-reading that, I still don't see any way to interpret it as a refutation by analogous and obviously ridiculous example, rather than a counter argument. But if you say that's your intenetion, fine. Your refutation is faulty, since it compares an instance of active intervention with an instance of explicit non-intervention.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You park my car in my driveway. I have it moved. Does this imply that I own your car?

[/ QUOTE ] No, but it means your property ownership (of the driveway) collides with my property ownership (of the car).

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you still own the car. Owning the car (assuming you allow for such ownership in the first place) doesn't include an entitlement to park it wherever you want. My ownership of a driveway doesn't deprive you of anything that comes with owning the car.

pvn · #**198** 11-05-2007, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) you are entitled to intervene
2) the person you're acting against has no self-ownership
3) the fact that you can do it is enough to make it right

[/ QUOTE ] Ownership of the self is not really relevant in foal's scenario. It's ownership of the carkeys.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's an odd nit to pick. Change it to key ownership.

Do you think this scenario is significantly different, morally if you physically (violently?) prevent the person from getting in the car rather than just take the keys away?

wtfsvi · #**199** 11-05-2007, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, you still own the car. Owning the car (assuming you allow for such ownership in the first place) doesn't include an entitlement to park it wherever you want. My ownership of a driveway doesn't deprive you of anything that comes with owning the car.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok cool. If that's your view, that's swell with me. I'm sure some people would think that you are not entitled to have the car removed, at least not without asking the owner to remove it first. I don't care about this, though. It's a collision between property rights and property rights. Find your resolution in the societal norms. I only care when something collides with the right to self ownership.

pvn · #**200** 11-05-2007, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol omg seriously. I didn't say it made people starve. this is horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you did say that. HERE.

[/ QUOTE ] The ridiculous nature of that argument was the whole point of it. I could just as well have chosen another ridiculous argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Upon re-reading that, I still don't see any way to interpret it as a refutation by analogous and obviously ridiculous example, rather than a counter argument. But if you say that's your intenetion, fine. Your refutation is faulty, since it compares an instance of active intervention with an instance of explicit non-intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a similar statement HERE.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Merely by having more food than you need you don't keep those who don't have enough from having food on their own...

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you do.

[/ QUOTE ]