Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[foal]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
I said "So if anyone ever tries to force anyone to do (or not do) anything it means they think they own them? I don't buy that." There's nothing about temporary vs systematic force in what I said and the person I was responding to didn't specify that either.


[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about what's "right". I'm disagreeing with the assertion that inflicting force upon someone means you think that you own them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you're going with #3.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. You're making zero sense. Go back and reread the exchange.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can consider it my standard of what is "right" if you like. I consider taking your keys to be negative. I consider you driving drunk to be even more negative. Therefore the negative of taking your keys is worth it, since the negative of you driving drunk outweighs it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This subjective ranking isn't enough to provide a justification for the action on its own.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because you say so? Then which of your categories am I operating under?

[pvn]

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

wtfsvi argues that if I pick an apple from a tree to eat it, and he tricks me and thereby takes it away from me, I have no right wrestle it away from him again, as it isn't my apple.

[/ QUOTE ] oh yes and I never said it isn't your apple. You can call it yours if you want. As long as you don't use that word to justify that you are entitled to be violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the farmer's apple, and stealing is bad, but nobody has any right to act in prevention of theft, and in fact such actions would themselves be wrong.

OK. This should get interesting really fast.

[/ QUOTE ] Kind of like how you think selling drugs to children is bad, yet you don't think anyone is entitled to act to prevent it other than through non-violent means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
A big reason this seems muddy to you

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't seem muddy to me, really. Certain aspects of AC I do get muddy on, but not this one (though I do find it highly unusual).

[ QUOTE ]
If when sober your friend insisted that you never take his keys regardless of how drunk he gets, then I'd say yes, you are wrong to do it. (And maybe you should re-think your choice of friends.)

[/ QUOTE ]
So you'd prefer to let him put the lives of other drivers and pedestrians at risk than to forcibly prevent him access to his keys (until he's sober).

[pvn]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
I said "So if anyone ever tries to force anyone to do (or not do) anything it means they think they own them? I don't buy that." There's nothing about temporary vs systematic force in what I said and the person I was responding to didn't specify that either.


[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about what's "right". I'm disagreeing with the assertion that inflicting force upon someone means you think that you own them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you're going with #3.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. You're making zero sense. Go back and reread the exchange.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't care what's right, you're just going to do whatever you think you can get away with. THat's the only one of the three that possibly fits. Again, if you have another justification, please provide it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can consider it my standard of what is "right" if you like. I consider taking your keys to be negative. I consider you driving drunk to be even more negative. Therefore the negative of taking your keys is worth it, since the negative of you driving drunk outweighs it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This subjective ranking isn't enough to provide a justification for the action on its own.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because you say so?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're planting red tulips in your garden. I think blue ones would look better. Red tulips are a negative. Me forcibly removing the red tulips and replacing them with blue is also a negative. But since I consider red tulips to be even more of a negative, I go ahead and rip the tulips you planted out and replace them with blue ones.

Do you consider this a *justified* action? I've done what you did in the above situation. I provided my motivation, and backed it up by explaining my subjective preferences. I have no reason to think you're lying about your subjective preferences, so I hope you'll extend me the same courtesy here.

[ QUOTE ]
Then which of your categories am I operating under?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I want you to tell me. Or if you feel I've left one out, please fill in the blanks.

[wtfsvi]

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

wtfsvi argues that if I pick an apple from a tree to eat it, and he tricks me and thereby takes it away from me, I have no right wrestle it away from him again, as it isn't my apple.

[/ QUOTE ] oh yes and I never said it isn't your apple. You can call it yours if you want. As long as you don't use that word to justify that you are entitled to be violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the farmer's apple, and stealing is bad, but nobody has any right to act in prevention of theft, and in fact such actions would themselves be wrong.

OK. This should get interesting really fast.

[/ QUOTE ] Kind of like how you think selling drugs to children is bad, yet you don't think anyone is entitled to act to prevent it other than through non-violent means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that.

[/ QUOTE ] You seemed to think so in this thread . Well, I don't know if you said that you think selling drugs to children is wrong, I just assumed you thought that. But you certainly argued against me (statist me [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) because I questioned how well non-violent sanctions could deal with people who deal drugs to children.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]

So you'd prefer to let him put the lives of other drivers and pedestrians at risk than to forcibly prevent him access to his keys (until he's sober).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet earlier...

[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing about temporary vs systematic force in what I said and the person I was responding to didn't specify that either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you seriously trying to say that you're not making a point about an acute, temporary use of force in a thread about systematic issues?

Shameless. Caught red handed, and you continue on.

Further, the point you're trying to make is a strawman, for reasons intertiwined with the differences between acute and chronic scenarios.

You're highlighting the action of individuals. Those individuals are flawed. Further, they may have different values than the rules they operate under.

This thread is about rules and systems. Not individuals.

see this previous thread

[pvn]

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

wtfsvi argues that if I pick an apple from a tree to eat it, and he tricks me and thereby takes it away from me, I have no right wrestle it away from him again, as it isn't my apple.

[/ QUOTE ] oh yes and I never said it isn't your apple. You can call it yours if you want. As long as you don't use that word to justify that you are entitled to be violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the farmer's apple, and stealing is bad, but nobody has any right to act in prevention of theft, and in fact such actions would themselves be wrong.

OK. This should get interesting really fast.

[/ QUOTE ] Kind of like how you think selling drugs to children is bad, yet you don't think anyone is entitled to act to prevent it other than through non-violent means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that.

[/ QUOTE ] You seemed to think so in this thread . Well, I don't know if you said that you think selling drugs to children is wrong, I just assumed you thought that. But you certainly argued against me (statist me [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) because I questioned how well non-violent sanctions could deal with people who deal drugs to children.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read my posts there, all they say is that selling crack to six-year-olds is probably a bad (as in massively unprofitable) business model.

[wtfsvi]

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

wtfsvi argues that if I pick an apple from a tree to eat it, and he tricks me and thereby takes it away from me, I have no right wrestle it away from him again, as it isn't my apple.

[/ QUOTE ] oh yes and I never said it isn't your apple. You can call it yours if you want. As long as you don't use that word to justify that you are entitled to be violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the farmer's apple, and stealing is bad, but nobody has any right to act in prevention of theft, and in fact such actions would themselves be wrong.

OK. This should get interesting really fast.

[/ QUOTE ] Kind of like how you think selling drugs to children is bad, yet you don't think anyone is entitled to act to prevent it other than through non-violent means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that.

[/ QUOTE ] You seemed to think so in this thread . Well, I don't know if you said that you think selling drugs to children is wrong, I just assumed you thought that. But you certainly argued against me (statist me [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) because I questioned how well non-violent sanctions could deal with people who deal drugs to children.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read my posts there, all they say is that selling crack to six-year-olds is probably a bad (as in massively unprofitable) business model.

[/ QUOTE ] As part of a debate about whether selling drugs to six-year-olds should be illegal or not, and while other ACists argue that it should not be illegal, that seems like an argument for the other ACists side. If you didn't mean it as that, I think that's slightly dishonest debating, but I have to apologize for putting an opinion in your mouth. (That you think it's wrong to sell drugs to children, but you don't think violence against the drug dealer should be used to stop it.)

Still I don't know why you think it's so crazy that I think something is bad, yet using violence against other people to stop this thing is also bad. Even if think violence is acceptable to prevent every bad thing, you must surely understand how I can disagree.

[foal]

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

I'm not talking about what's "right". I'm disagreeing with the assertion that inflicting force upon someone means you think that you own them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you're going with #3.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. You're making zero sense. Go back and reread the exchange.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't care what's right, you're just going to do whatever you think you can get away with.

[/ QUOTE ]
How did you infer "I don't care about what's right" from "I'm not talking about what's right"?

Your counter-example about the tulips misses the point of my example. It's irrelevant whether you dislike my moral reasoning.

-You said all actions of force either mean you think that you own the other person or you think that might makes right (or at least you implied agreement with this).

-I provided an example of an action of force that I believe fits into neither category.

-It's your job to show me where I'm wrong (i.e. explain how it fits into one of your two categories.. or your three categories if you like).

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you'd prefer to let him put the lives of other drivers and pedestrians at risk than to forcibly prevent him access to his keys (until he's sober).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet earlier...

[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing about temporary vs systematic force in what I said and the person I was responding to didn't specify that either.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get it. I wasn't trying to debate with ALaw (the first thing you quoted), because he wasn't making any absolutistic claims, just stating what he would do. I found his claim that he would do nothing odd and was expressing that.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you seriously trying to say that you're not making a point about an acute, temporary use of force in a thread about systematic issues?

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell are you talking about? If you make a claim about "force" in general, then that includes acute, temporary force. Read the original post in this discussion:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1
If what he was saying only applies to systematic force, then the appropriate response would be "no, he's not saying that. this is what he's saying". Instead, you've been making an effort to defend him as if I wasn't mischaracterising his point. That's not my fault.

[ QUOTE ]
Further, the point you're trying to make is a strawman,

[/ QUOTE ]
You could have saved some time by not defending it then, huh?

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is about rules and systems. Not individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree with any generalized claims about "force", when not specified to rules and systems. That's cool. Again, we could have saved some time.