Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Then why do you seem to think that you have a right to violate the rules of someone else's property (i.e. drive drunk on a road whose owner says driving under this condition is not permitted)?

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not still beating my wife. I promise.

Why would I be friends with someone who has this attitude? If I thought he was a threat to endanger people, why would I go out drinking with him?

Option A: Do something I know my friend does not want me to do.
Option B: Let my friend drive drunk.

If you let the situation get to this point, you've already screwed up. The attitude itself is a problem, and I would help my friend see the insanity of it. I wouldn't say nothing about it, go drinking with him knowing that he has made his stance clear to me, and then act like there's anything I can do about it if he wants to drive home. I think that would make me a pretty [censored] person.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]

Then why do you seem to think that you have a right to violate the rules of someone else's property (i.e. drive drunk on a road whose owner says driving under this condition is not permitted)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wtf. When did I say I have a right to drive drunk?

[ QUOTE ]
Why would I be friends with someone who has this attitude? If I thought he was a threat to endanger people, why would I go out drinking with him?

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, you're saying you'd be wrong to do it if he was your friend? That makes a little more sense. What if you just happened to be at the same bar with him?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then why do you seem to think that you have a right to violate the rules of someone else's property (i.e. drive drunk on a road whose owner says driving under this condition is not permitted)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wtf. When did I say I have a right to drive drunk?

[/ QUOTE ]

You implied it.

If you agree that you don't, then it should be clear to you why it's OK for other people to stop you.

[ QUOTE ]
What if you just happened to be at the same bar with him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'd either consider it none of my business, try to reason with him, or alert the people who own the roads.

I would not snatch the keys of random strangers because I think he is unfit to drive on roads that I don't own.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then why do you seem to think that you have a right to violate the rules of someone else's property (i.e. drive drunk on a road whose owner says driving under this condition is not permitted)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wtf. When did I say I have a right to drive drunk?

[/ QUOTE ]

You implied it.

[/ QUOTE ]
How?

[ QUOTE ]
If you agree that you don't, then it should be clear to you why it's OK for other people to stop you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't asking why it's ok. I even gave my reasoning of why I would try to stop someone from driving drunk. I was asking why it fit into the categories pvn gave or the category that MrBlah gave.

[foal]

I'll be back later.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
How?

[/ QUOTE ]

By asking this question: "So if you're drunk and planning on driving and I take your keys does this mean I think I own you?"

Your example is one where the subject has clearly compromised his rights (and thus he doesn't need to be owned to be restricted), unless you think he might have the right to violate someone else's property.

If you change "drive drunk" to "rape someone" and "take keys" to "hit with baseball bat" it should be pretty clear that you don't need to ask the question. The only reason it's sort of confusing is that the government monopolizes the roads, so it's easy to forget that someone owns them and there are clear rules governing their use.

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't asking why it's ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you weren't getting it. The point is it's clearly OK, and it doesn't require an act of force or ownership to do it. Agree?

[ALawPoker]

FWIW, if we're concerned with stopping drunk driving (or any sort of reckless driving for that matter), the real solution is (you guessed it) getting government out of roads.

People who own roads do not want accidents on them because then drivers will not like their roads and will be more likely to take a different route. And so private owners would have more incentive to restrict dangerous behavior if individual actors were not capable of restricting themselves.

But, this is not really worth dwelling on or replying to. I just feel remiss going with your example and not pointing this out.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be back later.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's later. I miss you.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see where this is going. Usually it's the ACist who gets accused of bogging the discussion down with minutae and red herrings.

The question is about justification. You don't want to talk about "what's right". Please explain how I'm supposed to NOT infer that you don't care about what's right.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY what I was saying. I DO NOT CARE what your motivation is. I'm asking you for the justification. Your personal preference isn't a justification - and if you agree that the tulip scenario is irrelevant than you should see what I'm talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
-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).

[/ QUOTE ]

I say all cars have either gasoline or diesel engines. You counter by showing me a car with an air conditioner. Then you claim it's my job to show you how your car fits into my categories.

Your counterexample wasn't mutually exclusive with ANY of my categories.

You could have that subjective preference and then act because you felt you had an entitlement. You could have that subjective preference then act upon it because you felt nobody else had ownership. You could have that subjective preference and then act because you knew you were strong enough to get away with it.

Your subjective preference is motivation, not justification. I can repeat this a few more times if you think it will help.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

You could have saved some time by not making it. I fell into a common trap and then later realized what you were doing. The fact that even your strawman argument was obviously flawed actually made it harder to see the fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

All I'm saying that a person may choose to violate some principles at one point or another; if he does so, that doesn't (necessarily) show a flaw in the principles, it could very well show a flaw in the individual.