Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "impacted"? If the interaction involves someone else's property, then they are involved in the interaction, and are one of the people who need to agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "involved"? If you do something and it changes the market value of my property does that mean I should get a say?

[ QUOTE ]
If you let yourself be "impacted" by the shirt I wear or the things I smoke even if I don't violate your property, why do you think you might have a say in it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "violate your property". Again, almost everything you do will impact the value of my property one way or another.

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately it's shortsighted and utopian to think we should have a say in how other people treat their property just because we might notice and have some feeling about it. People resent it when you tell them how to use their things and run their life, and the blowback *TO YOU* will exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but I'm not saying that you should have a say every time someone does something, but I am not sure it is clear that you shouldn't have a say any of the time because of pvn's argument.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about everybody who is impacted by their interaction beyond them? Do they have to agree as well? Or do you also need a subjective limitation on "how much" my interacation impacts you before I need your agreement? We've been down this road before, and I'm not sure you're logical development here is as clean as you're making it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define impact.

[/ QUOTE ]

But impact is subjective, and if the subjective determination of impact according ot the two people involved in the transaction differs from other people who believe they are being "impacted" under their definition, then the interaction is not "contained" and the fact that is satisfies the two people is not sufficient to make the conclusion you are making.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "involved"? If you do something and it changes the market value of my property does that mean I should get a say?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If the value of your property hinges on my actions, that is your problem, not mine.

I'm in Massachusetts right now visiting my parents, and there is a local apple orchard close by. The owners have decided to sell most of the land to Target and downsize to a small shop. Obviously, home owners are up in arms about it and want it to be stopped.

Do you really think they should have a say in what someone else does with his apple orchard? The owners are probably old and want to retire, do they have to keep running an apple orchard because other people want them to? Do they have to sell their land to another apple orchard owner even if the property has much more value to a retailer?

[ QUOTE ]
Define "violate your property". Again, almost everything you do will impact the value of my property one way or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sort of the same question, isn't it? Violating property would be doing anything to someone else's property that they do not consent to.

The home owners have a right to buy the apple orchard if they want it to stay there. But they don't have a right to tell someone else what to do with it if they don't own it.

Since everything I do will impact the value of your property, you do yourself best to encourage free exchange and let me do what's best for me. It so happens, that when I do what's best for me, you will be more likely to benefit positively than negatively.

Hence, why I claim anything else is fundamentally shortsighted.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in Massachusetts right now visiting my parents, and there is a local apple orchard close by. The owners have decided to sell most of the land to Target and downsize to a small shop. Obviously, home owners are up in arms about it and want it to be stopped.

Do you really think they should have a say in what someone else does with his apple orchard?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. Because it doesn't meet my subjective determination of what is a legitimate and/or illegitimate action. All I am saying is that this doesn't follow naturally from the observation that "everything's subjective" as suggested by pvn. Don't conflate my statement that I don't agree with the logical deduction with the idea that I think interference is always justified.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Define "violate your property". Again, almost everything you do will impact the value of my property one way or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sort of the same question, isn't it? Violating property would be doing anything to someone else's property that they do not consent to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like lowering it's market price? If they used to own a house beside a park and, after you erect a fat rendering plant on the park, they now own a house beside a fat rendering plant. Why don't they have to consent to your building the park, other than your subjective preferences for property laws?

[ QUOTE ]
Since everything I do will impact the value of your property, you do yourself best to encourage free exchange and let me do what's best for me. It so happens, that when I do what's best for me, you will be more likely to benefit positively than negatively.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes sense but does not follow logically from pvn's observation.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's just start all over.

For this thread, we'll just take as a given that:

* right and wrong is subjective

* morals are subjective

* legitimacy is subjective

* anything else you want to stipulate is subjective

Let's assume that all of the above subjectiveness is objective. There's NO DEBATE over whether that stuff is subjective or not. It's a FACT that these things are subjective.

Sound good so far?

With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.

What follows from here should be fairly intuitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why couldn't one argue that, given that "everything is all subjective", that the best you can hope to do is maximize the number of people whose subjective preferences are met, ergo democracy is the way to do?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Like lowering it's market price? If they used to own a house beside a park and, after you erect a fat rendering plant on the park, they now own a house beside a fat rendering plant. Why don't they have to consent to your building the park, other than your subjective preferences for property laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason why they should have to respect my subjective preference for property laws. And then there is no reason why *I* have to respect their subjective preference to have property of higher value.

See it now?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason why they should have to respect my subjective preference for property laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute - pvn is concluding that they stay out of your business. I presume this would be based on their recognition of your preference for property laws, wouldn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
And then there is no reason why *I* have to respect their subjective preference to have property of higher value.

See it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that nobody has to recognize anything, including your assertion that they need to stay out of "your" business defined by your subjective opinion.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute - pvn is concluding that they stay out of your business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hrmmm?

It seems to me pvn is merely concluding that the interaction (if it is not voluntary on both ends) can not be looked at as "legitimate," "right," or "moral."

You're jumping the gun.

Pvn can speak for himself, but the point I take from his post is that if you make the claim that "everything is subjective" you ultimately don't get anywhere. All you can do is debate what is the most reasonable approach to declared preferences.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Pvn can speak for himself, but the point I take from his post is that if you make the claim that "everything is subjective" you ultimately don't get anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

"With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.

What follows from here should be fairly intuitive."

I believe he is saying that "what follows" is "everyone stays out of everyone else's business".

[ QUOTE ]
All you can do is debate what is the most reasonable approach to declared preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - it needs to be debated, it does not fall logically out of the observation that everything's subjective.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
"With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.

What follows from here should be fairly intuitive."

I believe he is saying that "what follows" is "everyone stays out of everyone else's business".

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's what I mean when I say you're jumping the gun. You know pvn is an ACist so you know he will eventually conclude that this is the best approach. But I don't see why you think his post is necessarily trying to prove that or what the flaw is.

What he is really saying (from the way I read it) is "OK, so it's all subjective, now let's figure out the best way to proceed."

Once you agree that your preferences are no better than mine (since that's the premise of this discussion), there is no "legitimacy" one way or the other unless we agree there is. "Right," "Moral," and "Legitimate" reflect the attitudes of humans. They're not written in stone somewhere. What can make something "legitimate" other than peer consensus? That's what you have to answer to find a flaw in what he said, imo.