Got a PM about "Natural Rights" - Page 6

AlexM · #51 10-23-2007, 10:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually pretty sure it will hurt him and that people will think it's fine that I did it.

[/ QUOTE ] Like when we throw criminals in jail and people think it's fine. Or when we execute them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing a situation where you're trying to stop someone from aggressing on you to one where you're trying to get some sort of revenge is not valid.

[/ QUOTE ] They are not aggressing on you. They are aggressing on your bike.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Physically harming people is not fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh.... so if someone is going to kill you and your family, you should let them? Gotcha.

[/ QUOTE ] This would be them aggressing on you and on other people. That's different, and I have already said I'm all for self defence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, when you said "Physically harming people is not fine" I assumed you meant what you were saying and not something else entirely. Bad habit of mine.

Mr_Moore · #52 10-23-2007, 10:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I meant what do you propose that we do with the thief? Obviously you do not want him to be sent to jail, so what do we do?

[/ QUOTE ] If people think what he did was wrong, they will be less inclined to deal with him. The more people think what he did was more wrong, the more he will be excluded from society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok it is late and my pocket jacks just lost to pocket nines and you need to leave lala land and come back down to earth.

wtfsvi · #53 10-23-2007, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This sounds a lot more like ACism to me than ASism. If enough people believe that what he did (steal property) is wrong that he can't survive without giving the bike back, and you have no government, then you have anarchocapitalism because you have universal recognition of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ] If you have universal recognition of property rights (and I expect you will in a modern anarchistic society), that still doesn't mean you can use force to stop the bike thief. If you agree that you are not allowed to use force to stop him, you just think what he's doing is wrong, and you call yourself and ACist, then I am an ACist too by your definition.

AlexM · #54 10-23-2007, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
stealing is a much more vague and complicated term than inflicting physical harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes it is, because private property is a much more complicated term than "one's own body".

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... no, it's not.

pvn · #55 10-23-2007, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, because he's a "real" anarchist. Also, you're the one that feels you have the right to use force to disrespect other people's property rights.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok to counter this I need to put my statist mask on.

You're the one who feels you have the right to use force to disrespect other people's right to enough food, clean water, shelter, so on. You don't think they have this right? Well, some people feel they do. How is that any different from your feelings about property rights? lol let me guess, because you're right and they're wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, the fact that they think they have a "right" to clean water (side questions for anyone that believes this: how clean, exactly, and how much, and who do they get to collect it from?) doesn't mean they have a right to MY water.

For someone to get my water, they'll have to interact with me. And to interact with me legitimately, you need my consent. If we can't agree on rules of interaction - if we can't agree on what is and is not property, for example - then we cannot legitimately interact. Go your way, I'll go mine.

Until we can agree on the rules, it doesn't matter who is "right" and "wrong", there simply is no interaction. If one party forces the interaction is the aggressor.

AlexM · #56 10-23-2007, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I meant what do you propose that we do with the thief? Obviously you do not want him to be sent to jail, so what do we do?

[/ QUOTE ] If people think what he did was wrong, they will be less inclined to deal with him. The more people think what he did was more wrong, the more he will be excluded from society.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if he doesn't care? There is good reason for a business man to care about being excluded from society. If he is, his business fails. For a thief, it just means you have to steal more.

wtfsvi · #57 10-23-2007, 10:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Comparing a situation where you're trying to stop someone from aggressing on you to one where you're trying to get some sort of revenge is not valid.

[/ QUOTE ] They are not aggressing on you. They are aggressing on your bike.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's the same.

[/ QUOTE ] Fine. If you say so. Stealing and kidnapping are the same. Destroying property and killing people are the same. I need to go to bed.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, when you said "Physically harming people is not fine" I assumed you meant what you were saying and not something else entirely. Bad habit of mine.

[/ QUOTE ] I had already outlined what I think are the exceptions to that rule earlier in this thread, so I didn't think I had to do it agian.

pvn · #58 10-23-2007, 10:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What puzzles me about your post here is why you feel the desire you do to argue so intensely in favor of ACism or donate money to Ron Paul or engage in political activity at all. Given the "the evolution of society", "natural laws" and the fact that "social norms evolve to reduce costs" it follows that ACism will simply come into existence when and if and only if it contains the system of social norms that are best at minimizing costs at that particular time and place, and disappear just as "naturally" when it no longer does.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the bold will never be, anywhere, anytime.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why do you get so worked up about it? I sure don't spend every waking minute on the intarwebs making sure that the people who think the moon landing was faked are shouted down, especially when I could be billing taxpayers $5,000/hour to do nothing. OH now it makes sense. This IS what you do while you're billing us $50,000/hour.

Wait, are you one of those state department "internet information dissemintator" specialists q/q accused ACists of being last week?

wtfsvi · #59 10-23-2007, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, the fact that they think they have a "right" to clean water (side questions for anyone that believes this: how clean, exactly, and how much, and who do they get to collect it from?) doesn't mean they have a right to MY water.

For someone to get my water, they'll have to interact with me. And to interact with me legitimately, you need my consent. If we can't agree on rules of interaction - if we can't agree on what is and is not property, for example - then we cannot legitimately interact. Go your way, I'll go mine.

[/ QUOTE ] And since you couldn't agree on who owned the water (or if anyone could own it at all before they needed it to drink), you own it? Makes sense.

Copernicus · #60 10-23-2007, 11:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually pretty sure it will hurt him and that people will think it's fine that I did it.

[/ QUOTE ] Like when we throw criminals in jail and people think it's ok. Or when we execute them. Physically harming people is not ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stealing is not ok either. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ] Two wrongs don't make a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the stupidest cliches ever. the intent of punishment/retribution/revenge isnt to "right a wrong". (Also there are proably some truth tables you could construct where two "wrongs" do imply a "right", lol)

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got to ask... what are you doing in this thread? Attempting some sort of statist hijack of an anarchist discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont need to ask...what are you doing responding to my post with something utterly useless?