Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't said that at all, and I think my post (and every post I've made) has been pretty clear about not opposing "government" (where rights are determined) and "market" (where prices for goods are determined).


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't separate the two as the decisions on rights will alter the market for goods and services. From how to word, enforce and interpret laws, to simply funding the system all choices on laws are economic choices. There is no objective way to draw a line and say market on the left and government on the right, and eventually you end up with the same thing that happens every where. A growing government because government actors gain from growth, and a massively distorted market. Just for example, how many people think that health care ought to be a "right"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to seperate them. What I'm trying to say is that my OP is trying to draw a parralel between "consumer rights" and "political rights".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
But they might not agree with your set of objective standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

So, let them propose their own set. We can then compare them.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,
please define "legitimate authority"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
Q to Joe Statist: Joe, please define "legitimate authority"?
Joe: Democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I would like those who think they have "authority" over others to define that authority and to explain where it comes from.

I'm not making any such claim over other people, so it doesn't really matter what I think it is. If others want to claim it, they'll have to accept the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do what?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you want to argue that this is "right" or "wrong" doesn't mean much until you explain why "right" and "wrong" matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because stopping at "might makes right" relegates us to feral existence.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether you want to argue that this is "right" or "wrong" doesn't mean much until you explain why "right" and "wrong" matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because stopping at "might makes right" relegates us to feral existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I didn't say "might makes right". I said "might makes reality". You want to ignore that, that's fine. You're just wrong. This has nothing to do with morality.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,
please define "legitimate authority"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
Q to Joe Statist: Joe, please define "legitimate authority"?
Joe: Democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I would like those who think they have "authority" over others to define that authority and to explain where it comes from.

I'm not making any such claim over other people, so it doesn't really matter what I think it is. If others want to claim it, they'll have to accept the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do what?

[/ QUOTE ] Claim you have legitimate authority over other people, based on your earlier definition of legitimate authority as "property". Morally, there is zero difference between you and the statist who does exactly the same, only with "democracy" or "the majority's right to rule".

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,
please define "legitimate authority"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
Q to Joe Statist: Joe, please define "legitimate authority"?
Joe: Democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I would like those who think they have "authority" over others to define that authority and to explain where it comes from.

I'm not making any such claim over other people, so it doesn't really matter what I think it is. If others want to claim it, they'll have to accept the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do what?

[/ QUOTE ] Claim you have legitimate authority over other people, based on your earlier definition of legitimate authority as "property rights". Morally, there is zero difference between you and the statist who does exactly the same, only with "democracy" or "the majority's right to rule".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see that as a fair or apropriate analogy, because pvn's position is more akin to an animal in the wilds with its own den, saying "leave me alone, this is where I live and what I need to live". You don't think of a wild animal, which also views its den and food as something that belongs to it (insofar as it is able to conceptualize such things, of course), is subscribing to a moral code of enforcing its views on others, do you? Well IMO pvn's position is similar: he owns what he needs to live and survive pretty much, and dooesn't mess with others and would like the same consideration in return. IMO that's far different than someone seeking to extend power over others.

Animals consider some things their property: ever try to take away a really hungry dog's dish of food away from him, or evict a wild animal from its lair? You'll probably meet significant resistance. Private ownership is necessary for the world to function and this goes for animals too in certain regards. Of course animals have no enforcement mechanism other than their own strength, will and fierceness, but the concept of ownership of certain basic things (even territory) is not just a human concept. Saying you own your own dwelling is not enforcing your views on others in the same way as saying you own someone else's dwelling, or telling them they must install smoke detectors in it. One is just having your private space to live in whereas the other is extending your control beyond your immediate vicinity and into the private dwellings of others. Huge difference. Also, saying "leave me alone" is not the same thing at all as telling other people what to do in many other various aspects. Defensive action is not the same as aggressive action.

Thanks for reading.

[tame_deuces]

I don't think animals in the wild is a good analogy to ACism, animals in the wild would be much closer to social darwinism. ACism is built on principles of rights also, the rights to freedom and property.

If you go down to base nature examples, then any system that currently operates is justifiable simply because it exists

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether you want to argue that this is "right" or "wrong" doesn't mean much until you explain why "right" and "wrong" matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because stopping at "might makes right" relegates us to feral existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I didn't say "might makes right". I said "might makes reality". You want to ignore that, that's fine. You're just wrong. This has nothing to do with morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wrong about what? I haven't disputed it "might makes reality". I just don't find that discussion particularly edifying or illuminating.

A: you don't have any right to tell me that I can't use drugs.
B: but drugs are illegal, and we'll beat you up if you do it.
A: that doesn't mean it's right
B: BUT WE HAVE BIG GUNS
A: yes, yes you do. Congratulations.

It's the same thing we see over and over. Someone tries to have a normative discussion and we go right back to the results-oriented analysis.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,
please define "legitimate authority"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
Q to Joe Statist: Joe, please define "legitimate authority"?
Joe: Democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I would like those who think they have "authority" over others to define that authority and to explain where it comes from.

I'm not making any such claim over other people, so it doesn't really matter what I think it is. If others want to claim it, they'll have to accept the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do what?

[/ QUOTE ] Claim you have legitimate authority over other people, based on your earlier definition of legitimate authority as "property".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership is not the same as property. And I haven't claimed authority over any "other people." Please cite such an instance.