Got a PM about "Natural Rights" - Page 8

AlexM · #71 10-24-2007, 08:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You're honestly telling me if someone attempted to steal something that belongs to you, you would put forth no physical resistance to stop them?

[/ QUOTE ] If you do not do use force against me or threaten to do so, I will not use force against you either. I don't know why you find that so hard to believe. But in the world as it is now, I would call the police, since "alerting society" would do no good when all society would do is tell me to call the police.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet calling the police on them is a way more horrible thing to do than punching them in the face.

wtfsvi · #72 10-24-2007, 09:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And yet calling the police on them is a way more horrible thing to do than punching them in the face.

[/ QUOTE ] Imposing my view on them is way more horrible than imposing the majority's view on them? I disagree. It's way less horrible to impose the majority's view. But I agree that it's still wrong.

I don't call the police because it's right. I do it because it's in my best interest, and as long as the police exists and people trust the state to be their nanny, it will be my only option for help from society.

AlexM · #73 10-24-2007, 09:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yet calling the police on them is a way more horrible thing to do than punching them in the face.

[/ QUOTE ] Imposing my view on them is way more horrible than imposing the majority's view on them? I disagree. It's way less horrible to impose the majority's view.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with your view vs. minority view it has to do with a punch in the face vs. being arrested, having to go through all that crap and spending at the very least a few hours in jail and paying a fine. Probably more.

Which would you rather have happen to you? For me, it's not even remotely close.

wtfsvi · #74 10-24-2007, 09:28 AM

I think you're just arguing to argue. Like I said, I would call the police because it would be in my best interest. Not because I think it's right. Punching him in the face would not be in my best interest.

The fact that I use the state now to the degree that it is in my best interest does not really add anything meaninful to this discussion.

mosdef · #75 10-24-2007, 10:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this might be the source of all arguments in this thread. You seem to be attributing to ACism attributes that I don't think it necessarily has. In particular, not everyone who supports ACism wants to stand on the edge of their property line with a shotgun and take out anyone who wanders on to their property. As far as I can tell, plenty of supporters of AC believe in "passive" property defense through "social exclusion", but they believe that is a choice that one would make and an alternative choice is the use of force to defend property. Also, this doesn't imply that use of force would be "justifiable" in all situations - for example if I shoot someone for "breathing my air" plenty of ACists would't say "No problem", they would say "That's ridiculous - you owe that person's family compensation and you are not allowed on my property". The same social pressures that can, for example, effectively force a person to return a stolen bike can also serve to force a person to not distribute violence in a wanton fashion in the name of property rights.

Once again, I don't think you are drawing the right line between AC and AS. You are saying "it's AC if people blow each others heads off when someone steals something", but I think that it's AC when social norms dictate that stealing is wrong and a state hasn't been established to define and defend those social norms.

AlexM · #76 10-24-2007, 10:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're just arguing to argue. Like I said, I would call the police because it would be in my best interest. Not because I think it's right. Punching him in the face would not be in my best interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if me and the bicycle thief live somewhere where we're the only people who live within 100 miles of where we are? There are no police and there are no other people to ostracize him. What is your solution then?

wtfsvi · #77 10-24-2007, 10:14 AM

You say people can choose to use violence to defend their property. This is obviously not different from what I think ACism is. I didn't think you thought people had to use violence. But I thought you said it was justified if they wanted to, and you still do.

You also seem to say that you can't blow off someone's head if you can use a milder form of violence to achieve what you want to achieve. This is not surprising either. You still approve of violently imposing your view onto others.

wtfsvi · #78 10-24-2007, 10:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're just arguing to argue. Like I said, I would call the police because it would be in my best interest. Not because I think it's right. Punching him in the face would not be in my best interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if me and the bicycle thief live somewhere where we're the only people who live within 100 miles of where we are? There are no police and there are no other people to ostracize him. What is your solution then?

[/ QUOTE ] You argue just like a statist. In that situation, if you couldn't agree, whoever was stronger would win out. True in any system. What's your point?

AlexM · #79 10-24-2007, 10:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're just arguing to argue. Like I said, I would call the police because it would be in my best interest. Not because I think it's right. Punching him in the face would not be in my best interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if me and the bicycle thief live somewhere where we're the only people who live within 100 miles of where we are? There are no police and there are no other people to ostracize him. What is your solution then?

[/ QUOTE ] You argue just like a statist.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the random flaming has started. I guess this means I've won.

[ QUOTE ]
In that situation, if you couldn't agree, whoever was stronger would win out. True in any system. What's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a question of who would win, it's a question of whether or not I ethically have the right to defend myself. You keep saying I don't have the right to defend myself.

wtfsvi · #80 10-24-2007, 10:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And the random flaming has started. I guess this means I've won.

[/ QUOTE ] At least it means I have gotten frustrated, so I'll take a break.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In that situation, if you couldn't agree, whoever was stronger would win out. True in any system. What's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a question of who would win, it's a question of whether or not I ethically have the right to defend myself. You keep saying I don't have the right to defend myself.

[/ QUOTE ] You would not have the right to initiate violence against the other guy. Only in your twisted world is initiating violence defending yourself, because your property = you.