The difference between being coerced and coercing

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself)


[/ QUOTE ]


he owns himself and that is the basis of every belief re: property


[ QUOTE ]
Is it morally superior to starve him to death on the basis of property rights rather than to execute him on the basis that he's just a terrible person?

[/ QUOTE ]

either or really .. although killing him causes less suffering that starvation so you could argue that killing him outright is more humane therefore more moral.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene?

[/ QUOTE ]

at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary.

IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

right if someone comes onto your property w/ a knife and obvious intent .... waste his ass.

this is actually the basis of self defense law. to prove you killed someone in self defense law demonstrate that they had

1: motive
2pportunity
3: intent

if you ask him to leave and he does, that removes intent and opportunity . If he refuses the he has demonstrated all 3.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself)


[/ QUOTE ]


he owns himself and that is the basis of every belief re: property

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, one of the troubling aspects of this (to me) is that if you own no real estate and no one wants to buy the fruits of your labour, you have the right to self ownership but not the right to live anywhere on earth. It's largely a theoretical "problem" with property rights but it's somewhat disconcerting to link my right to exist with the marketability of my labour.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself)


[/ QUOTE ]


he owns himself and that is the basis of every belief re: property

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, one of the troubling aspects of this (to me) is that if you own no real estate and no one wants to buy the fruits of your labour, you have the right to self ownership but not the right to live anywhere on earth. It's largely a theoretical "problem" with property rights but it's somewhat disconcerting to link my right to exist with the marketability of my labour.

[/ QUOTE ]

i cannot imagine any situation where someone couldn't sell the fruits of there labor. Even the most handicapped person basically sells being handicapped to charities in exchange for goods.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet in this case, the criminal has no right to interact with other people against their will. People do have a right not to be stabbed by other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself) and no one who owns property will allow him reside on their territory or interact with him, that person has been deemed by the others to have no right to live there.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[ QUOTE ]
Is it morally superior to starve him to death on the basis of property rights rather than to execute him on the basis that he's just a terrible person?

[/ QUOTE ]
He is responsible for himself. Why should anyone else be morally required to provide for him? The alternative to allowing people to choose to interact or not interact with this guy is just more coercion from someone who forces other to provide for him.

[ QUOTE ]
As a side note, I'm not really "challenging" AC here with this edge scenario. I just think it's a more interesting, if somewhat irrelevant, hypothetical.

[/ QUOTE ]
No worries, thinking is fun! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
i cannot imagine any situation where someone couldn't sell the fruits of there labor. Even the most handicapped person basically sells being handicapped to charities in exchange for goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're just sidestepping my issue in the moral code by saying it's not a practical problem. Which is fine. I am not suggesting that this is a fatal flaw that makes the morality system unpracticable. I am just saying that it is hard for me to really buy into a philosophy where a person has a right to exist only after that person has had real property bequeathed to them by someone else or can acquire some through voluntary trade. It means that you don't have a right to exist until someone else "validates" you by choosing to transact with you.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet in this case, the criminal has no right to interact with other people against their will. People do have a right not to be stabbed by other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the criminal owns no property at all (other than himself) and no one who owns property will allow him reside on their territory or interact with him, that person has been deemed by the others to have no right to live there.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but this is the problem - up until the moment where he finds someone to allow him on their property, he does not have a right to live at all under the moral code. This is disturbing to me because it associates your right to exist with the (perhaps arbitrary) approval of others.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it morally superior to starve him to death on the basis of property rights rather than to execute him on the basis that he's just a terrible person?

[/ QUOTE ]
He is responsible for himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, though, since he can only provide for himself by convincing others to interact with him on a voluntary basis he is denied the ability to be responsible for himself until someone else validates his existence by interacting with him.

[ QUOTE ]
Why should anyone else be morally required to provide for him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anybody be morally required to act in any prescribed fashion? If we're talking about morality, we're talking about how people should interact with each other in our view. There's no right answer there.

[ QUOTE ]
The alternative to allowing people to choose to interact or not interact with this guy is just more coercion from someone who forces other to provide for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose things could be worse, but that doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies about this particular issue.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you're just sidestepping my issue in the moral code by saying it's not a practical problem. Which is fine. I am not suggesting that this is a fatal flaw that makes the morality system unpracticable. I am just saying that it is hard for me to really buy into a philosophy where a person has a right to exist only after that person has had real property bequeathed to them by someone else or can acquire some through voluntary trade. It means that you don't have a right to exist until someone else "validates" you by choosing to transact with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when you look at it this way, the only other way somebody could have a 'right to exist' would be by forcibly taking it from somebody else, no? I'm not sure how anyone, in any type of system, could really substantially exist without the help (or at the least being associated with) other human beings.

In any case, I think it is hard to deal with these "fringe" issues by using only a strict and extremely thin conception of libertarianism. Anarchism, or ACism, or whatever, isn't really a separate moral code but rather (hopefully) a part of a more complete one; after all, there clearly seem to be moral issues that fall outside the realm of political structure and questions of 'voluntary transaction vs aggression.' So even though ostracizing someone in such a complete manner falls within the technical bounds of nonaggression and is consistent with libertarian rights theory, I think most would find it inconsistent with a complete ethical theory and work to find ways of non-aggressively fixing the situation (which, in this case, might be as simple as making transactions w/ a fellow human being).

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a more interesting scenario is the case of a "criminal" in an AC world who is not locked up but who can't find anyone to transact with him because of his criminal past. Now, the "AC citizens" (slight misnomer, but I think you'll know what I mean) aren't really aggressing on the criminal with violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
The state doesn't do anything to solve this scenario. A person could be refused a job everywhere, but it simply doesn't because it's a pathological scenario.