Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]

wtfsvi argues that if I pick an apple from a tree to eat it, and he tricks me and thereby takes it away from me, I have no right wrestle it away from him again, as it isn't my apple.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not agreeing with him on that. It's a valid preference, but his notion of what rights you have/don't have are merely that (preference).

[ QUOTE ]

Consider this: Instead of merely picking the apple, a farmer buys some land, plants apple trees, fertilises the ground and shields the fruits from pest. He buys a truck, rents some space in a market place in a city and sets up a stand so people can enjoy the fruits in exchange for other goods that the farmer values higher than his apples (which he has plenty of) but they value less. Would there be apples without his labour? Does wtfsvi own the apple as much as the farmer does, because the apple is not a part of the farmer's body, but he only created it using his body, which he mixed with natural resources?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Not by most social norms/standards. And I think property rights social/legal norms are a good thing as long as they're kept in moderation and not taken to the extreme such as ACists like to take them.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]

wtfsvi argues that if I pick an apple from a tree to eat it, and he tricks me and thereby takes it away from me, I have no right wrestle it away from him again, as it isn't my apple.

[/ QUOTE ] oh yes and I never said it isn't your apple. You can call it yours if you want. As long as you don't use that word to justify that you are entitled to be violent.

[tame_deuces]

Well, ironically the modern term state was partially thought out due to a desire to protect private property rights. The old term state (which simply meant 'people', and in singular form 'ruler') wasn't too big on that. So you basically got a model where the state should legally and politically answer to its inhabitants (and vice versa).

The system was based on checks&balances out of the pretty decent idea that you need checks and balances on human behavior to protect rights. Clever bastards.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by "entitled to something", but since you seem to be disagreeing with me I'll assume you mean ownership. I.e. they necessarily believe that they own the person who they are inflicting force upon. Your alternative is that they "subscribe to 'might makes right", which is a meaningless caricature of a statement almost as bad as "the meaning of life is reproduction".

So if you're drunk and planning on driving and I take your keys does this mean I think I own you? If you say yes, then you have a quite different concept of ownership than I do. It's clearly not "might makes right", because I'm deciding what I think is "right" first and then using "might" to enforce it. So which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Temporary, acute restraint is not the same as chronic, systematic restraint (which is what we were talking about).

[/ QUOTE ]
I said "So if anyone ever tries to force anyone to do (or not do) anything it means they think they own them? I don't buy that." There's nothing about temporary vs systematic force in what I said and the person I was responding to didn't specify that either.


[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, for your intervention to be "right" one of the following must be true:

1) you are entitled to intervene
2) the person you're acting against has no self-ownership
3) the fact that you can do it is enough to make it right

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about what's "right". I'm disagreeing with the assertion that inflicting force upon someone means you think that you own them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you're going with #3.

[ QUOTE ]
Still, I can tell you what the reasoning would be behind my taking the key from you and it is none of the three options you listed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The motivation is different than the justification.

[ QUOTE ]
You can consider it my standard of what is "right" if you like. I consider taking your keys to be negative. I consider you driving drunk to be even more negative. Therefore the negative of taking your keys is worth it, since the negative of you driving drunk outweighs it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This subjective ranking isn't enough to provide a justification for the action on its own.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

wtfsvi argues that if I pick an apple from a tree to eat it, and he tricks me and thereby takes it away from me, I have no right wrestle it away from him again, as it isn't my apple.

[/ QUOTE ] oh yes and I never said it isn't your apple. You can call it yours if you want. As long as you don't use that word to justify that you are entitled to be violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the farmer's apple, and stealing is bad, but nobody has any right to act in prevention of theft, and in fact such actions would themselves be wrong.

OK. This should get interesting really fast.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, ironically the modern term state was partially thought out due to a desire to protect private property rights. The old term state (which simply meant 'people', and in singular form 'ruler') wasn't too big on that. So you basically got a model where the state should legally and politically answer to its inhabitants (and vice versa).

The system was based on checks&balances out of the pretty decent idea that you need checks and balances on human behavior to protect rights. Clever bastards.

[/ QUOTE ]

The intent and the result are two different things.

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

wtfsvi argues that if I pick an apple from a tree to eat it, and he tricks me and thereby takes it away from me, I have no right wrestle it away from him again, as it isn't my apple.

[/ QUOTE ] oh yes and I never said it isn't your apple. You can call it yours if you want. As long as you don't use that word to justify that you are entitled to be violent.

[/ QUOTE ] I really don't get your point anymore. Why would I become violent because I own an apple? Who thinks, "I own my apple, therefore I beat up wtfsvi."? I might be forced to resort to violence because you are trying to steal my apple. I hope you anticipate this and don't try to do so.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
But it is. The apple hanging in the air, unreachable for anybody, has no value. I climbed the tree and picked it, i.e. I mixed my labour with the apple, thus giving it some value, because now I (or somebody else I trade it to in exchange for goods I value higher than the apple and he, at the same time, values less) can enjoy the taste and nutrition of the apple. By adding my labour to the apple I made it mine.

Remember, without me, the apple would not have any value. So if he steals it from me, he steals the value I added to the apple.

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry for responding to your thread in such a messy manner. But another point about the above paragraph:

This is your opinion. But let me point out that it's not true that the apple had no value before you came along. I agree, however, that you increased it's value. The leap from there to "therefore I own it, and therefore I get to use violence to protect it" is one I can't stop you from making, but I can make you aware that you're making it. It's not a deduction, it's a new axiom. That's pretty much all I'm saying. If you think you are entitled to violently enforce your property rights, there's not much I can do about that. Just like there's nothing much you can do when the majority thinks they are entitled to violently enforce their opinions onto the minority. It's an axiom in their moral system. The only thing we (as anarchists) can do is try to make them aware of it, and see if it changes.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

wtfsvi argues that if I pick an apple from a tree to eat it, and he tricks me and thereby takes it away from me, I have no right wrestle it away from him again, as it isn't my apple.

[/ QUOTE ] oh yes and I never said it isn't your apple. You can call it yours if you want. As long as you don't use that word to justify that you are entitled to be violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the farmer's apple, and stealing is bad, but nobody has any right to act in prevention of theft, and in fact such actions would themselves be wrong.

OK. This should get interesting really fast.

[/ QUOTE ] Kind of like how you think selling drugs to children is bad, yet you don't think anyone is entitled to act to prevent it other than through non-violent means.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, ironically the modern term state was partially thought out due to a desire to protect private property rights. The old term state (which simply meant 'people', and in singular form 'ruler') wasn't too big on that. So you basically got a model where the state should legally and politically answer to its inhabitants (and vice versa).

The system was based on checks&balances out of the pretty decent idea that you need checks and balances on human behavior to protect rights. Clever bastards.

[/ QUOTE ]

The intent and the result are two different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well no matter how you twist and turn it, it was a huge improvement, even in the property rights department.