Why Im no longer an ACist

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, some here who support property rights have stated the fact that ownership is indeed a black and white issue, so your agreement that the issue is murky is a positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ownership is black and white. Determination of ownership is murky.

A person either owns something or he doesn't. However, we can never be 100% sure who owns something. We can usually be pretty close to 100% sure.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, non-sequitur?

Hoarding unowned land =! inheriting/trading for legitimately owned land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why because you say so?

And I never said anything about "unowned land". You inserted that adjective and then attempted to tear down something I never asserted. (And it doesn't really matter as you yourself have admitted that claims of legitimate ownership are murky anyway.)

So is your claim that inheriting 100,000 acres from your daddy and doing nothing with it is "not hoarding". Why? Who are you to define what one views as "hoarding" for the rest of the species? What is your objective rationale to make such a statement other than your personal (subjective) value system?

And yet again we see an ACist portray his personal values as objective truths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not portraying anything as an objective truth - I have already admitted the opposite in fact. And the matter has nothing to do with my "personal values." The fact of the matter is that property rights are a social norm that the vast majority of people in the entire world agree on, and to me seem logically derived from self-ownership. I mean I guess you could also say that defending yourself against physical harm doesn't conform to the Golden Rule either, in a strict sense, but I don't see why that's an interesting discussion or relevant to the point I was trying to make initially. What of people who don't believe in self-ownership? (Self-ownership is not an objective truth, either.) Does this give them license to go on a murderous rampage on a whim?

Though I typically dislike resorting to utilitarian arguments because I am mainly a moralist, Borodog is right when he says that without property rights/capitalism, only stone age subsistence would be possible.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I've acknowledged that force can unseat legitimate owners. This is just a sophisticated variant of the death star objection. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

What you haven't acknowledged, and are cleverly but painfully yet again avoiding, is the point that the whole concept of legitimacy is itself something that YOU are defining based on YOUR values. And that is the whole crux of the issue. Yeah, force can overpower legitimate claims. But the point is that the legitimacy of the claim itself is only based on your notion of what legitimate ownership means. Your view would be that it is illegitimate for 100 people to claim a piece of your land and move in and take it without your consent. Well, that's a fine view. I might even agree. But that is still a wholly subjective view and there is no basis for your claim of "legitimacy" other than your own words ... or force to back it up.

Labeling this the "death star objection" is your usual tactic to dismiss these types of points. This has nothing to do with some wild-eyed far-fetched scenario and has everything to do with the core belief that private property has some inherent legitimacy in itself.

I am for the ownership of private property (including land, with some possible caveats), by the way. I am just not blinded any more to believe that there is something sacrosanct about it.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Ownership is black and white. Determination of ownership is murky.

A person either owns something or he doesn't. However, we can never be 100% sure who owns something. We can usually be pretty close to 100% sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ridiculous post and shows how simple minded your thinking is on this issue.

Goodnight, Kaj of 10 years ago.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Though I typically dislike resorting to utilitarian arguments because I am mainly a moralist, Borodog is right when he says that without property rights/capitalism, only stone age subsistence would be possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, more black and white extremist statements.

Your statement above does not imply that curtailing some property rights would be detrimental to our level of subsistence. The world isn't bound by the extremes "property rights do not exist" and "all ("legitimate") private property is sacrosanct and cannot be taken against one's will".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've acknowledged that force can unseat legitimate owners. This is just a sophisticated variant of the death star objection. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

What you haven't acknowledged, and are cleverly but painfully yet again avoiding, is the point that the whole concept of legitimacy is itself something that YOU are defining based on YOUR values. And that is the whole crux of the issue. Yeah, force can overpower legitimate claims. But the point is that the legitimacy of the claim itself is only based on your notion of what legitimate ownership means. Your view would be that it is illegitimate for 100 people to claim a piece of your land and move in and take it without your consent. Well, that's a fine view. I might even agree. But that is still a wholly subjective view and there is no basis for your claim of "legitimacy" other than your own words ... or force to back it up.

Labeling this the "death star objection" is your usual tactic to dismiss these types of points. This has nothing to do with some wild-eyed far-fetched scenario and has everything to do with the core belief that private property has some inherent legitimacy in itself.

I am for the ownership of private property (including land, with some possible caveats), by the way. I am just not blinded any more to believe that there is something sacrosanct about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read the whole post before you respond.

I'll copy and paste the part you ignored:

It doesn't matter if morality is subjective or not.

If it is, then as you point out, transactions cannot be legitimate without recognition - consent from both parties in the transaction. They have to agree on the rules of legitimacy. if they do not, the default position must be that transactions are illegitimate. This is 100% in line with the AC position.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Though I typically dislike resorting to utilitarian arguments because I am mainly a moralist, Borodog is right when he says that without property rights/capitalism, only stone age subsistence would be possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, more black and white extremist statements.

Your statement above does not imply that curtailing some property rights would be detrimental to our level of subsistence. The world isn't bound by the extremes "property rights do not exist" and "all ("legitimate") private property is sacrosanct and cannot be taken against one's will".

[/ QUOTE ]

"The world" might not be, but I don't see any other arrangements that are logically consistent. So you believe in "some" property rights? WTF are you arguing for?

Seriously, what point are you trying to make here, anyway? If you were just trying to get me to admit that there is nothing holy about property rights, I've already done that more than once. Otherwise I don't see what you're trying to get me to concede/believe.

This ZOMG SHADES OF GRAY arguing tactic is typically used as an appeal to emotion and to avoid the rigors required by logical consistency.

"It is either raining or it isn't."
"ZOMG BLACK AND WHITE EXTREMIST!!!111"

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've acknowledged that force can unseat legitimate owners. This is just a sophisticated variant of the death star objection. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

What you haven't acknowledged, and are cleverly but painfully yet again avoiding, is the point that the whole concept of legitimacy is itself something that YOU are defining based on YOUR values. And that is the whole crux of the issue. Yeah, force can overpower legitimate claims. But the point is that the legitimacy of the claim itself is only based on your notion of what legitimate ownership means. Your view would be that it is illegitimate for 100 people to claim a piece of your land and move in and take it without your consent. Well, that's a fine view. I might even agree. But that is still a wholly subjective view and there is no basis for your claim of "legitimacy" other than your own words ... or force to back it up.

Labeling this the "death star objection" is your usual tactic to dismiss these types of points. This has nothing to do with some wild-eyed far-fetched scenario and has everything to do with the core belief that private property has some inherent legitimacy in itself.

I am for the ownership of private property (including land, with some possible caveats), by the way. I am just not blinded any more to believe that there is something sacrosanct about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read the whole post before you respond.

I'll copy and paste the part you ignored:

It doesn't matter if morality is subjective or not.

If it is, then as you point out, transactions cannot be legitimate without recognition - consent from both parties in the transaction. They have to agree on the rules of legitimacy. if they do not, the default position must be that transactions are illegitimate. This is 100% in line with the AC position.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it is 100% in line with the AC position that property rights are a purely subjective notion? Great. So your use of force to defend your land has the same "legitimacy" as my use of force to seize your land or to regulate your use of your land. Ok then. News to me that you felt this way but I am encouraged to hear that. So I expect you to desist in condemning "coercion" (including taxation) as immoral or against your "rights", and start recognizing it as just a different viewpoint and treat it as such. I'm looking to such debate.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The world isn't bound by the extremes "property rights do not exist" and "all ("legitimate") private property is sacrosanct and cannot be taken against one's will".

[/ QUOTE ]

"The world" might not be, but I don't see any other arrangements that are logically consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I quote the orlyowl again? Come on, you pretty much refute your own argument one sentence later:

[ QUOTE ]
If you were just trying to get me to admit that there is nothing holy about property rights, I've already done that more than once.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's nothing holy about property rights, it's logically consistent to violate them if they interfere with somebody else's right to something else. Problem solved?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
somebody else's right to something else

[/ QUOTE ]

Like what? How is this derived?

I don't see how any such conflict is possible unless you are simply referring to an ownership claim dispute, in which case, yes, murky in some instances. Fortunately, these instances can be resolved without states.