|
|
|
|
#1
11-30-2007, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand this assertion of yours at all. Why, in your "personal preferences" regarding the extent of the use of force, would you choose to stop the child from being abused? Because you just "really don't like" child abuse? 
|
|
#2
11-30-2007, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand this assertion of yours at all. Why, in your "personal preferences" regarding the extent of the use of force, would you choose to stop the child from being abused? Because you just "really don't like" child abuse? [/ QUOTE ] Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't.
|
|
#3
11-30-2007, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Because you just "really don't like" child abuse? [/ QUOTE ] Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't. [/ QUOTE ] I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying: "I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me." and pvn is saying: "I will choose to act to stop the violation of rights, where rights are defined by the members of society around me." pvn's appeal to the status of property rights as "natural" is part of his attempt to get the members of his society include them in their rules. Even if he believes the rights are natural, his application of his belief is going to be the same as your hypothetical - he will use his judgement based on his expectations of the reactions of people around him.
|
|
#4
11-30-2007, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Because you just "really don't like" child abuse? [/ QUOTE ] Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't. [/ QUOTE ] I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying: "I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me." and pvn is saying: "I will choose to act to stop the violation of rights, where rights are defined by the members of society around me." pvn's appeal to the status of property rights as "natural" is part of his attempt to get the members of his society include them in their rules. Even if he believes the rights are natural, his application of his belief is going to be the same as your hypothetical - he will use his judgement based on his expectations of the reactions of people around him. [/ QUOTE ] I've already mentioned this once today, but I haven't asserted any natural rights here.
|
|
#5
11-30-2007, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Because you just "really don't like" child abuse? [/ QUOTE ] Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't. [/ QUOTE ] I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying: "I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me." and pvn is saying: "I will choose to act to stop the violation of rights, where rights are defined by the members of society around me." pvn's appeal to the status of property rights as "natural" is part of his attempt to get the members of his society include them in their rules. Even if he believes the rights are natural, his application of his belief is going to be the same as your hypothetical - he will use his judgement based on his expectations of the reactions of people around him. [/ QUOTE ] I've already mentioned this once today, but I haven't asserted any natural rights here. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, sorry. I was responding under the assumption that you were taking the ACist line that property rights are a natural extension of the right to self ownership. It seemed to me that Kaj was taking exception with the designation of property rights as "natural", and was arguing with you, so I assumed you had said that. I'm sorry I attributed statements to you that you didn't actually make.
|
|
#6
11-30-2007, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Because you just "really don't like" child abuse? [/ QUOTE ] Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't. [/ QUOTE ] I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying: "I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me." [/ QUOTE ] If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.
|
|
#7
11-30-2007, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here. [/ QUOTE ] Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect?
|
|
#8
11-30-2007, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here. [/ QUOTE ] Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect? [/ QUOTE ] Sigh.
|
|
#9
11-30-2007, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here. [/ QUOTE ] Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect? [/ QUOTE ] Sigh. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, now that you have expressed your exasperation with my failure to agree with your baseless assertions, I am in complete agreement with you. Well done, sir. I'll end my participation in this futile discussion with a piece of advice for you: If you can't make a convincing argument for your case, you ought not to assume that your case is rock solid but your audience is too stupid to understand. You are exhibiting the same hubris you are quick to accuse the ACists of exhibiting.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
