Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-24-2007, 01:33 PM
Zygote Zygote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,051
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not different at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Anarchist just means !government. It doesn't imply anything about property. If you want to make a statement about what property should be, you need to add some form of adjective to the label "anarchist".

[/ QUOTE ]

false. no government does imply something else, whether de facto or by principle. What does no government mean otherwise?

The absence of government is not a description of anarchy until youve defined government. The definition of government will leave clear implications for how anarchy must be if the one society exists in contrast to the other. Explain how society can play out without a government and by what measures can the society be perverted to be considered under government rule again?

There must be clear lines to call one society governed by another not.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-24-2007, 01:35 PM
Zygote Zygote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,051
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not different at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarchists cannot say any property ownership is theft without being a hypocrite. They privately use their body and the land they stand on to make such pronouncements.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-24-2007, 02:20 PM
Misfire Misfire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 2,907
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: I have repeatedly made this point several times.
[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we should replace a statement about what one should do ("never initiate coercion") with a statement about what objective one should seek ("do whatever minimizes the total amount of coercion").


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Friedman questions this point by pointing out his reluctance to steal a $100 gun to prevent a $200 robbery, and the conversation again returns to finding where to draw the line.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-24-2007, 02:27 PM
Misfire Misfire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 2,907
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is. In Friedman's article he asks what if the gun had a million chambers and then switches to the plane example. This is why it is a bad example, he should have stuck with the gun. If he had, it would be quite clear that it is still not right to shoot the gun at someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why it was a great example. In terms of the % chance of your dying, the gun with a million chambers and the plane flying overhead are no different. Why is one bad and the other not bad when they both represent another individual's actions posing the exact same threat?

Perhaps the difference is that there's no other point to aiming a gun at someone, but that brings back the question of where to draw the line. How much utility must an individual derrive before it justifies violating someone else's rights? Who gets to decide how much utility is actually gained? Where's the line between the pointlessness of the gun and the utility of flying the plane?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-24-2007, 03:16 PM
tomdemaine tomdemaine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: buying up the roads around your house
Posts: 4,835
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is. In Friedman's article he asks what if the gun had a million chambers and then switches to the plane example. This is why it is a bad example, he should have stuck with the gun. If he had, it would be quite clear that it is still not right to shoot the gun at someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why it was a great example. In terms of the % chance of your dying, the gun with a million chambers and the plane flying overhead are no different. Why is one bad and the other not bad when they both represent another individual's actions posing the exact same threat?

Perhaps the difference is that there's no other point to aiming a gun at someone, but that brings back the question of where to draw the line. How much utility must an individual derrive before it justifies violating someone else's rights? Who gets to decide how much utility is actually gained? Where's the line between the pointlessness of the gun and the utility of flying the plane?

[/ QUOTE ]

The line is active vs passive. Me buying a burger drives up the price of burgers for you (though by an inperceptable amount) but that is a passive "loss" to you. Activly stealing from someone is different, just like pointing a gun a someone and pulling the trigger is different from flying a plane near them.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-24-2007, 06:02 PM
mrick mrick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarchists cannot say any property ownership is theft without being a hypocrite. They privately use their body and the land they stand on to make such pronouncements.

[/ QUOTE ]
The human body is not property. It is the physical embodiment of self. As such it is not for sale, rent or otherwise, in a just society -- even less so in a society without masters, i.e. anarchy.

As to "the land they stand on", the land belongs to everybody in the anarchic society! In any case, use of the land, such as standing on it, is different from owning it.

Lots of Anarchicts have been hypocrites in their everyday life, and in their application in practical terms of their beliefs. But what you wrote is far from being a refutation of Anarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-24-2007, 06:17 PM
AlexM AlexM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Imaginationland
Posts: 5,200
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not different at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarchists cannot say any property ownership is theft without being a hypocrite. They privately use their body and the land they stand on to make such pronouncements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Property in this context always = land property and you don't own the land you happen to be standing on at the moment. Or do you think that if you come into my home you can do anything you want and I can't kick you out because you own the land you're standing on at the moment?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-24-2007, 06:18 PM
AlexM AlexM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Imaginationland
Posts: 5,200
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not different at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Anarchist just means !government. It doesn't imply anything about property. If you want to make a statement about what property should be, you need to add some form of adjective to the label "anarchist".

[/ QUOTE ]

false. no government does imply something else, whether de facto or by principle. What does no government mean otherwise?

The absence of government is not a description of anarchy until youve defined government. The definition of government will leave clear implications for how anarchy must be if the one society exists in contrast to the other. Explain how society can play out without a government and by what measures can the society be perverted to be considered under government rule again?

There must be clear lines to call one society governed by another not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bunch of obvious gibberish that doesn't really seem to have anything to do with what I said.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-24-2007, 06:23 PM
moorobot moorobot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,038
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
This is why it was a great example. In terms of the % chance of your dying, the gun with a million chambers and the plane flying overhead are no different. Why is one bad and the other not bad when they both represent another individual's actions posing the exact same threat?

Perhaps the difference is that there's no other point to aiming a gun at someone, but that brings back the question of where to draw the line. How much utility must an individual derrive before it justifies violating someone else's rights? Who gets to decide how much utility is actually gained? Where's the line between the pointlessness of the gun and the utility of flying the plane?

The line is active vs passive. Me buying a burger drives up the price of burgers for you (though by an inperceptable amount) but that is a passive "loss" to you. Activly stealing from someone is different, just like pointing a gun a someone and pulling the trigger is different from flying a plane near them.

[/ QUOTE ] Your presuppositions here: that the ethicality or acceptability of an action is to be determined by intention (your active vs passive distinction), not consequences, and, furthermore, that the law (or "social norms" or whatever anarchists want to call the rules of human interaction) should reflect this, are debatable, to say the least. Although I'm certainly not a consequentalist of the strict sort, intentionalism of the strict sort is just nutty to me; far crazier than strict consequentalism. If you are killed by somebody crashing a plane into your house or a disease that spread because I think that state required vaccinations are immoral because they are "aggressive acts preventing passive acts", it does you no good if someone puts on your gravestone "Thanks to the wise law of the land,was killed by a passive act, not an aggressive one".
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-24-2007, 06:32 PM
mrick mrick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Anarchist just means !government. It doesn't imply anything about property. If you want to make a statement about what property should be, you need to add some form of adjective to the label "anarchist".

[/ QUOTE ]I have in mind the classics. Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon were calling themselves anarchists, pure and simple. And it was the latter who famously proclaimed that property is theft.

BTW, is it true that the following lines were written, in 1969, by Murray Rothbard ?


[ QUOTE ]
But how then do we go about destatizing the entire mass of government property, as well as the "private property" of General Dynamics? ... One method would be to turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants; another to turn over pro-rata ownership to the individual taxpayers. But we must face the fact that it might prove the most practical route to first nationalize the property as a prelude to redistribution. Thus, how could the ownership of General Dynamics be transferred to the deserving taxpayers without first being nationalized enroute?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
One of the tragic aspects of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 was that while the serfs gained their personal freedom, the land--their means of production and of life, their land was retained under the ownership of their feudal masters. The land should have gone to the serfs themselves, for under the homestead principle they had tilled the land and deserved its title. Furthermore, the serfs were entitled to a host of reparations from their masters for the centuries of oppression and exploitation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.