Got a PM about "Natural Rights"

[moorobot]

Borodog-I thought the OP made it clear that social norms evolve by themselves to fit what minimizes costs in a situation; if you believe this it would seem that arguing one way or another about social norms is irrelevant, as the social norms that minimize costs will come into being, regardless of what a person argues minimizes costs.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
You make up rules. (Don't set foot on my land, don't take my property.) If someone breaks your rules, you use violence against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you are presuming violence on my behalf to differentiate my view from your view.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the same thing the majority does.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it is not. I am making the rules that will apply on my land. They are making up the rules that apply on my land. This is not the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
They are also "defensive". First they make up a rule, then they wait until someone breaks it before they react.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. Their rule demands that I do something. The creation of such a rule is aggression. My rule does not demand that they do something - it demands that they NOT do something to me. My rule only results in violence on my part if someone else does something first. Their rule results in violence on their part even if I do nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
You feel you are entitled to make the rules you make and use violence to enforce them, they feel they are entitled to make the rules they make and use violence to enforce them. Your view is anchored in the current societal norms, their view is anchored in the current societal norms.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that doesn't make them "the same". I am not demanding that someone do something (i.e. offense), I am demanding that they not do something to me (i.e. defense). It just isn't the same thing.

[wtfsvi]

Not taking drugs, not selling drugs, not driving under the influence, not driving above the speed limit, not discriminate against anyone because of race, gender, sexuality and so on, not serve food with trans fats - the list goes on.

edit: and the difference that lies in the fact that you make up rules that apply "on your land", and they make up rules that apply "on your land" is meaningless to someone who does not agree with your view on property rights. Just like their justification for why they are allowed to make their rules and violently enforce them is meaningless to you, because you don't agree with their view.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog-I thought the OP made it clear that social norms evolve by themselves to fit what minimizes costs in a situation; if you believe this it would seem that arguing one way or another about social norms is irrelevant, as the social norms that minimize costs will come into being, regardless of what a person argues minimizes costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Local minima!

I am not a "Laws of History bring about an inevitable Libertopia" kind of guy.

Also, see "inverted retina".

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
See, this is it right here. If "the people" is the majority of people, and they do indeed disagree, then AlexM is wrong and is at best wasting his time and resources and at worst is probably going to get hurt. It's all about the social norms about land ownership, which are not a priori.

[/ QUOTE ] Is ownership of your own body an a priori right?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See, this is it right here. If "the people" is the majority of people, and they do indeed disagree, then AlexM is wrong and is at best wasting his time and resources and at worst is probably going to get hurt. It's all about the social norms about land ownership, which are not a priori.

[/ QUOTE ] Is ownership of your own body an a priori right?

[/ QUOTE ] Bump. I'm very interested to know if you think your ownership to your own body and the rights that go with it exist regardless of societal norms. If not, and your posts seem to imply that you do not, I'm interested to know if the in house ACist followers agree with you.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
it does
can't explain now
driving

[/ QUOTE ] I'm very interested in this too.