Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[MrBlah]

Not giving food to people despite them starving otherwise and you having more than enough is morally wrong if you ask me. But you still have to realise that if food is produced, it belongs to the producer, because he used his bodily ability in order to do so. Stealing from somebody therefore is wrong, if you concede that he owns his body himself.
The extreme case of people starving adds a dimension that has little to do with property rights in my opinion, but are another ethical problem entirely. But a functioning market keeps people from starving anyway. However, a market that makes sure everybody has enough food requires property rights.
And what if people aren't starving anymore? If a student like me eats pasta every day, which I'm sick and tired of, and you have foie gras, because you work hard every day, is it okay for me to take your foie gras? Is it a violent action of yours if you put a lock on your door so I can't take some from your flat? Is enforcing your property rights violence directed towards me?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between respecting property rights and "giving them a special place"?

[/ QUOTE ] Respecting property rights = you respecting property rights. Giving them a special place like in ACism = you forcing everyone else to respect property rights as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no desire to force anyone to respect property rights. I'm pefectly happy for you to disregard property rights.

[/ QUOTE ] Certainly seems like you want to force people to respect your property.

[ QUOTE ]
But again, if you don't believe in property rights, you can't possibly object to someone excluding you from property that you admittedly have no right to be standing on.

[/ QUOTE ]You keep repeating this argument, and it makes no sense. If I don't believe in Z justification for violence, I can't possibly object to someone acting violently against me for Z reason? Uh ok.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Merely by having more food than you need you don't keep those who don't have enough from having food on their own. So there's a clear fallacy in your chain of arguments.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes you do. There is only a finite amount of food in the world. They could "create" some food, sure, but you can't create food instantly. They would die in the process. You can argue that that's their own fault, they should have had the foresight to create food a long time ago, and I would agree. I don't stand by my "chain of arguments", I just attempted to show you that your chain of opinions about property rights is not a chain of logic deductions at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're of course ignoring the fact that without property rights, the amount of food in the world would be much, much smaller in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
He owes you apples according to you. That's fine. Does it mean you will do something to him if he doesn't give you some apples back at one point? Well, that's not fine by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not fine if I take his apples? Because that's what he did to me. If it's OK for him to take mine, why is it not fine for me to take his?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no life without nutrition. If someone is starving, and someone else has more food than they need to survive, the people with food force the starving poeple to die. i.e. it's like they claim to own someone else's lives.

Do you see how this is a "deduction" in the same way your statement is one? i.e. a total sham.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

People with food do not create the hunger in the people without food. They do not use force against them. If those people with food (and the food they have) magically disappear, the people without food are still starving.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not interested in a discussion about that. We agree about it. The whole point of the food-argument was to show what ridiculous results you can get if you start with an axiom we can agree on, and then list some related opinions you have and call it "deduction". It's not deduction.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He owes you apples according to you. That's fine. Does it mean you will do something to him if he doesn't give you some apples back at one point? Well, that's not fine by me.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not fine if I take his apples? Because that's what he did to me. If it's OK for him to take mine, why is it not fine for me to take his?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes it's fine if you take his apples. That is not "doing something to him".

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He owes you apples according to you. That's fine. Does it mean you will do something to him if he doesn't give you some apples back at one point? Well, that's not fine by me.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not fine if I take his apples? Because that's what he did to me. If it's OK for him to take mine, why is it not fine for me to take his?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes it's fine if you take his apples. That is not "doing something to him".

[/ QUOTE ]

So, where do you draw the line, wtfsvi? Would it be violence if person B takes apples from person A who is very poor and who actually needs them to eat?

edit: would it be violence to steal someone's bicycle if that bicycle was that person's only means of transportation to a distant job which they need to survive? What if the thief knew this and took the bicycle from the person who really needed it anyway?

[wtfsvi]

Yes. If someone takes something from you that you need to survive, it's no different then them attempting to kill you from your point of view. Doesn't really matter what they know; if their action is going to/likely to kill you, you should be allowed to stop it with violence if necessary.

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no life without nutrition. If someone is starving, and someone else has more food than they need to survive, the people with food force the starving poeple to die. i.e. it's like they claim to own someone else's lives.

Do you see how this is a "deduction" in the same way your statement is one? i.e. a total sham.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

People with food do not create the hunger in the people without food. They do not use force against them. If those people with food (and the food they have) magically disappear, the people without food are still starving.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not interested in a discussion about that. We agree about it. The whole point of the food-argument was to show what ridiculous results you can get if you start with an axiom we can agree on, and then list some related opinions you have and call it "deduction". It's not deduction.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, instead of telling me I'm wrong, would you be so kind to show me why somebody doesn't become the rightful owner of natural resources by adding his labour in order to turn them into consumer goods?

The only point you have brought up was that he makes other people starve, but you yourself have already admitted that you were wrong on that.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
So, instead of telling me I'm wrong, would you be so kind to show me why somebody doesn't become the rightful owner of natural resources by adding his labour in order to turn them into consumer goods?

The only point you have brought up was that he makes other people starve, but you yourself have already admitted that you were wrong on that.

[/ QUOTE ] lol omg seriously. I didn't say it made people starve. this is horrible.

Ok, 1: You might own your own labour, but that is not all goods are made of. If you own your own labour and your own body, I'll concede that it follows (well, not exactly, but pretty close) that you own something if you make it with your own labour from your own body. So if you chop off your fingers and pull out some of your hair and use it to make a work of art, someone might concede that it follows from self-ownership that you own this. (I wouldn't, though. Your finger is no longer you after you've chopped it off. At least if you have no intention of reattaching it [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) In any case, goods are made from labour and materials. You own one of the two components, and not the other = It can not be deducted that you must necessarily own the product.

2: Property rights will sometimes collide with self-ownership. If you can decide where I should go/what I should do if I go to certain places, your property ownership collides with my self ownership.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that somebody can throw me into jail because I use drugs or don't pay taxes implies that he, who uses force against me, thinks that I don't own my body. He thinks that he owns a part of it. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what gives you the right to keep me from having a beer/smoking some weed/shooting smack?
And if I work on my field all day, in order to grow some sugar beets, what gives you the right to take some of them away from me by threatening me with violence (i.e. tax me).

[/ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either they believe they're entitled to something or they subscribe to some variation of might makes right. Your choice.

[/ 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?