Argh property rights debate

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ 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?

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not the one making assertions here and what do I have to do to "prove" my argument that I act according to my subjective values? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[foal]

[ 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"

[/ QUOTE ]

If "bad" != "violating someone's rights" then there's a difference. Obviously to someone who doesn't believe in rights yet considers certain things bad this is the case.

Is your argument that it's impossible to consider anything bad on a subjective level without believing a right is being violated?