a quick thought

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want to go rape children and stab people and all u statists and acists want to impose your morality on me (therefore everyone is wrong but me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...ACists want to impose their AC morality on me, just like I want the state to impose my statist morality on them. How do we decide which morality to impose? In my view, that's why we have democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

But democracy is ONE of the many competing moralities. It's not some external fair arbitrator between them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.

In AC land I will not be allowed to camp on other people's property without permission (just as I am not allowed to now).

In AC land I will have to work to support my family (just as I have to do now).

I will not be allowed to steal or threaten or kick or punch or stab or shoot someone unless I am under direct physical attack (just as I am not allowed to now).

I will be able to enjoy recreation on a variety of different lands but will most often, if not always, be required to pay a user fee (just as I am required to do now).

I will have to pay for police and fire protection, health insurance, all like I have to do now.

And instead of those things costing me 50% of what I make it will probably cost like 15% of what I make.

Wow, those ACists are really immoral people.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, if you are going to claim that AC is the only correct society because it categorically doesn't coerce, you had better be prepared to defend that principle against some pretty absurd examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you have failed to provide an example of AC coercing since no one has the beliefs that are necessary for your scenario. I strongly question whether anyone ever has either.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
How do we decide which morality to impose?

[/ QUOTE ]


wtf

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, if you are going to claim that AC is the only correct society because it categorically doesn't coerce, you had better be prepared to defend that principle against some pretty absurd examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you have failed to provide an example of AC coercing since no one has the beliefs that are necessary for your scenario. I strongly question whether anyone ever has either.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one believes that there should be no property rights over land? More generally, I think a lot of people (myself included) would believe that the only property rights we have are the ones the state guarantees to protect as determined through a democratic process. I don't believe in any sort of inherent property rights.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do we decide which morality to impose?

[/ QUOTE ]


wtf

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another great addition to the discussion, Nielso.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, if you are going to claim that AC is the only correct society because it categorically doesn't coerce, you had better be prepared to defend that principle against some pretty absurd examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you have failed to provide an example of AC coercing since no one has the beliefs that are necessary for your scenario. I strongly question whether anyone ever has either.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one believes that there should be no property rights over land? More generally, I think a lot of people (myself included) would believe that the only property rights we have are the ones the state guarantees to protect as determined through a democratic process. I don't believe in any sort of inherent property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you believe any property rights are revocable by 51% of the population, and that they only exist as long as they are tolerated by the whim of the majority (as expressed by the representative-democratic process). I believe that is what's referred to as a "privilege", not a right.

But my question is whether you have similar beliefs about other rights. Freedom of speech? Do you believe in an absolute right to free speech, or is this also subject to democratic referrendums? For instance if the Democrats sweep the next election, can they oversee the media to ensure that their viewpoint is well-represented, to the detriment of their opposition? After all, theirs is the majority viewpoint.

What I am asking is whether you disavow ALL absolute rights (believeing only in privileges)(with the possible exception of the right to vote) or whether you believe in SOME absolute rights but property is not one of them.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
But my question is whether you have similar beliefs about other rights. Freedom of speech? Do you believe in an absolute right to free speech, or is this also subject to democratic referrendums? For instance if the Democrats sweep the next election, can they oversee the media to ensure that their viewpoint is well-represented, to the detriment of their opposition? After all, theirs is the majority viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ALawPoker]

LOL. Sorry to interrupt this hijack about the morality of recognizing property rights. But does anyone other than Constantine have any thoughts on the OP?

Or said again, when people understand what AC actually is shouldn't it appeal to the heterosexual drug free businessman with 3 kids as well as it appeals to the gay pot smoking poker playing teenager as well as it appeals to your average hippie?

And then, shouldn't AC's arguments focus more on the logistics of why all these different people would be satisfied with AC?


[ QUOTE ]
Note, however, that if morality is subjective and personal, you don't have any right to impose your morality upon others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pvn, doesn't this essentially translate to "You don't have the right to coexist." How do people interact if not by doing what they think is necessary when someone does something they don't like?

If I saw someone pointing a gun at an old lady, I might decide to force my morality upon people even if they don't think killing humans is wrong.

I agree with you in that I'd prefer people minded their own business more. I don't get bent out of shape when you forget to wear deodorant; don't lambast me if you see me smoking pot. Morality is such a strange word to throw around though. If you just consider subjective morality to be "whether or not things are pleasing or displeasing," (which is essentially all I see it as) how can you say we don't have a "right" to act in a certain way when we don't like something?

Maybe my subjective morality says that I do indeed have a right to compromise someone else's morality when it matters enough to me.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want to go rape children and stab people and all u statists and acists want to impose your morality on me (therefore everyone is wrong but me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...ACists want to impose their AC morality on me, just like I want the state to impose my statist morality on them. How do we decide which morality to impose? In my view, that's why we have democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neilsio had the right response.

WTF?

This is like me asking what I should make Doyle Brunson eat for lunch tomorrow. I don't have any legitimate authority to make such a decision.

The answer to your question, how do "we" decide which morality to impose, is quite simple. We DON'T.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Circular how?

[ QUOTE ]
The behavior that is restricted is not any behavior that you had any right to engage in to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's circular, you use your view of property rights to prove that he doesn't have the right to be on your property.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, once again, I'm using HIS view. He admitted he has no entitlement to be anywhere in particular, only where he currently is. So, once again, by moving, he's moving to a location that he has no right to be in.