Question for ACists about charity/welfare

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What if, in AC society, I want to "live in peace" on land that you claim is yours? How do you determine who gets to "live in peace" without making some underlying assumption about property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is his claim to the land? Did he voluntarily aquire it from someone else and you are trying to interact with him without his consent? If so, you are not "living in peace" at all, you are trying to initiate force on this person.


[/ QUOTE ]

His "claim" is that because he doesn't believe in property rights, he has as much right to be on the land as you do.

Pvn's claim was that someone who did not axiomatically accept property rights could live peacefully in AC society. I claim that he would be involuntarily coerced to accept these rights.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your definition of voluntary and involuntary transactions depends largely on a rather arbitrary definition of property.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it arbitrary? Unless you don't make a distinction between voluntarily and involuntarily?


[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that the distinction that ACists make between voluntary and involuntary depends on an axiomatic definition of property rights. As the ACist sees it, I have no right to input in a transaction if I do not have a "property" interest at stake in it. But what makes the ACist's definition of "property" the correct one?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What if, in AC society, I want to "live in peace" on land that you claim is yours? How do you determine who gets to "live in peace" without making some underlying assumption about property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is his claim to the land? Did he voluntarily aquire it from someone else and you are trying to interact with him without his consent? If so, you are not "living in peace" at all, you are trying to initiate force on this person.


[/ QUOTE ]

His "claim" is that because he doesn't believe in property rights, he has as much right to be on the land as you do.

Pvn's claim was that someone who did not axiomatically accept property rights could live peacefully in AC society. I claim that he would be involuntarily coerced to accept these rights.



[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds kind of similar to the current situation where some men do not accept the property rights of certain women's vaginas. They want to use the vagina without the woman's permission. They are then cooerced to accept such rights and punnished by being put in jail and sometimes killed.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What if, in AC society, I want to "live in peace" on land that you claim is yours? How do you determine who gets to "live in peace" without making some underlying assumption about property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is his claim to the land? Did he voluntarily aquire it from someone else and you are trying to interact with him without his consent? If so, you are not "living in peace" at all, you are trying to initiate force on this person.


[/ QUOTE ]

His "claim" is that because he doesn't believe in property rights, he has as much right to be on the land as you do.

Pvn's claim was that someone who did not axiomatically accept property rights could live peacefully in AC society. I claim that he would be involuntarily coerced to accept these rights.



[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds kind of similar to the current situation where some men do not accept the property rights of certain women's vaginas. They want to use the vagina without the woman's permission. They are then cooerced to accept such rights and punnished by being put in jail and sometimes killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what this example is meant to show.

I think it is a good thing that we have rights against being assaulted.

I also think that it is a good thing that we have property rights.

But that does not imply that property rights pre-exist the state. We only have rights to the extent that the state offers them to us, and is willing to back up this offer with the threat of force.

ACists seem to have a quasi-religious belief that there is something magical about their particular definition of property rights that makes them inherently correct, and that all other laws should flow from there.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]


ACists seem to have a quasi-religious belief that there is something magical about their particular definition of property rights

[/ QUOTE ]

And marxists/communists have this magical belief that everything is community property.

what does this have to do with charity in a ac state?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


ACists seem to have a quasi-religious belief that there is something magical about their particular definition of property rights

[/ QUOTE ]

And marxists/communists have this magical belief that everything is community property.

what does this have to do with charity in a ac state?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but Communists don't make any claim that they can establish a society that is free from coercion. ACist claim that their society allows complete freedom, but does so only if you blindly accept their definition of property.

As to the second point, yes, this has gotten off topic from the OP. But it is the natural course of things when ACists continue to make rights-based responses to questions asking for an empirical answer.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's not true. The state does not allow me to live in peace. The state invades. Those acting in the name of the state inject themselves into transactions between me and other individuals.

In AC, nobody does anything like this. Nobody is "punished".


[/ QUOTE ]

What if, in AC society, I want to "live in peace" on land that you claim is yours? How do you determine who gets to "live in peace" without making some underlying assumption about property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, your idea of "live in peace" sure is expansive. Nobody is forced to accept property rights. However, IF you want to interact with another person, it will have to be on *mutually agreeable* terms. But this is no imposition, because you have no inherent right to interact with another person.

You can't just say that someone else is imposing upon you and completely ignore your imposition upon him.

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
But it seems like whenever anyone asks something like: "Would poor children be provided with an education under AC?", all the ACists answer, "I have no idea, and why should I care?"

Any attempt to actually figure out the answer is dismissed as impossibly hypothetical. How do you expect anyone to ever give serious consideration to your system when you respond this way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should I care? It's a simple question. And when I ask this, what it means is "what is my obligation to care, and more importantly, why must I fufil that obligation in the manner that you (or some group of people) determine?"

And of course, figuring out the answer *is* an impossible hypothetical. But your fallacy begins even before that - you assume there IS an answer to begin with. Perhaps there isn't. Or even if there is, there may be more than one answer, but you seek only a one-size-fits-all solution to impose upon everyone.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a transaction is beneficial to both parties, why would anyone need to force it?

[/ QUOTE ]

- AC rejects transactions that are of net benefit if they are not beneficial to one of the parties with a property interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You live in a house with two other people. A group of four homeless people decide they want a house. You should be kicked out and they should be allowed to move in. 3 homeless < 4 homeless, therefore a net benefit.

AC does not reject this transaction - the homeowner does (well, almost all of the time).

[ QUOTE ]
- AC accepts transactions that are a net loss if those experiencing the net loss have no property interest in the transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what this means. If the person experiencing the loss agrees to it, who cares?

[ QUOTE ]
Your definition of voluntary and involuntary transactions depends largely on a rather arbitrary definition of property.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have it backwards. Property depends on voluntary transactions.

[ QUOTE ]
The initial assertion (that majority rule gets it right most of the time) is not an assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

It assumes everyone agrees on what's right.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]


His "claim" is that because he doesn't believe in property rights, he has as much right to be on the land as you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he doesn't believe in property rights then he can have no right to be on a particular piece of property.

[ QUOTE ]
Pvn's claim was that someone who did not axiomatically accept property rights could live peacefully in AC society. I claim that he would be involuntarily coerced to accept these rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, only if one wishes to interact with people who do accept those rights. If you can find people willing to interact with you, then you're all set.


[ QUOTE ]
But that does not imply that property rights pre-exist the state. We only have rights to the extent that the state offers them to us, and is willing to back up this offer with the threat of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. Most statists claim that the state exists to *protect* rights. If we have no rights before the state, then there is nothing to protect, and the state is therefore unnecessary. And if we have no rights outside the state, nobody has any right to impose the state upon another.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the second point, yes, this has gotten off topic from the OP. But it is the natural course of things when ACists continue to make rights-based responses to questions asking for an empirical answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now you're into letting things take their course? Except when it comes to charity, then you're all for violent intervention.

As for emipircal answers, are you in the business of providing any? I'd love to see them.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


His "claim" is that because he doesn't believe in property rights, he has as much right to be on the land as you do.



[/ QUOTE ]
If he doesn't believe in property rights then he can have no right to be on a particular piece of property.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pvn's claim was that someone who did not axiomatically accept property rights could live peacefully in AC society. I claim that he would be involuntarily coerced to accept these rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, only if one wishes to interact with people who do accept those rights. If you can find people willing to interact with you, then you're all set.



[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I don't believe in property rights to land, and thus believe anyone should be able to be on whatever land they want.

You "own" a large tract of land, and I set up camp on it, far away from anywhere you go in your daily life. I don't ever want to interact with you, I just want to live where I please.

You see me, and tell me to leave, because you "own" a "right" to the land. Have I chosen to interact with you? If it was not for some abstract concept that only you believe in, we would have never come in contact.

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
But that does not imply that property rights pre-exist the state. We only have rights to the extent that the state offers them to us, and is willing to back up this offer with the threat of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. Most statists claim that the state exists to *protect* rights. If we have no rights before the state, then there is nothing to protect, and the state is therefore unnecessary. And if we have no rights outside the state, nobody has any right to impose the state upon another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the state exists to enhance the welfare of society. To the extent that rights are useful in accomplishing that objective, they are an appropriate tool for the state to use.

If we have no rights outside of the state, nobody has any "right" to impose the state, but also nobody has any right "right" to be free from imposition. The state's exigence is not contingent upon, nor barred by, and pre-existing rights.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
But that does not imply that property rights pre-exist the state. We only have rights to the extent that the state offers them to us, and is willing to back up this offer with the threat of force.


[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, did property rights not exist at all before the state?

I'd guess that even in little villages with no government, people understood that that axe was "his", and this necklace was "hers", and that cave or hut was "theirs", and that that other cave was "theirs" (another family's). Even in caveman days, did no property rights exist at all? Even animals have a sense of property - territory, food, a favorite chair to lie on, their ball which their master plays throws for them.

Usually, ancient property rights were probably respected, but sometimes when they weren't, fights ensued. The same thing happens today, too, except that the fighting is more civilized (except when very large groups fight each other - then it is more uncivilized perhaps).

So I don't think that property rights can be assumed to be only granted by the state. I think most societies would respect property rights for the most part even without the state - and did so, for the most part - just like today. Theft occurred back then and fighting occurred back then, but both of those things occur today too, so they can't be used to argue that property rights, or respect for property rights, exist in only in one time frame (post-state).

Secondly, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are based on the premise and belief that certain rights are naturally inherent to each individual and that these rights are given by God (for the anti-religious, consider a very loose Deist interpretation of God, if you wish).

So I don't think it can be soundly asserted that rights did not exist pre-state (or the converse, that the state actually guarantees such rights). I also don't think it can be soundly asserted philosophically that rights are only granted by governmments and do not inhere from nature or from God. You may state that that's what you think, of course; but I don't think either argument can be made conclusively, just as I don't think it is possible to make a conclusive case that rights were not respected pre-state (or again, to make a conclusive case for the flip side, that rights are respected post-state).

I'm just saying that you seem to be making several somewhat shaky assumptions, which of course calls into question any edifice of thought or arguments later erected upon those assumptions.

Thanks for reading.