|
|
#91
10-24-2007, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
A) A stranger shows up and moves in. He starts sleeping on your bed and eating your food and refuses to ever pitch in and help. You ask him nicely to stop, to leave, and he says "hey, you can't own land, so I have as much right to this stuff as you do." At no time does he do anything that you would consider "violence". How do you resolve this situation? [/ QUOTE ] Kill him. [ QUOTE ] B) A stranger shows up and burns down your house and burns your crops. Before he does this, he says to you, "hey, I like burning stuff, so I'm going to burn down your house and crops. I don't want you to get hurt though, so I'm warning you so you can get out." What do you do? [/ QUOTE ] Kill him. 
|
|
#92
10-25-2007, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
If the libertarian theory of self-ownership is correct, then the fact that guy A doesn't believe in self-ownership is irrelevant [/ QUOTE ] This is far, far, far, far too quick. There are other necessary steps which take us from self-ownership to world/property ownership that right wing libertarians favor; one can (and some people do) agree completely with the definition of self-ownership used by libertarians, but, because of there views on legitmate property appropriation or status of the external world in terms of unownership, completely disagree with libertarian property rights. Furthermore, even if that principle is legitmate, other legitimate principles may outweigh it in certain circumstances (such as utility, stability, positive liberty, safety etc.). This shows why your comment ("A cannot make a similar case since he has no right in that piece of land") does not follow from your conclusion even if the premises are true; it may be an acceptable trade-off if him taking the land lead to an increase in overall well-being, or the security of the community. To get to your conclusion you would need a further argument that libertarian property ownership is some kind of master, ultimate overriding value that by itself is more important than all of the other things that are valuable in the world combined.
|
|
#93
10-25-2007, 12:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe so..... I was going on the same interpretation that was previously applied in determining that a slave in the previous analogy was a moral agent, despite no other information being available. I had no idea the meaning changed dependent upon who it is applied too. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think the meaning has changed at all. [ QUOTE ] Even if he strongly disagrees and asserts that she is most definately not a moral agent? [/ QUOTE ] IF she is a moral agent, which your example conceded, then it doesn't matter if the father strongly disagrees, just as it wouldn't matter if the father of a normal 25 year old girl objected. [ QUOTE ] In common understanding, their is the magic government sanctioned line of demarcation that somehow grants us all the statist equivalent of moral agency on our 18th birthdays....which is why in the common understanding it's not similar if she were 25 instead of 13. [/ QUOTE ] You just agreed to the idea that minors can demonstrate their moral agency and legally emancipate themselves. There's nothing magical about the number 18 and it is wrong for the government to force a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that most certainly doesn't deserve it. [ QUOTE ] Do you really believe that a court or arbitrator in AC should make a decision affecting a person's own freedom/moral agency and then assert those findings by force....despite the subject not being an aggressor of any kind against any person or their property? [/ QUOTE ] Well, any attempt to keep the girl from leaving home would be a type of force, the justification for which is that the child hasn't reached the status of a moral agent. Once they have become one, then any force used to prevent that person from leaving is unjustified.
|
|
#94
10-25-2007, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
This is far, far, far, far too quick. There are other necessary steps which take us from self-ownership to world/property ownership that right wing libertarians favor; one can (and some people do) agree completely with the definition of self-ownership used by libertarians, but, because of there views on legitmate property appropriation or status of the external world in terms of unownership, completely disagree with libertarian property rights. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not denying any of this, I just don't see it as particularly relevant to what I was saying. Clearly there has to be a step of some sort from self-ownership to property ownership, and different libertarians may either make the same leap using different arguments, or even reach different conclusions regarding land-owership. My point was that, if we assume version X is correct (we won't specify which version it is, only that it upholds A's right of ownership ahgainst B) then it doesn't matter that B disagrees about the issue of property rights since B is wrong. An extreme example might be: A decides that his theory of property rights is "A owns everything". He then decides to rape a woman, and when she maces him, construes this as a a violent imposition of her views of property and an act of aggression against him. Clearly, since A has an incorrect view of property rights, the fact that he feels that she has aggressed against him is irrelevant, since he is *in fact* the aggressor. [ QUOTE ] Furthermore, even if that principle is legitmate, other legitimate principles may outweigh it in certain circumstances (such as utility, stability, positive liberty, safety etc.). This shows why your comment ("A cannot make a similar case since he has no right in that piece of land") does not follow from your conclusion even if the premises are true; it may be an acceptable trade-off if him taking the land lead to an increase in overall well-being, or the security of the community. To get to your conclusion you would need a further argument that libertarian property ownership is some kind of master, ultimate overriding value that by itself is more important than all of the other things that are valuable in the world combined. [/ QUOTE ] No, I don't need to show that libertarian self-ownership is mor important than all other considerations combined, or even that it is the most imortant consideration. In this context, self-ownership is merely a claim about rights, and hence only deals with the legitimacy of using force to stop aggression. It isn't a claim about how one should act in a certain situation, so it doesn't preclude considering the types of values that you list. However, it does preclude the use of such considerations to negate property rights. But libertarians don't need any separate arguments in this instance, since they are built into a full conception of self-ownership. If it could be shown that, say, utilitarian concerns could supercede and negate ownership rights, then it would be tantamount to showing that the libertarian conception of self-ownership was false and needed to be amended. But, once again, this can't be done as easily as pointing to emergency situations and instances in which one would temporarily ignore property rights, since most libertarians would say that if, say, I 'borrowed' your car because it was the only way to get a dying man to the hospital, you would be owed compensation for damages, etc. regardless of my good intentions, and regardless of the fact that maybe my actions really were those of a virtuous man.
|
|
#95
10-25-2007, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No, it doesn't make it break down. It doesn't change it at all. So its pointless to add it in. Unless you have some other motive. Don't act like you were innocent and were not trying some cheap emotional appeal by throwing in "13-year-old" and "pedo". It doesn't even pass the giggle test. [/ QUOTE ] Everyone seemed to be in agreeance on the conclusion of the analogy when the object was a "slave", asserting him to be a moral agent. Once changed to a "13-year old girl", we're already seeing some posters change their stance on the conclusion and assuming that her moral agency is in doubt, and asserting that the father would be justified in using force against another person that has not initiated any agression either towards him or his property. [/ QUOTE ] People assume the moral agency is in doubt BECAUSE you threw in "13-year-old girl". YOU muddied the waters, intentionally. Yes, you put a "assume she's a moral agent" but the fact is that 13-year-old moral agents are rare, so your scenario was intentionally obfuscated. [ QUOTE ] To your credit, you've been consistent on both, as have I....others not so much, and I'm just curious as to why the same principle doesn't apply across the board to all moral agents in the exact same situation. [/ QUOTE ] It does. The fact that you pose a deliberately [censored]-up scenario and got jumbled answers from individuals doesn't mean that "the same principle doesn't apply." The fact that any one person says "gravity attracts, except on wednedays, when it repels" doesn't mean that it ACTUALLY DOES that - the same principles apply across the board even if you bamboozle me into saying it doesn't. Stop playing games.
|
|
#96
10-25-2007, 09:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
You just agreed to the idea that minors can demonstrate their moral agency and legally emancipate themselves. There's nothing magical about the number 18 and it is wrong for the government to force a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that most certainly doesn't deserve it. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. I was obviously mocking the governemnt's magical 18-year old line of demarcation as a one size fits all. I think any individual should be able to determine their own independence and declare their own freedom...regardless of age. Except of course, for my daughter. [ QUOTE ] Well, any attempt to keep the girl from leaving home would be a type of force, the justification for which is that the child hasn't reached the status of a moral agent. Once they have become one, then any force used to prevent that person from leaving is unjustified. [/ QUOTE ] We agree on that....but I think we disagree on who determines if she is a moral agent. Whether it be AC or the state, I don't think a court of outsiders has any right to determine her moral agency any more so than her father, and especially not herself.
|
|
#98
10-25-2007, 09:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
People assume the moral agency is in doubt BECAUSE you threw in "13-year-old girl". YOU muddied the waters, intentionally. Yes, you put a "assume she's a moral agent" but the fact is that 13-year-old moral agents are rare, so your scenario was intentionally obfuscated. [/ QUOTE ] Hmm...I see where your coming from. Perhaps then the discussion should be more about who determines moral agents, and why are people allowed to nullify another persons claim to independence based on their own beliefs. [ QUOTE ] It does. The fact that you pose a deliberately [censored]-up scenario and got jumbled answers from individuals doesn't mean that "the same principle doesn't apply." [/ QUOTE ] I didn't jumble up any scenario....christ man, I changed the players in the analogy from slavery, which hasn't been a concern in this country for over a hundred years, to a situation that parents of rebellious teens deal with in the real world every day. My apologies if it made the analogy seems more complex, and my apologies if some people can't handle a more complex, real world scenario. Sheesh. Theoretical slavery in AC-land doesn't concern me in the slightest....but me possibly serving jail time or having force enacting upon me for punishing my daughter and sending her to her room does. [ QUOTE ] Stop playing games. [/ QUOTE ] Fine, I won't talk about any realistic scenarios, and we'll just keep the discussion focused on stuff like slavery and lobbing up softball analogies that have simple, easy answers.
|
|
#99
10-25-2007, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Stop playing games. [/ QUOTE ] Fine, I won't talk about any realistic scenarios, and we'll just keep the discussion focused on stuff like slavery and lobbing up softball analogies that have simple, easy answers. [/ QUOTE ] Exhibit A.
|
|
#100
10-25-2007, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarcho Capitalism take 1million
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Do you think a court of reasonable people would determine that the 40 year old was justified here? Do you think anyone would hold the father liable for defending his daughter from this guy? [/ QUOTE ] The 40-year old in the analogy did not initiate any aggression, nor employ any force. He facilitated the freeing of a moral agent that chose to be free. Why would that be unjustified? [ QUOTE ] Seriously, do people become retarded once govt goes away or something? [/ QUOTE ] Apparently, if you think it justifiable to employ force upon this poor guy despite him not aggressing upon you or your property. [/ QUOTE ] So you think an arbitrator would let him take someones child against their will and have sex with someone too young to consent? Brilliant! [/ QUOTE ] That's results-oriented thinking. What RedBean is questioning is what is the appropriate process. There is a basic assertion out there that government courts use force and private arbitration in ACland uses voluntary transactions. What, I think, RedBean is questioning is in cases such as the hypothetical how is the AC "court" any different than a government court? How is the force applied by the government involuntary whereas the force applied in the AC situation voluntary?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
