Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How?

[/ QUOTE ]

By asking this question: "So if you're drunk and planning on driving and I take your keys does this mean I think I own you?"

Your example is one where the subject has clearly compromised his rights (and thus he doesn't need to be owned to be restricted), unless you think he might have the right to violate someone else's property.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does this imply I think it’s ok to drive drunk? I still don’t get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

::gets aspirin::

pvn said: "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 ]
MrBlah said this actually.

[ QUOTE ]
That's what started this whole thing. The big thing here is that you own your body (and therefore the fruits of your body's labor).

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't consider your "therefore" logically sound, but that's besides the point.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore nobody has a right to determine what you put in it (or what you do with the fruits of your labor) unless they think they own it or part of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't consider this logically sound either.

[ QUOTE ]
after a few posts of clarification, you took this to ask: "So if you're drunk and planning on driving and I take your keys does this mean I think I own you?"

Indicating that you don't understand the big difference. SOMEONE ELSE OWNS THE ROADS.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok... Not relevant, but whatever.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you change "drive drunk" to "rape someone" and "take keys" to "hit with baseball bat" it should be pretty clear that you don't need to ask the question.

[/ QUOTE ]
I’m asking it to challenge the notion that using force on someone means you think you own them (or that might makes right).

[/ QUOTE ]

But what I'm saying is this isn't an act of force!!!

The person attempting to drive drunk has no right doing so if the road owner has a rule against it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again you have a very odd concept of force. It's seems like you define "force" as "unjustified force".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t know what debate you’ve been reading. You’re the only one I’ve seen say it’s “clearly ok”. So taking someone’s property (car key) or physically restraining him from his car is not an act of force?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it isn't! You're the one initiating the act of force by trying to violate someone else's property. If other people have to physically stop you this is an act of defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't give a s--t about defending someone's property. I'm acting to stop him from hurting himself or someone else. The fact that it's someone else's property and they have a rule against it is just a coincidence. We can pretend no one owns the roads if you like.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have a weird definition of force then. I completely agree that it’s not an act of ownership. That’s my whole point.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you don't seem to understand why. You think it isn't an act of ownership because you say it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've given the opportunity for someone to explain why it is and no one has.

[ QUOTE ]
So if you agree it is not an act of ownership, then what exactly are you trying to say? Are you willing to admit that your drunk driving question did not accurately address pvn's point?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to understand pvn's position and how my action must necessarily fit into one of his categories in this example.

You still haven't explained how I've implied I think it's ok to drive drunk.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, these are my questions about my AC-roadstub:

1.) Can I own a road and say it is legal to drunk drive on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Good luck getting people to pay to drive on it.

[ QUOTE ]
2.) Do I have to put up signs if I do 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You'll be in a heap of trouble if you sell road passes stipulating no drunk driving and then pull this, though. Goodbye customers, hello law suit.

[ QUOTE ]
3.) Can I change my mind from one day to the next, like 'man today I'll allow drunk driving on my road'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. You'll be in a heap of trouble if you sell road passes stipulating no drunk driving and then pull this, though. Goodbye customers, hello law suit.

[ QUOTE ]
4.) Do I have to tell anyone about 3?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. You'll be in a heap of trouble if you sell road passes stipulating no drunk driving and then pull this, though. Goodbye customers, hello law suit.

[ QUOTE ]
5.) Can I drunk drive on my own road even if I don't allow anyone else to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? You'll be in a heap of trouble if you sell road passes stipulating no drunk driving and then pull this, though. Goodbye customers, hello law suit.

[ QUOTE ]
6.) What responsibilities do I have if someone gets hurt?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think? Did you sell someone a ticket to your road under the condition that there would be no drunk driving? Did you say that drunk driving was allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I have to accept the lawsuits? On what authority? And on what law?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Btw moral relativism is the reality of the world we live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "reality of the world we live in"? Do you mean that in the sense that moral relativism is actually objectively true, or that the majority of people perceive moral relativism as true, so we should speak as if it were true?
(Part of the reason why I ask this question is because claiming that "relativism is true" is true non-relativistically--ie, true-for-everyone--is a very precarious position for a relativist to be in. Yet if we admit that relativism is only true for those that believe it to be true, then it has lost what little allure it had to begin with).

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm entitled to act" is never anything more than subjective opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bolded 'subjective opinion' because I think this phrase gets thrown around and distorted and misused a lot. In some sense, *all* opinions are subjective, in the sense that they come from within someone. If we're talking about, say, *my* opinion about X, then my opinion is necessarily subjective to the extent that the belief exists within me.
But when people use this phrase, I would guess that it implies something deeper--that, somehow, 'subjective opinions' aren't "true or false" but just a person's whimsical fantasies. But this view is problematic. First of all, most people would not want to say that, say, my 'subjective opinion' about the existence of gravity was 'neither true nor false,' nor would they want to say that 'gravity exists' is only relativistically true. Second, 'opinions' look an awful lot like a type of statement, and statements are either true or false. So someone's supposed 'subjective opinion' that, say, 'theft is wrong' is either true or false.
This isn't to say that these simple facts are a be-all end-all argument against relativism or ethical non-cognitivism. But these positions are far more controversial than most people assume, and also require arguments in their favor, since they hold the burden of proof (eg, "theft is wrong" sure looks like a statement, so an argument would be required to show why it isn't and hence isn't either true or false...)

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
MrBlah said this actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, my bad.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's what started this whole thing. The big thing here is that you own your body (and therefore the fruits of your body's labor).

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't consider your "therefore" logically sound, but that's besides the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't? Well that's scary. So if I work endless hours painting a beautiful portrait, you're maybe entitled to have this portrait if you want it?

Why? I painted it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore nobody has a right to determine what you put in it (or what you do with the fruits of your labor) unless they think they own it or part of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't consider this logically sound either.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after a few posts of clarification, you took this to ask: "So if you're drunk and planning on driving and I take your keys does this mean I think I own you?"

Indicating that you don't understand the big difference. SOMEONE ELSE OWNS THE ROADS.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok... Not relevant, but whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

So why are you interested in understanding AC?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’m asking it to challenge the notion that using force on someone means you think you own them (or that might makes right).

[/ QUOTE ]

But what I'm saying is this isn't an act of force!!!

The person attempting to drive drunk has no right doing so if the road owner has a rule against it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again you have a very odd concept of force. It's seems like you define "force" as "unjustified force".

[/ QUOTE ]

Was that actually unclear?? When we say "force" or "aggression" we don't mean the act literally had a physical element of force to it. If we meant it that way then it would be an act of aggression if Mike Vrabel sacked Peyton Manning.

Act of aggression may or may not have a physical element of force. A physical element of force may or may not be an act of aggression. For instance, if you're walking down the street and a bus is about to hit you, and I come running and push you out of the way, that isn't an act of aggression. When I vote for someone else to require people to pay taxes, this is an act of aggression even though all I did was check a box.

Sometimes I feel like I'm speaking a different language when I talk to you. Really, take a step back and try to grasp what we're actually saying rather than look for odd ways to argue obvious points.

Arguing obvious points in convoluted ways does not make you insightful or a good debater. Recognizing things for what they are makes you insightful and a good person.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't give a s--t about defending someone's property. I'm acting to stop him from hurting himself or someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Persons' bodies are not property now??

You really don't understand the position you love to argue against. (Or at least, you pretend not to because you refuse to concede a point.)

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that it's someone else's property and they have a rule against it is just a coincidence. We can pretend no one owns the roads if you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

What??

Can we pretend I have 5 dicks and Jessica Alba sucking on 3 of them too?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have a weird definition of force then. I completely agree that it’s not an act of ownership. That’s my whole point.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you don't seem to understand why. You think it isn't an act of ownership because you say it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've given the opportunity for someone to explain why it is and no one has.

[/ QUOTE ]

It ISN'T! (As long as there is a rule against driving while under that condition.)

When I said:

"But you don't seem to understand why. You think it isn't an act of ownership because you say it isn't. You seem to think property rights don't apply in an instance where you think you know better. But you're not seeing how it all adds up, and how property rights ultimately define when it is OK to stop someone from driving drunk."

What I meant is that we agree it is not an act of ownership but think this for different reasons. My reason revolves logically around the respect for property rights. Your reason revolves logically around the idea that you know what's best for other people. Your idea is only a solution in a shortsighted sense.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if you agree it is not an act of ownership, then what exactly are you trying to say? Are you willing to admit that your drunk driving question did not accurately address pvn's point?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to understand pvn's position and how my action must necessarily fit into one of his categories in this example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your hypothetical is too vague to say for sure which of his categories your action falls under. I'd say the most likely one is this:

[ QUOTE ]
1) you are entitled to intervene

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence, why I think in most situations it is better to alert the road owner (or ask the bar owner to alert the road owner, since he probably knows exactly how to proceed since this probably isn't the first person to try to leave a bar drunk).

The only reason I got involved here is because I didn't think pvn's answer would necessarily make sense to you. So I tried to elaborate the logic for you. But rather than try to actually hear me out, it's pretty clear that you are falling back to your old habit of looking for odd semantical ways to cling on to some semblance of an argument, even when your semantics flagrantly reject logical merit.

[ QUOTE ]
You still haven't explained how I've implied I think it's ok to drive drunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that you (hopefully) have a better understanding of what we mean by an act of aggression, I'll try again. Because you asked the question. I wouldn't ask whether hitting the rapist with a baseball bat was an act of aggression unless I thought it was possible that he had a right to rape someone in the first place.

You have a strong habit of wishing things could function in a nonsensical way just so you can defend your arguments. I realize in your mind you believe it's a viable possibility that a road could exist where people choose to drive on it but where no one owns it and/or there's no rule against drunk driving and where people's bodies don't qualify as property or whatever. And so you let yourself think that something other than a regard for property rights need apply.

I used to give you the benefit of the doubt. But it's become clear that you make absolutely 0 effort to actually understand our position. I'm not saying you're an unfair debater. I enjoy arguing with you and you do make an honest effort in some limited sense. But then whenever your back's to the wall and it should be clear you have to concede a point, you bust out the instance of pigs flying, and then a simple point (that stopping a drunk driver is not an act of aggression in the first place) turns into an exchange like this. If tediously justifying delusions really makes you happy, have fun, but I find it pretty lame.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I have to accept the lawsuits?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "accept". You live with the consequence of ignoring/fighting/pleading guilty to the accusations.

[ QUOTE ]
On what authority? And on what law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, perhaps "lawsuit" is the wrong word since it implies a "law", which can be intrepreted as only possible through as state. But you have to live with the consequences of your actions and there is no "one" answer. An example of an "authority" that may compel you in such a situation is if the drivers on your highway were smart enough to engage in a contract where ABC Arbirtration Corp has been designated to settle disputes, and ABC will seize your assets if you don't comply.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do I have to accept the lawsuits?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "accept". You live with the consequence of ignoring/fighting/pleading guilty to the accusations.

[ QUOTE ]
On what authority? And on what law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, perhaps "lawsuit" is the wrong word since it implies a "law", which can be intrepreted as only possible through as state. But you have to live with the consequences of your actions and there is no "one" answer. An example of an "authority" that may compel you in such a situation is if the drivers on your highway were smart enough to engage in a contract where ABC Arbirtration Corp has been designated to settle disputes, and ABC will seize your assets if you don't comply.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how can they seize my assets if I refuse to give them on the grounds that they are my assets?

And this isn't a flamefest - I've had enough of them already and prefer a more chill debate, so my tone here isn't intended to be aggressive or condescending, just so that is said.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
But how can they seize my assets if I refuse to give them on the grounds that they are my assets?

[/ QUOTE ]

But you've signed a contract saying they stop being your assets if you violate the contract as determined by the agreed contractual process.

[ QUOTE ]
And this isn't a flamefest - I've had enough of them already and prefer a more chill debate, so my tone here isn't intended to be aggressive or condescending, just so that is said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. There's a million threads in the archive about how contract "law" would rule AC land, written by actual ACists (I'm just tolerant of ACism as a point of view, not a full blown anarchist with a tatoo of Rothbard on one butt cheek and Mises on the other).

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "reality of the world we live in"? Do you mean that in the sense that moral relativism is actually objectively true, or that the majority of people perceive moral relativism as true, so we should speak as if it were true?

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean there is no set of morals that is obectively true. So in a sense moral relativism is objectively true (but it's merely a lack of truth).

[ QUOTE ]
claiming that "relativism is true" is true non-relativistically--ie, true-for-everyone--is a very precarious position for a relativist to be in.

[/ QUOTE ]
The goodness of music is relative just like the "right"ness of actions is relative. There's nothing precarious about it. It's just like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". You can disagree, but you'll have to come up with an objective standard of beauty, which I'll tell you right now is impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I'm entitled to act" is never anything more than subjective opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bolded 'subjective opinion' because I think this phrase gets thrown around and distorted and misused a lot. In some sense, *all* opinions are subjective, in the sense that they come from within someone. If we're talking about, say, *my* opinion about X, then my opinion is necessarily subjective to the extent that the belief exists within me.
But when people use this phrase, I would guess that it implies something deeper--that, somehow, 'subjective opinions' aren't "true or false" but just a person's whimsical fantasies. But this view is problematic. First of all, most people would not want to say that, say, my 'subjective opinion' about the existence of gravity was 'neither true nor false,' nor would they want to say that 'gravity exists' is only relativistically true.

[/ QUOTE ]
The existence of gravity is very strongly supported by evidence. You cannot provide objective evidence for something like "Picasso is a great painter" or "I am entitled to defend my property". That's what I mean by subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, 'opinions' look an awful lot like a type of statement, and statements are either true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]
False. To illustrate I'll quote a little exchange from Futurama that I like;
"You are the most important person in the entire galaxy."
"So how I feel when I'm drunk is correct."
"Yes. Except the Dave Matthews Band does not rock."
Neither "you are important" nor "the Dave Matthews Band does not rock" are true or false in any absolute sense, although you can agree or disagree with them.

[ QUOTE ]
So someone's supposed 'subjective opinion' that, say, 'theft is wrong' is either true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
"theft is wrong" sure looks like a statement, so an argument would be required to show why it isn't and hence isn't either true or false...)

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I've already disagree with you that "statements are either true or false". That statement can be true or false in a relative sense. I can show you why it must be relative. If you look up "wrong" in the dictionary you'll see what I mean. From dictionary.com:
1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good
wrong = not right.
'theft is not right.' is basically the same statement so this doesn't help us.
2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous
wrong = unfactual.
'theft is unfactual'. is a nonsensical statement.
3. Not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error

You get the idea. Wrong is obviously a relative term. It's relative to what your set of morals happens to be.

Can you provide evidence for "theft is wrong"? I can tell you right now that any evidence you can come up with will be erroneous.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't consider your "therefore" logically sound, but that's besides the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't? Well that's scary. So if I work endless hours painting a beautiful portrait, you're maybe entitled to have this portrait if you want it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I own A.
Therefore I own anything produced by A.
B was produced by A.
Therefore I own B.
Not logically sound. Ask any Philosophy or Logic 101 professor. The problem is with the second statement. It is opinion. Basically like "if I own something then I should own anything it produces". It's a valid opinion, but not a provable deduction.


[ QUOTE ]

Was that actually unclear?? When we say "force" or "aggression" we don't mean the act literally had a physical element of force to it. If we meant it that way then it would be an act of aggression if Mike Vrabel sacked Peyton Manning.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was using force to mean imposing your will on someone against their will. I guess your use of the word force would be more like "imposing your will on someone against their will, when not doing so to defend someone's property. You'll run into all kinds of problems and grey areas with that, but ok.

[ QUOTE ]
I vote for someone else to require people to pay taxes, this is an act of aggression even though all I did was check a box.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your concept of force/aggression better now. IMO taxes could be easily interpreted in terms of defending people's property, but that's besides the point of the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I feel like I'm speaking a different language when I talk to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same here. That's why semantics are important. Yet you berate me for dwelling on them.

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing obvious points in convoluted ways does not make you insightful or a good debater. Recognizing things for what they are makes you insightful and a good person.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, first it's still far from "obvious" to me how using force means you think you own someone.
I suppose attempting to belittle you and accuse you of being insincere would make me a good person like you guys. Please don't start this BS again, you did it last time when you ran out of counter-arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't give a s--t about defending someone's property. I'm acting to stop him from hurting himself or someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Persons' bodies are not property now??

[/ QUOTE ]
I was talking about the road. If you look at that statement in context, then that should be completely obvious. That is, I don't care about defending the road.

[ QUOTE ]
You really don't understand the position you love to argue against. (Or at least, you pretend not to because you refuse to concede a point.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, I don't understand it. That's why I'm trying to discuss it to figure it out. If people like pvn didn't take every question as some sort of vicious argument then I'm sure I'd have an easier time.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that it's someone else's property and they have a rule against it is just a coincidence. We can pretend no one owns the roads if you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

What??

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a hypothetical situation. Hypothetical situations are when you pretend... And absolutist philosophies apply to all situations. What's with your reaction?

[ QUOTE ]
Can we pretend I have 5 dicks and Jessica Alba sucking on 3 of them too?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure.. if it will help clarify your position.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've given the opportunity for someone to explain why it is and no one has.

[/ QUOTE ]

It ISN'T! (As long as there is a rule against driving while under that condition.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok. And if there's not (I'm curious)?

Pvn never claimed "it's not an act of force". So I went with the assumption that we both considered it such. It's a little confusing to discuss this with both of you at the same time, when you're saying different things, but I'm trying.

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason I got involved here is because I didn't think pvn's answer would necessarily make sense to you. So I tried to elaborate the logic for you.
But rather than try to actually hear me out, it's pretty clear that you are falling back to your old habit of looking for odd semantical ways to cling on to some semblance of an argument

[/ QUOTE ]
Your post made very little sense to me. I'm sorry if that makes me a bastard for expressing my disagreement. Your acting like I implied I think it's ok to drink and drive when I obviously haven't made me think you hadn't been following the discussion properly. And I commented that you have an odd concept of force. That's not a bad thing neccesarily. I could say you're falling into your old habit of acting condescending and focusing on my psychology instead of the topic.

[ QUOTE ]
even when your semantics flagrantly reject logical merit.

[/ QUOTE ]
scuuuse me. explain where this is this case. otherwise you're just throwing around pointless insults.

[ QUOTE ]
I used to give you the benefit of the doubt. But it's become clear that you make absolutely 0 effort to actually understand our position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow...

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying you're an unfair debater. I enjoy arguing with you and you do make an honest effort in some limited sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow...

[ QUOTE ]
But then whenever your back's to the wall and it should be clear you have to concede a point, you bust out the instance of pigs flying

[/ QUOTE ]
bs dude.

[ QUOTE ]
and then a simple point (that stopping a drunk driver is not an act of aggression in the first place) turns into an exchange like this. If tediously justifying delusions really makes you happy, have fun, but I find it pretty lame.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then stop responding. I understand you don't think it's an act of aggression. ALL I said was "you have an odd concept of force." That's my opinion. I didn't say incorrect concept of force. Just odd. I understand it now. Ok? I was giving my personal opinion. And pvn, who I was originally talking to never claimed that stopping the drunk driver wasn't force or aggression, so I've been assuming he considers that it is.

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't consider your "therefore" logically sound, but that's besides the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't? Well that's scary. So if I work endless hours painting a beautiful portrait, you're maybe entitled to have this portrait if you want it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I own A.
Therefore I own anything produced by A.
B was produced by A.
Therefore I own B.
Not logically sound. Ask any Philosophy or Logic 101 professor. The problem is with the second statement. It is opinion. Basically like "if I own something then I should own anything it produces". It's a valid opinion, but not a provable deduction.

[/ QUOTE ]
I own A and it is wrong to take A away from me.
I use A to produce B.
Taking away B is like taking away a part of A, because B could not exist if it was not for A. Taking away A and using it to produce B is essentially the same as taking taking B after I have used A in order to produce B.
Therefore it is also wrong to take B away from me.