Anarcho Capitalism take 1million - Page 8

moorobot · #71 10-24-2007, 06:54 PM

This is, of course, completely correct. If a person (A) doesn't believe in ACist Property Rights puts up a tent on some property that a guy (B) "mixed his labor with" (or whatever theory of non-positive law property rights acquisition one is using) and B takes out his machine gun and tells A "to get off my property" then B is violently imposing his moral viewpoints on A. The same could be said if A took something that B thought that B owned and gave it to somebody who is less fortunate, and B violently made A give it back.

Hence, it is completely incorrect to say that statism is about "coercion" and AC is about "peace" or "voluntariness". ACism is only a "voluntary society" in a world in which there are no disputes about property rights; but one could say that all political ideologies are voluntary in this way...for example, if everybody agreed with state socialism, then state socialism would be a voluntary society.

RedBean · #72 10-24-2007, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

The original analogy by the other poster was addressing a situation that hasn't occured in 150 years in this country (slave/slaveowner)....I simply replaced the relevant characters with a more relevant example (father/daughter), and one that you see happen fairly often in current events.

You call it an "emotional appeal", I call it a realistic scenario.

So much so...but if we could flip a switch tomorrow and convert the entire world to an AC society, the last thing I'm worried about is being enslaved and whether or not someone is justified in freeing me....and a much more relevant concern just might be whether or not my 13-year old rebellious teenager is grounded for 6 weeks and decides to declare her own independence (moral agency) and some kooks on some company's panel are hired to come in and arbitrate and they find me in violation of her rights...etc.

Under the current state, I don't worry about either slavery nor my ability to parent my minor children. Under ACism, I similarly wouldn't worry much about slavery, but it would bother me a tad to have other folks ultimately deciding whether or not my 13-year old daughter could have her freedom restricted by her father who is acting in her best interests.

I'm not a statist nor an ACist, truth be told, I don't really know what the hell I am....other than I want to be able to do what the hell I want and not have other people interfere with that....and in my specific analogy I think my 'right' to restrict the freedom of my 13-year old daughter isn't ideal, but it sure as hell trumps the 'right' of some guy across town coming in and arbitrating differently.

BCPVP · #73 10-24-2007, 08:15 PM

Redbean, do you think minors should have the right to emancipate themselves from their parents in certain cases?

RedBean · #74 10-24-2007, 08:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Redbean, do you think minors should have the right to emancipate themselves from their parents in certain cases?

[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases, yes.

In the case of being grounded for an abnormally high cell phone bill and wanting to go run off with another adult who is less restricive....no.

Brainwalter · #75 10-24-2007, 08:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean, do you think minors should have the right to emancipate themselves from their parents in certain cases?

[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases, yes.

In the case of being grounded for an abnormally high cell phone bill and wanting to go run off with another adult who is less restricive....no.

[/ QUOTE ]
And who should get to decide which cases? The parents?

nietzreznor · #76 10-24-2007, 08:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, regardless of government, I was only addressing the justification of the aggression...and despite Tom's appeal to the majority that the father would be justified for employing violence...I'd disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would disagree with what? That the majority would rule in favor of the father, or that they would be right to do so?

Honestly, I don't think the case of children has any easy answers, no matter what type of political system you have (fwiw, the US system blows since there are clearly plenty of moral agents that are <18 yrs of age).

In your scenario, if there was no more information other than the girl was a moral agent, then I would agree that she has every right to leave and run off with creepy 40 year old guy. But in real life I don't think most scenarios would be so cut and dry, since most courts would be hard-pressed, I think, to find cases where a) a 13 yr old kid lives with parents and is fully supported by them, yet b) this 13 year old kid is clearly a fully functional moral agent. Not impossible, but I agree with Tom that most reasonable people here would probably side with the father. (I don't necessarily agree with this decision, either).

In any case, I'm not really sure what you're looking for here. If the girl is a moral agent, she clearly has the right to go out on her own, against her father's wishes. The complexities of this particular type of case though (complexities that don't exist in the slavery examples) make it so that decisions in such cases would vary greatly based on particular facts, and I would imagine different communities would handle such issues in different (possibly radically so) ways.

Brainwalter · #77 10-24-2007, 08:36 PM

nietz, thank you for consistently posting your well-considered and reasonable thoughts on morality.

nietzreznor · #78 10-24-2007, 08:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is, of course, completely correct. If a person (A) doesn't believe in ACist Property Rights puts up a tent on some property that a guy (B) "mixed his labor with" (or whatever theory of non-positive law property rights acquisition one is using) and B takes out his machine gun and tells A "to get off my property" then B is violently imposing his moral viewpoints on A. The same could be said if A took something that B thought that B owned and gave it to somebody who is less fortunate, and B violently made A give it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

But such "violent imposition" would only constitute aggression if both people's views were equally true. If the libertarian theory of self-ownership is correct, then the fact that guy A doesn't believe in self-ownership is irrelevant, since he's wrong. B Using force to keep A off B's property may be an imposition of moral views, but it isn't an act of aggression since he is within his rights to defend his property from transgression. A cannot make a similar case since he has no right in that piece of land, and it doesn't matter how he feels personally about property rights.

nietzreznor · #79 10-24-2007, 08:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
nietz, thank you for consistently posting your well-considered and reasonable thoughts on morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to know at least one person enjoys them! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

BCPVP · #80 10-24-2007, 08:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean, do you think minors should have the right to emancipate themselves from their parents in certain cases?

[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases, yes.

In the case of being grounded for an abnormally high cell phone bill and wanting to go run off with another adult who is less restricive....no.

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're still fuzzy on what it means to be a moral agent, then. If the girl really is a moral agent, the inclusion of a "pedo" shouldn't have anything to do with whether force would be justified. The girl should be free to leave and the father would be wrong to try and force her to stay. In common understanding, it's like asking if the father would be justified in using force to keep a 40 year old from helping his 25 year old daughter leave the house.