Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[foal]

Pvn, you’re all over the place. First you try to defend a point, then you use some nonsensical reasoning to try and accuse me of being disingenuous, then you declare the point a straw man, then you go back to defending it again. Not only that, but it seems you now want to paint me as the sneaky no-good statist with his bag of nasty debate traps, red herrings and straw men. I’m about done with this if you don’t start to show a little consistency and civility.

Despite all that, I understand what you’re saying a little better now. You’re saying that the man who takes the drunk’s keys could justify the action by any of the three things you said. Again I’m not quite sure if by entitlement to action you mean ownership over the person you’re acting on. If you don’t mean that then you’ve been arguing with me about nothing. So I’ll assume you do. And you’re still calling it a straw man, but since you’re defending it I’ll try to address some of what you’re saying.

[ QUOTE ]
EXACTLY what I was saying. I DO NOT CARE what your motivation is. I'm asking you for the justification.

[/ QUOTE ]
My justification is that I’ll be doing more good than harm by taking your keys. I don’t see how that is not a justification. If you can show me how removing my red flowers does more good than harm then I’ll be willing to consider that it might be analogous.

[ QUOTE ]
I say all cars have either gasoline or diesel engines. You counter by showing me a car with an air conditioner. Then you claim it's my job to show you how your car fits into my categories.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Let me ask you this then: do you think I'm justified in taking your keys (or physically restraining you... your choice) in this situation and what reasoning would you use if so?

[ QUOTE ]
Your subjective preference is motivation, not justification. I can repeat this a few more times if you think it will help.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, repeating your (incorrect IMO) opinion is not going to help anything. All justification is subjective.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Further, the point you're trying to make is a strawman,

[/ QUOTE ]
You could have saved some time by not defending it then, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could have saved some time by not making it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I asked a question. Specifically “So if anyone ever tries to force anyone to do (or not do) anything it means they think they own them?” How in the hell is that a straw man? If that’s not your position then just say no.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is about rules and systems. Not individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree with any generalized claims about "force", when not specified to rules and systems. That's cool. Again, we could have saved some time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I’ll put that another way... Do you disagree with this claim about force, when not specified to rules and systems? I’m asking these questions, because I’m trying to figure out what your position is. It’s hard to figure out when you try to turn every question you get asked into some kind of antagonistic debate.

[foal]

[ 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 ]
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). You might have missed where this started:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't asking why it's ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you weren't getting it. The point is it's clearly OK, and it doesn't require an act of force or ownership to do it. Agree?

[/ 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?! You have a weird definition of force then. I completely agree that it’s not an act of ownership. That’s my whole point. According to pvn, this means I am “operating under ‘might makes right’”.

[ QUOTE ]
It's later. I miss you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I missed you too.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Pvn, you’re all over the place. First you try to defend a point, then you use some nonsensical reasoning to try and accuse me of being disingenuous, then you declare the point a straw man, then you go back to defending it again. Not only that, but it seems you now want to paint me as the sneaky no-good statist with his bag of nasty debate traps, red herrings and straw men. I’m about done with this if you don’t start to show a little consistency and civility.

Despite all that, I understand what you’re saying a little better now. You’re saying that the man who takes the drunk’s keys could justify the action by any of the three things you said. Again I’m not quite sure if by entitlement to action you mean ownership over the person you’re acting on. If you don’t mean that then you’ve been arguing with me about nothing. So I’ll assume you do. And you’re still calling it a straw man, but since you’re defending it I’ll try to address some of what you’re saying.

[ QUOTE ]
EXACTLY what I was saying. I DO NOT CARE what your motivation is. I'm asking you for the justification.

[/ QUOTE ]
My justification is that I’ll be doing more good than harm by taking your keys. I don’t see how that is not a justification. If you can show me how removing my red flowers does more good than harm then I’ll be willing to consider that it might be analogous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good is in the eye of the beholder. Your answer here boils down to "my personal preference is my 'justification'".

If that's the case, then my tulip scenario is exactly the same thing. I think blue instead of red will create more "good" for everyone. It's my personal subjective preference.

So, do you think your personal preference gives you an entitlement to act?

Did you have that entitlement before you decided your action was "good"? If so, you had a pre-existing entitlement, which would put you in category 1.

If you're saying you don't need an entitlement to act, you're in category 2 or 3 (really they're basically the same thing - nobody has any right here, it's a free-for-all and the strongest wins).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say all cars have either gasoline or diesel engines. You counter by showing me a car with an air conditioner. Then you claim it's my job to show you how your car fits into my categories.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Let me ask you this then: do you think I'm justified in taking your keys (or physically restraining you... your choice) in this situation and what reasoning would you use if so?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have enough information to answer. I've asked you and you haven't provided it.

[ALawPoker]

[ 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?"

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). 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.

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 ]
[ 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 ]
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.

When you asked what I would do if a random person at a bar wanted to drive home drunk, I specifically said that I would not take their keys (but it's near impossible to answer in the abstract). I would probably alert the owner of the road if I felt like being involved (or even the owner of the bar). If he was really blitzed out of his mind and I felt like the only way from stopping him from hurting someone would be to physically restrain him right now, I might do that in the same way I might hit someone in the act of rape with a baseball bat. What's the confusion?

Your question was sloppy in the first place because it didn't specify who "you" or "I" were or who owned the roads. My response to you is just explaining that in general you do not have a right to violate someone else's property, so your question was off point since when someone restricts you this is not (necessarily) an act of force.

The only question is who should restrict you and how. And like I said, your question was vague, so don't dwell on the specifics of literally taking keys or how exactly the person should be stopped. The point is, your drunk driving question did not relate to what pvn was saying about drugs and taxes.

[ 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. 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.

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?

[tame_deuces]

Isn't driving while drunk almost saying that pedestrians don't own own their bodies because you claim the right do be drunk and drive?

You are taking an action that _greatly_ increases the chance of harming someone else and it isn't a necessary action by any means (I disregard emergency situations for now).

Can you say: 'On this road it is legal to pick up a revolver with one bullet chambered and spin the barrel and shoot at people, that's because I own this road' in an AC society?

Do you have to put up signs?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't driving while drunk almost saying that pedestrians don't own own their bodies because you claim the right do be drunk and drive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? When did I claim the right to be drunk and drive?

I personally do not own any roads, so I don't think I have the right to drive anywhere unless I yield to the rules of whomever owns them.

I do think I have the right to drive drunk back and forth on my driveway, but if I accidentally drive through my garage door I still owe my landlord compensation for the damage I caused.

[tame_deuces]

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?
2.) Do I have to put up signs if I do 2?
3.) Can I change my mind from one day to the next, like 'man today I'll allow drunk driving on my road'.
4.) Do I have to tell anyone about 3?
5.) Can I drunk drive on my own road even if I don't allow anyone else to do it?
6.) What responsibilities do I have if someone gets hurt?

[mosdef]

[ 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?

[nietzreznor]

This thread is now way too long for me to read through, but let me comment on this:

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought the term "natural rights" was an oxymoron. In nature, you declare "property rights" with urine, and they are defended with tooth and claw. I entirely reject the notion of rights as something inherent, because without any sort of force to back them up, they are simply meaningless gestures.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a misunderstanding of rights. Rights aren't *supposed* to come with tied-in means of seeing that they are followed. Rights don't actually protect people of property; they just pick out the things that are deserving of our protection. So it seems odd to conclude that, since we can't presently seem to see our rights met, that they aren't inherent--the inherency of our rights has nothing to do with the inherency of our means of protecting out rights (and this, surely, is *not* inherent).
Rights just pick out cases in which it is legitimate that one may use force to see that another meets his/her moral obligation(s). And, putting aside extreme relativism, etc., rights would seemingly have to be 'inherent', since the other option (reducing them to something non-inherent, like positive law) seems far more problematic.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Good is in the eye of the beholder. Your answer here boils down to "my personal preference is my 'justification'".

[/ QUOTE ]
I see you're making a distinction between what's "good" and what's "right". I'm saying what's "right" can be based on what brings about the most good. Show me how your three justifications are not subjective personal preference. It's not as if ownership exists in some objective sense. It's socially constructed.
"I'm entitled to act" is never anything more than subjective opinion. "You don't own yourself" is opinion. "'Might makes right'" is meaningless. Your categories suck.

[ QUOTE ]
If that's the case, then my tulip scenario is exactly the same thing. I think blue instead of red will create more "good" for everyone. It's my personal subjective preference.

[/ QUOTE ]
No one will agree with you and they'll think you're nuts, whearas in my example many people will agree that I'm doing the right thing. Yes, morals are relative, but there's a difference between insane personal morals and morals that are shared by most of society.

[ QUOTE ]
So, do you think your personal preference gives you an entitlement to act? If you're saying you don't need an entitlement to act, you're in category 2 or 3 (really they're basically the same thing - nobody has any right here, it's a free-for-all and the strongest wins).

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. Btw moral relativism is the reality of the world we live in. You seem to think moral relativism is the same as "might makes right" (a silly, near meaningless phrase). This is wrong. Either that or you don't believe in moral relativism and think everyone is operating under an objective standard of morals. Moral relativism is "right is relative".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Let me ask you this then: do you think I'm justified in taking your keys (or physically restraining you... your choice) in this situation and what reasoning would you use if so?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have enough information to answer. I've asked you and you haven't provided it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Speculate on any important information you don't have. I want to hear an answer. Might I be justified? If so, why or why not?