Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to concede that the right to violently defend property is necessary to peaceful society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is. But without that, you're going to have a very, very poor society. And while it's POSSIBLE for such a society to remain peaceful, you're more likely to see an encouragement of opportunists who take advantage of the situation, creating an environment where it's basically impossible to build up any wealth and improve your standard of living.

[/ QUOTE ] To the degree people agree that property rights are needed for a prosperous society, property rights will be respected. No need to give property rights a special place, like in ACism.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference between respecting property rights and "giving them a special place"?

[/ QUOTE ] Respecting property rights = you respecting property rights. Giving them a special place like in ACism = you forcing everyone else to respect property rights as well.

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They aren't given a special place! The necessary degree is exactly that over your own body and the fruits of your labour. You have already conceded that you own your body yourself and from there it's easy to deduce the necessary degree of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ] This is where we disagree. Let's hear this "easy deduction" of yours.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are no goods without labour. Stealing a good from me is like forcing me to work for you in order to procure that good, i.e. it's like claiming part of my body as your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Not really.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what gives you the right to keep me from having a beer/smoking some weed/shooting smack?
And if I work on my field all day, in order to grow some sugar beets, what gives you the right to take some of them away from me by threatening me with violence (i.e. tax me).

[wtfsvi]

There is no life without nutrition. If someone is starving, and someone else has more food than they need to survive, the people with food force the starving poeple to die. i.e. it's like they claim to own someone else's lives.

Do you see how this is a "deduction" in the same way your statement is one? i.e. a total sham.

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no life without nutrition. If someone is starving, and someone else has more food than they need to survive, the people with food force the starving poeple to die. i.e. it's like they claim to own someone else's lives.

Do you see how this is a "deduction" in the same way your statement is one? i.e. a total sham.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Merely by having more food than you need you don't keep those who don't have enough from having food on their own. So there's a clear fallacy in your chain of arguments.

2) Property rights don't keep people who have more food than they need from giving it to those who need it.

3) If someone who is starving takes some of my apples, then that's okay in my opinion. He just owes me some apples. If I have more than I need, I will probably give them to him anyway. In the long run, having people around to trade with is better for you.

4) Property rights are the basis for a capitalist society. If you let a free market do its work, it usually makes sure that everybody gets what she/he needs.

I don't know why everybody seems to think that everybody else would turn into a misanthropic [censored] without a state.
But you know what? Even if people were a bunch of misanthropes, they would still need to work hard to make each other's lives better, as this is the only way to survive in a society, given that you refrain from violence.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Not really.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what gives you the right to keep me from having a beer/smoking some weed/shooting smack?
And if I work on my field all day, in order to grow some sugar beets, what gives you the right to take some of them away from me by threatening me with violence (i.e. tax me).

[/ QUOTE ]
So if anyone ever tries to force anyone to do (or not do) anything it means they think they own them? I don't buy that.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Merely by having more food than you need you don't keep those who don't have enough from having food on their own. So there's a clear fallacy in your chain of arguments.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes you do. There is only a finite amount of food in the world. They could "create" some food, sure, but you can't create food instantly. They would die in the process. You can argue that that's their own fault, they should have had the foresight to create food a long time ago, and I would agree. I don't stand by my "chain of arguments", I just attempted to show you that your chain of opinions about property rights is not a chain of logic deductions at all.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Property rights don't keep people who have more food than they need from giving it to those who need it.

[/ QUOTE ] Of course not. The "argument" had nothing to do with property rights.

[ QUOTE ]
3) If someone who is starving takes some of my apples, then that's okay in my opinion. He just owes me some apples. If I have more than I need, I will probably give them to him anyway. In the long run, having people around to trade with is better for you.

[/ QUOTE ] He owes you apples according to you. That's fine. Does it mean you will do something to him if he doesn't give you some apples back at one point? Well, that's not fine by me.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Property rights are the basis for a capitalist society. If you let a free market do its work, it usually makes sure that everybody gets what she/he needs.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure. Property rights make the society efficient. I never disputed that. But I don't think your longing for efficiency means you get to use violence to achieve it.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why everybody seems to think that everybody else would turn into a misanthropic [censored] without a state.

[/ QUOTE ] I couldn't agree more. Same with all other organized violence.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between respecting property rights and "giving them a special place"?

[/ QUOTE ] Respecting property rights = you respecting property rights. Giving them a special place like in ACism = you forcing everyone else to respect property rights as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no desire to force anyone to respect property rights. I'm pefectly happy for you to disregard property rights.

But again, if you don't believe in property rights, you can't possibly object to someone excluding you from property that you admittedly have no right to be standing on.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no life without nutrition. If someone is starving, and someone else has more food than they need to survive, the people with food force the starving poeple to die. i.e. it's like they claim to own someone else's lives.

Do you see how this is a "deduction" in the same way your statement is one? i.e. a total sham.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

People with food do not create the hunger in the people without food. They do not use force against them. If those people with food (and the food they have) magically disappear, the people without food are still starving.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Not really.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what gives you the right to keep me from having a beer/smoking some weed/shooting smack?
And if I work on my field all day, in order to grow some sugar beets, what gives you the right to take some of them away from me by threatening me with violence (i.e. tax me).

[/ QUOTE ]
So if anyone ever tries to force anyone to do (or not do) anything it means they think they own them? I don't buy that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either they believe they're entitled to something or they subscribe to some variation of might makes right. Your choice.