Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) you are entitled to intervene
2) the person you're acting against has no self-ownership
3) the fact that you can do it is enough to make it right


[/ QUOTE ] Ownership of the self is not really relevant in foal's scenario. It's ownership of the carkeys.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's an odd nit to pick. Change it to key ownership.

Do you think this scenario is significantly different, morally if you physically (violently?) prevent the person from getting in the car rather than just take the keys away?

[/ QUOTE ] I think so, yes. No idea if foal thinks so.

(I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to physically/violently stop a drunk person from getting in the car, but it's certainly not the same morally as just refusing to give him his car keys.)

[ALawPoker]

Foal, the drunk driver thing can be summed up in a cliche. "With a right comes a responsibility." You can't have one without the other. While you have a right to travel and to own your car, you also have a responsibility to respect the property of others and the rules they make for that property.

A big reason this seems muddy to you is that the state owns the roads in the first place. As long as that is the case, it naturally follows that they make the rules of the road. So in a sense, when you attempt to drive drunk, you are violating someone else's property, and you don't have a legitimate "right" to do what you were going to do anyways.

Take the state out of roads, and incidentally the rules become more efficient. With better rules, you tend to lend them more respect, and it's less likely that you'd need someone else to stop you from making a bad decision. But that's basically beside the point.

I mean, when your friend holds you back when you're ready to throw down against a linebacker, I guess in a sense he is displaying temporary ownership of your body there too. Actually, letting you get your ass beat and face the consequence is maybe a more efficient solution in the long-run. It's a matter of time preference. We as humans are not perfect and we have a low enough time preference to not want to see our friends get hurt, even if our approach is one that theoretically begs a long-term burden.

But in both situations, you are the one who should not be trying to violate someone else's property in the first place.

Regardless, it's just sort of understood to be mutually accepted. If when sober your friend insisted that you never take his keys regardless of how drunk he gets, then I'd say yes, you are wrong to do it. (And maybe you should re-think your choice of friends.)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, you still own the car. Owning the car (assuming you allow for such ownership in the first place) doesn't include an entitlement to park it wherever you want. My ownership of a driveway doesn't deprive you of anything that comes with owning the car.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok cool. If that's your view, that's swell with me. I'm sure some people would think that you are not entitled to have the car removed, at least not without asking the owner to remove it first.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens after I ask? Violence becomes "OK" at that point? You've brought this "as long as you ask first" before and it wasn't really clear where you're going with that.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care about this, though. It's a collision between property rights and property rights. Find your resolution in the societal norms. I only care when something collides with the right to self ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's NOT a "collision" between rights - because you have no right to park the car there! It's a collision between your *desire* to park and someone else's property right.

And there's no significant difference between this case and removing someone from your property, assuming you allow for ownership of land, cars, and selves.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
You make a similar statement HERE.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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...

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not the same statement. It's meant to defend the similarity of the "deduction" I made and the "deduction" he made. Not to defend any of them. They are both ridiculous. If you want the right to violently defend your property, that has to be stated as another axiom. It does not follow logically from the right to violently defend yourself.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) you are entitled to intervene
2) the person you're acting against has no self-ownership
3) the fact that you can do it is enough to make it right


[/ QUOTE ] Ownership of the self is not really relevant in foal's scenario. It's ownership of the carkeys.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's an odd nit to pick. Change it to key ownership.

Do you think this scenario is significantly different, morally if you physically (violently?) prevent the person from getting in the car rather than just take the keys away?

[/ QUOTE ] I think so, yes. No idea if foal thinks so.

(I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to physically/violently stop a drunk person from getting in the car, but it's certainly not the same morally as just refusing to give him his car keys.)

[/ QUOTE ]

What if he already has the keys? You just have to let him go?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You make a similar statement HERE.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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...

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not the same statement. It's meant to defend the similarity of the "deduction" I made and the "deduction" he made. Not to defend any of them. They are both ridiculous. If you want the right to violently defend your property, that has to be stated as another axiom. It does not follow logically from the right to violently defend yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone else owns your body, then it cannot be right to use violence to defend yourself from that person.

If self-defense is an absolute right, then it can *only* be the case that people own themselves.

The defense of your self IS defense of property.

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, instead of telling me I'm wrong, would you be so kind to show me why somebody doesn't become the rightful owner of natural resources by adding his labour in order to turn them into consumer goods?

[/ QUOTE ]
Where's the deduction? "I own myself therefore I own the fruits of my labour" is not a logically sound statement by any means.

[/ QUOTE ]
wtfsvi argues that if I pick an apple from a tree to eat it, and he tricks me and thereby takes it away from me, I have no right wrestle it away from him again, as it isn't my apple.

But it is. The apple hanging in the air, unreachable for anybody, has no value. I climbed the tree and picked it, i.e. I mixed my labour with the apple, thus giving it some value, because now I (or somebody else I trade it to in exchange for goods I value higher than the apple and he, at the same time, values less) can enjoy the taste and nutrition of the apple. By adding my labour to the apple I made it mine. Remember, without me, the apple would not have any value. So if he steals it from me, he steals the value I added to the apple.

Consider this: Instead of merely picking the apple, a farmer buys some land, plants apple trees, fertilises the ground and shields the fruits from pest. He buys a truck, rents some space in a market place in a city and sets up a stand so people can enjoy the fruits in exchange for other goods that the farmer values higher than his apples (which he has plenty of) but they value less. Would there be apples without his labour? Does wtfsvi own the apple as much as the farmer does, because the apple is not a part of the farmer's body, but he only created it using his body, which he mixed with natural resources?

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by "entitled to something", but since you seem to be disagreeing with me I'll assume you mean ownership. I.e. they necessarily believe that they own the person who they are inflicting force upon. Your alternative is that they "subscribe to 'might makes right", which is a meaningless caricature of a statement almost as bad as "the meaning of life is reproduction".

So if you're drunk and planning on driving and I take your keys does this mean I think I own you? If you say yes, then you have a quite different concept of ownership than I do. It's clearly not "might makes right", because I'm deciding what I think is "right" first and then using "might" to enforce it. So which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Temporary, acute restraint is not the same as chronic, systematic restraint (which is what we were talking about).

[/ QUOTE ]
I said "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." There's nothing about temporary vs systematic force in what I said and the person I was responding to didn't specify that either.


[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, for your intervention to be "right" one of the following must be true:

1) you are entitled to intervene
2) the person you're acting against has no self-ownership
3) the fact that you can do it is enough to make it right

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about what's "right". I'm disagreeing with the assertion that inflicting force upon someone means you think that you own them.

Still, I can tell you what the reasoning would be behind my taking the key from you and it is none of the three options you listed. You can consider it my standard of what is "right" if you like. I consider taking your keys to be negative. I consider you driving drunk to be even more negative. Therefore the negative of taking your keys is worth it, since the negative of you driving drunk outweighs it.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, you still own the car. Owning the car (assuming you allow for such ownership in the first place) doesn't include an entitlement to park it wherever you want. My ownership of a driveway doesn't deprive you of anything that comes with owning the car.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok cool. If that's your view, that's swell with me. I'm sure some people would think that you are not entitled to have the car removed, at least not without asking the owner to remove it first.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens after I ask? Violence becomes "OK" at that point? You've brought this "as long as you ask first" before and it wasn't really clear where you're going with that.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't care how collisions between property rights are regulated. But no, violence does not become "OK" at any point. Removing his car can be OK, I don't have an opinion about it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care about this, though. It's a collision between property rights and property rights. Find your resolution in the societal norms. I only care when something collides with the right to self ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, it's NOT a "collision" between rights - because you have no right to park the car there! It's a collision between your *desire* to park and someone else's property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ] Sure it's a collision between rights. The question is not if I have a right to park anywhere I want. The question is if you have a right to remove my car. Just because you already know how you want the situation to be resolved (the ownership of the land trumps the ownership of the car), doesn't mean there was never conflict between rights. In this case you say you have the right to move the car. If people agree that that is reasonable, it's all good and problem solved.

[ QUOTE ]
And there's no significant difference between this case and removing someone from your property, assuming you allow for ownership of land, cars, and selves.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree. If you allow for ownership of all these, and you say there is no difference between the way I own a piece of land and the way I own myself, ACism makes perfect sense. But to me there most certainly is a difference between the way you own yourself and the way you own a piece of land. To me, self ownership trumps property ownership when the two collide. So I don't care what rules society have about where it's appropriate to park your car and what who can do with the car if I don't follow the norm, but I care very much about norms that decide that someone can do something to a person based on anything other than protecting another person's (usually their own) right to self ownership. All this because I believe in self-ownership, and I believe the rest is up to the societal norms to work out. If you disagree, that's fine, but don't try to tell me that you only believe in self-ownership too, and that the whole system of violent property rights can be deducted logically from that. It can't.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider this: Instead of merely picking the apple, a farmer buys some land, plants apple trees, fertilises the ground and shields the fruits from pest. He buys a truck, rents some space in a market place in a city and sets up a stand so people can enjoy the fruits in exchange for other goods that the farmer values higher than his apples (which he has plenty of) but they value less. Would there be apples without his labour? Does wtfsvi own the apple as much as the farmer does, because the apple is not a part of the farmer's body, but he only created it using his body, which he mixed with natural resources?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't own the apple as much s the farmer does. And I'm sure it would have some pretty bad consequences for me if I took his apples, even if he did not use violence against me. I've never said it was ok to steal. You don't have to come up with ever worse scenarios to show how wrong you think stealing is. I get it, you think it's very wrong.