a quick thought

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fundamentally, the basis for the legitimacy of the state, the constitution, democracy, and whatever rights are guaranteed under it, is that people like it. They are happier with a state than without it. If they weren't, at some point they would revolt and we would have something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Coke, so it's OK for me to use force to prevent my neighbor from drinking milk and to make sure he only drinks Coke? I mean, I REALLY like it. His preference for milk isn't very strong at all.

You're looking at aggregates and ignoring individuals. This is the first step towards oppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you like drinking Coke? Or do you like for your neighbor to drink Coke?

If you just like drinking Coke, I don't see how what your neighbor drinks would have any bearing on satisfying this preference.

If for some reason your neighbor not drinking Coke is causing you harm, or you would experience some great gain from your neighbor drinking Coke, I think you have a right to express that preference in the political marketplace.

If Coke-drinking is considered to be of great enough social value by a great enough number of people to be ratified by the political process (and remember that this process includes checks and balances, a Bill of Rights, judicial review, etc.), then I suppose your neighbor would have to drink Coke.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In that hypothetical, I have a right to move freely as long as I am not interfering with anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we might need to define "right" here. Do I have a right to eat ice cream? In the general case, I'd say no, you have no *right* to eat ice cream. In a specific case, for example a case where you own a particular quantity of ice cream, I'd say you have a right to dispose of that property in a manner you see fit; nobody can stop you from eating it.

If I build a wall between you and some place you want to move to, am I violating your rights, even if I'm not occupying your desired destination?

[/ QUOTE ]

In this hypothetical, no. You can build a wall if you want. But I'm already on your property.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether this somehow equates with "ownership" is a purely semantic question that depends on how you define ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, how do you define it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't define it, except that I believe in self-ownership in the sense that I don't think I should be assaulted. If you want to come up with some other convoluted definition, that is your view.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it so difficult to get an answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a question you asked that I missed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two questions, I guess:

A.) It is morally acceptable for you to force me off land that you claim to own if I don't believe in ownership?

B.) If the answer to (A) is "yes", isn't the person you are forcing off the land being involuntarily coerced into accepting your view of morality?

The point it to demonstrate that AC involuntarily forces people who do not believe in property rights into accepting a particular view of morality, just like statism involuntarily forces people who do not believe in the legitimacy of the state to accept it.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't define it, except that I believe in self-ownership in the sense that I don't think I should be assaulted. If you want to come up with some other convoluted definition, that is your view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your right to not be assaulted absolute? What if the duly elected legislatures make a constitutional amendment which legalizes assault?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't define it, except that I believe in self-ownership in the sense that I don't think I should be assaulted. If you want to come up with some other convoluted definition, that is your view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your right to not be assaulted absolute? What if the duly elected legislatures make a constitutional amendment which legalizes assault?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing two different discussions.

In one, I am presenting the moral system of a hypothetical person in AC society who does not believe in property rights.

For the sake of this discussion, we can assume that the person believes the right to not be assaulted is absolute. If a state were to legislate this away, they would be coercing him to accept the state's morality...just like AC society coerces him to accept the AC view of property rights.

The other discussion is my actual belief the rights are generated from the state. Personally, no I do not believe the right to not be assaulted should be absolute.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fundamentally, the basis for the legitimacy of the state, the constitution, democracy, and whatever rights are guaranteed under it, is that people like it. They are happier with a state than without it. If they weren't, at some point they would revolt and we would have something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Coke, so it's OK for me to use force to prevent my neighbor from drinking milk and to make sure he only drinks Coke? I mean, I REALLY like it. His preference for milk isn't very strong at all.

You're looking at aggregates and ignoring individuals. This is the first step towards oppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you like drinking Coke? Or do you like for your neighbor to drink Coke?

If you just like drinking Coke, I don't see how what your neighbor drinks would have any bearing on satisfying this preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, ok. So let's say both; I like drinking coke and I like for my neighbor to drink it, too.

Does this make any difference? Can I justify imposing my preference upon you if I *REALLY* like that particular preference?

[ QUOTE ]
If for some reason your neighbor not drinking Coke is causing you harm, or you would experience some great gain from your neighbor drinking Coke, I think you have a right to express that preference in the political marketplace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Really? I can't sleep because my neighbor isn't drinking enough coke. How do I satisfy my preference without, err, assaulting him? Is it not assault if I get a big enough gang together to make him do it? We really like coke.

How much gain do I need to justify expressing my preference? What if I'm selling coke for a living? If he doesn't buy it, I'm "harmed". Right? So forcing him to buy it would be a pretty big gain for me.

[ QUOTE ]
If Coke-drinking is considered to be of great enough social value by a great enough number of people to be ratified by the political process (and remember that this process includes checks and balances, a Bill of Rights, judicial review, etc.), then I suppose your neighbor would have to drink Coke.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about his right to not be assaulted?

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[No one believes that there should be no property rights over land? More generally, I think a lot of people (myself included) would believe that the only property rights we have are the ones the state guarantees to protect as determined through a democratic process. I don't believe in any sort of inherent property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the state decides (as in the past) that you can be bought and sold, you’ll quiesce since you don’t inherently own you.

[ QUOTE ]
But this is all from a previous discussion, and not responsive to the general point that I'm making that the AC view of rights coercively restricts the behavior of other people.

You can't respond to this by saying, "You don't have the right to engage in the behavior I am coercing you from engaging in," because it is only you, not me, that believes I don't have that right. Such a response is simply choosing to enforce your morality ahead of mine in same coercive manner that the state does.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC view of rights does not coercively restrict behavior. ALL PROPERTY RIGHTS restrict behavior, that is the nature of rights. My right to punch ends at the tip of your nose, in a state as well as AC. The difference in AC; the moral difference, is with <u>personal</u> liberties. If you don’t believe property should be owned then don’t own property, but you don’t have the moral right to force every one to give up their property. The ACist believes property can be owned, yet no one is forcing you to own property.

You have the moral right to restrict yourself according to your beliefs, but not anyone else. The State does this and more. My belief in owning property does not restrict you from not owning property in accordance with your beliefs.

As an ACist if you’re standing on my lawn and I don’t want you there, I’ll build a fence, buy a dog, post a guard, etc. I’m not going to automatically determine that on my property anything goes. Not because it doesn’t, but because I can’t without violating YOUR right to YOUR body. I will not assault you, unless you are actually causing me harm, or to prevent you from being harmed. You can’t stand on my lawn forever.

All rights restrict behavior AC restrict them equally.

[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't believe in any absolute rights.

However, I also don't believe that "democracy" demands that our entire social system be instantly responsive to the whim of the majority. We have a constitutional process of representation, checks and balances, judicial review, amendment, etc., to assure that the "democratic" process doesn't do long-term damage to society to satisfy short-term desires. It obviously doesn't always work well, and nations disagree about exactly how to structure this process, but it is more or less the right idea.

Fundamentally, the basis for the legitimacy of the state, the constitution, democracy, and whatever rights are guaranteed under it, is that people like it. They are happier with a state than without it. If they weren't, at some point they would revolt and we would have something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if you include Native Americans, and African Americans in your definition of "people" or are you really that myopic.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In that hypothetical, I have a right to move freely as long as I am not interfering with anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we might need to define "right" here. Do I have a right to eat ice cream? In the general case, I'd say no, you have no *right* to eat ice cream. In a specific case, for example a case where you own a particular quantity of ice cream, I'd say you have a right to dispose of that property in a manner you see fit; nobody can stop you from eating it.

If I build a wall between you and some place you want to move to, am I violating your rights, even if I'm not occupying your desired destination?

[/ QUOTE ]

In this hypothetical, no. You can build a wall if you want. But I'm already on your property.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't own any property. I'm just building a wall where I happen to be at a particular time. I then leave later. You're in mexico, you want to go to canada, I build a wall in between. You aren't strong enough to climb over or to break through it.

Nobody owns anything. You can't get around the wall, are your rights violated?

[ QUOTE ]
Two questions, I guess:

A.) It is morally acceptable for you to force me off land that you claim to own if I don't believe in ownership?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Because all I have to do is say I don't beleive in a right to not be assaulted. If you're not violating anything, then neither am I.

[ QUOTE ]
B.) If the answer to (A) is "yes", isn't the person you are forcing off the land being involuntarily coerced into accepting your view of morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. He doesn't have to accept anything. He's just removed from that piece of land. He can then accept whatever view of morality he wants.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Two questions, I guess:

A.) It is morally acceptable for you to force me off land that you claim to own if I don't believe in ownership?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Because all I have to do is say I don't beleive in a right to not be assaulted. If you're not violating anything, then neither am I.[/i]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm stipulating that the land owner is an ACist...in which case I assume he believes in a right to not be assaulted, right? Are you just saying that the ACist has a right to suspend his own morality in order to coerce/assault someone who doesn't agree with that morality?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
B.) If the answer to (A) is "yes", isn't the person you are forcing off the land being involuntarily coerced into accepting your view of morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. He doesn't have to accept anything. He's just removed from that piece of land. He can then accept whatever view of morality he wants.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess "accept" is the wrong word. Perhaps I should say "obey". My point is that he is coerced by the ACist in the same was that the ACist is coerced by the state.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

No, I don't own any property. I'm just building a wall where I happen to be at a particular time. I then leave later. You're in mexico, you want to go to canada, I build a wall in between. You aren't strong enough to climb over or to break through it.

Nobody owns anything. You can't get around the wall, are your rights violated?



[/ QUOTE ]

Because you are creating an entirely new hypothetical here, I'm not totally sure who "you" and "me" are anymore.

But I don't think the person who does not believe in property rights would think his rights were violated in this case. What does this have to do with anything else?

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't define it, except that I believe in self-ownership in the sense that I don't think I should be assaulted. If you want to come up with some other convoluted definition, that is your view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your right to not be assaulted absolute? What if the duly elected legislatures make a constitutional amendment which legalizes assault?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing two different discussions.

In one, I am presenting the moral system of a hypothetical person in AC society who does not believe in property rights.

For the sake of this discussion, we can assume that the person believes the right to not be assaulted is absolute. If a state were to legislate this away, they would be coercing him to accept the state's morality...just like AC society coerces him to accept the AC view of property rights.

The other discussion is my actual belief the rights are generated from the state. Personally, no I do not believe the right to not be assaulted should be absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you accept the idea that we design institutions to encourage or implement certain outcomes, the best way to argue against the restriction of liberty is to show at the margins positive rights lead to undesirable outcomes of most plausible positive rights I can think of. The communist isn't very happy to hear that the "living wage" makes people unemployed. I think it's only sort of this utilitarian argument, that takes into account their preferences, that truly convinces people.