a quick thought

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that people who don't believe they are free will be enslaved?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that people who don't believe they are free will be enslaved?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I don't believe that land is capable of being "owned" by a person, should it be morally permissible for someone to force me off of a piece of land just because they claim to own it?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. AC doesn't require any objective morality. If your subjective morality says taxation is not theft, that's great. Note, however, that if morality is subjective and personal, you don't have any right to impose your morality upon others.

The morality argument reduces to the negative rights argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC definitely requires the acceptance of an objective morality, one that values self-ownership and freedom from coercion above other possible values.

As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've mentioned it numerous times, but never actually demonstrated it.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've mentioned it numerous times, but never actually demonstrated it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I have...I have asked the question about the anti-property squatter many times, and never gotten a straight answer from ACists. I interpreted it as them conceding the point.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. AC doesn't require any objective morality. If your subjective morality says taxation is not theft, that's great. Note, however, that if morality is subjective and personal, you don't have any right to impose your morality upon others.

The morality argument reduces to the negative rights argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC definitely requires the acceptance of an objective morality, one that values self-ownership and freedom from coercion above other possible values.

As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've mentioned it numerous times, but never actually demonstrated it.

[/ QUOTE ]
He's probably correct, as I hoped to discuss in my threads on DCists and nomads. Certainly the landed will come to oppress the landless (irrespective of the property-related beliefs of the landless).

[ALawPoker]

LOL. Sorry to interrupt this hijack about the morality of recognizing property rights. But does anyone other than Constantine have any thoughts on the OP?

Or said again, when people understand what AC actually is shouldn't it appeal to the heterosexual drug free businessman with 3 kids as well as it appeals to the gay pot smoking poker playing teenager as well as it appeals to your average hippie?

And then, shouldn't AC's arguments focus more on the logistics of why all these different people would be satisfied with AC?


[ QUOTE ]
Note, however, that if morality is subjective and personal, you don't have any right to impose your morality upon others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pvn, doesn't this essentially translate to "You don't have the right to coexist." How do people interact if not by doing what they think is necessary when someone does something they don't like?

If I saw someone pointing a gun at an old lady, I might decide to force my morality upon people even if they don't think killing humans is wrong.

I agree with you in that I'd prefer people minded their own business more. I don't get bent out of shape when you forget to wear deodorant; don't lambast me if you see me smoking pot. Morality is such a strange word to throw around though. If you just consider subjective morality to be "whether or not things are pleasing or displeasing," (which is essentially all I see it as) how can you say we don't have a "right" to act in a certain way when we don't like something?

Maybe my subjective morality says that I do indeed have a right to compromise someone else's morality when it matters enough to me.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
But does anyone other than Constantine have any thoughts on the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I guess not.

This forum has really degenerated to the point where you might as well just say "AC debate. GO!" Why bother trying to look at something from a new angle when everyone is just concerned with arguing their off topic semantical points? This will probably be the last OP I bother making on this forum for a while.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But does anyone other than Constantine have any thoughts on the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I guess not.

This forum has really degenerated to the point where you might as well just say "AC debate. GO!" Why bother trying to look at something from a new angle when everyone is just concerned with arguing their off topic semantical points? This will probably be the last OP I bother making on this forum for a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry for that. Collectively, 2+2 is one the best public forums on the net. I'm willing to tolerate some mindless AC evangelism to engage some of the minds on the site. I think that the real problem with some ACers is not that they hijack threads, but cannot engage in the forum if their AC assumptions are at all questioned. ALaw wasn't talking about the viability of property rights; he was talking about rhetorical strategies and appeals to people who don't believe in individual property rights characteristic of libertarianism and ACism. I have yet to see a single "known" ACer engage him on this issue. Seeing that, the "cause" would undoubtedly fail and is not really different from any other radical ideological stance.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry for that. Collectively, 2+2 is one the best public forums on the net. I'm willing to tolerate some mindless AC evangelism to engage some of the minds on the site. I think that the real problem with some ACers is not that they hijack threads, but cannot engage in the forum if their AC assumptions are at all questioned. ALaw wasn't talking about the viability of property rights; he was talking about rhetorical strategies and appeals to people who don't believe in individual property rights characteristic of libertarianism and ACism. I have yet to see a single "known" ACer engage him on this issue. Seeing that, the "cause" would undoubtedly fail and is not really different from any other radical ideological stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bkholdem is the only "utilitarian" ACist on this board who might have an answer for you beyond "That violates my rights, so you can't do that". So you'd have to ask him.

As for starting non-AC threads, if you want to discuss Obama's poll numbers in Iowa, I and a couple other people would certainly discuss them with you, but you probably would not get that much response. If you want to discuss Obama's health care plan, you might get a lot of responses, but that would be because the discussion devolved into an AC debate, more often than not because of some trollish comment by Nielso.

[owsley]

after this series of threads it is the ACists who are trolling? lollll

edit- yes, nielso does sidetrack a lot of threads. it wouldn't derail threads if people just ignored him.