We're stuck in the desert, with a milkshake. We both lunge toward it, and I grab and sip it first. I claim ownership of the milkshake under the Right Of First Grab And/Or Use. This means that I will survive to be rescued by the A-Team while you will dehydrate and get eaten by vultures.
Explain to me, under the framework of capitalist natural law, why I am obligated to share my milkshake with you.
Social programs don't contradict capitalism. Both of you can be rescued by the A Team.
We could. Without the milkshake, you would be vulturefood by the time they arrived, though.
in extreme situations you do what you gotta do. Later your conscience will decide whether you did it right or not.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Related because milkshakes:
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
What makes you think anybody would be obligated to share their milkshake with you? They AREN'T. You'd have to bargain for it. If you used violence, you'd be wrong. It doesn't follow that the other guy is heartless. Even if you had no bargaining power, they'd have the option to share with you.
Ban-Evader:We're stuck in the desert, with a milkshake. We both lunge toward it, and I grab and sip it first. I claim ownership of the milkshake under the Right Of First Grab And/Or Use. This means that I will survive to be rescued by the A-Team while you will dehydrate and get eaten by vultures. Explain to me, under the framework of capitalist natural law, why I am obligated to share my milkshake with you.
As others have already said, you aren't. Now what?
Is your point to show how "heartless" we are? I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
It is official policy to ban bandodgers when they are detected. So please do not expect a response from this person on this forum, if one is detected we would intend to again ban, and possibly delete the message.
If anyone wants to discuss issues with the bandodger, feel free to invite them to a discussion on some other location on the internet, not governed by these forum rules, you may post any such invite here if you wish.
Regards, Your Friendly Neighbourhood Mod.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
HOLY SHIT CALL THE POHLEES!
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
under the framework of capitalist natural law, why I am obligated to share my milkshake with you.
You aren't, assuming it's actually your milkshake.
Damn! You beat me to it....
Where are the ban criteria? I actually like that question. It deserves an honest answer regardless of the nature of the asker.
I would characterize myself as an anarcho-capitalist. Part of why I'm here is to hone and refine both my understanding and my ability to interact with different arguments and theories and criticisms of my knowledge, theory, and arguments such that I become a better "beacon of liberty".
In this case the assumption is that capitalism somehow alters the way in which one views this ethical dilemma and does so in a detrimental way. This situation as presented assumes omniscience after the fact, and argues that only one can survive and that first come first serve is the only way capitalism resolves this scenario, and what makes it the "right" solution.
There is no "right" solution. There are two individuals with their own "right" ends, and they will choose actions that either will or will not fit, the omnisciently described sequence of events to follow.
The binary condition for each person is survives/dies. There are 4 possible outcomes under this binary circumstance: both die, one or the other dies, and neiher dies. One of the potential outcomes has been eliminated by our omniscient presenter: both can't survive.
Now under this circumstance, it sounds like sharing the milkshake results in both dying. So our omniscient observer would view this as an ethically fair solution, but a fatal and therefore bad result from a consequential point of view.
That leaves us with one or the other consuming the entire milkshake... So, might makes right, first appropriation, a round of rock/paper/scissors are all mechanisms for deciding who gets the milkshake. What about the healthiest? What about giving it to the youngest with the most to live for in the future? What about giving it to the father with a large family that counts on him for their livelihood? There are a million ways to attempt to resolve this.
Which one is the most ethical one? I don't know..., and neither does anyone else. There is no ethical system which can provide the right solution.
The most likely scenario given the social nature of man, and the tend to behave in such extreme survival scenarios is that the two people would share the milkshake, work together to find water, and then both die. That's what would happen if you ran this experiment in reality.
So, I would respond by saying thanks for killing them both...
Individual property theories like anarcho-capitalism CAN provide rules to solve this issue. That doesn't mean they will be applied by the individuals in this circumstance. The point of natural property rights is that it tends to become "common law", that many iterative dispute resolution scenarios honed in on certain features and principles that establish a framework for resolving these disputes. "Common law" comes into existence within a broader framework than the idea of one-off desert scenario. It becomes "common law" through iteration and formalization. And yes it's as legitimate as any other solution in that scenario simply because there IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. There are simply varying solutions that have different values to each of the two parties to the dispute. In the end no matter how one argues there are only 4 possible solutions, pour it out, give it to one, give it to the other, share it. Two of those solutions result in death, in the other two (due to our omniscience) we know that one or the other lives.
I hope that in discussions like this we see the value of answering these types of questions, even when they are ridiculous. We can say they're ridiculous, but that doesn't make us right. We need to be able to show why they're ridiculous.
David B: Where are the ban criteria? I actually like that question. It deserves an honest answer regardless of the nature of the asker.
Here is a rough summary of the Mises forum rules:
1. Troll the Mises board once, shame on you.
2. Troll the Mises board twice, shame on us?
3. Troll the Mises board with virtually every post you make, and...
The only (and most civilized) way for the two to resolve this situation would be to establish a democracy by writing a constitution then elect a government which would create and enforce a badly needed Milkshake Law.
Since it's a ridiculous hypothetical that makes no sense, I'll begin to ask various questions.
1. How is there a milkshake in the desert that's cold and worth drinking?
2. Are you and the other person "together" or did y'all come from different directions and at the same time raced to a milkshake placed randomly in the desert?
3. Is it a mirage?
4. Does sharing not exist in this universe?
5. Who says the A-Team won't kill you?
6. Don't you think drinking/eating a milkshake would be the worst possible decision in the desert?
Don't you think drinking/eating a milkshake would be the worst possible decision in the desert?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FM3Em7FIOc
This hypothetical can't even work in a Will Ferrell movie, I think the point is proven.
mustang191919: [...]rescued by the A-Team[...]
[...]rescued by the A-Team[...]
Lol, why?
My two cents: you are not obliged to share the thing, but I’ll just punch you and steal it and latter I’ll be forced to repay you 5 bucks (I have no idea what half a milkshake costs) for my theft. Simple.
its simple, one person gets the milkshake, then the other person kills the person and eats the insides, thus sharing the milkshake.