-
Sorry to hear you think value is objective, or semi-objective if thats possible.
-
JC its not that two wrongs will make a right, I doubt that is possible. I was just saying that when a thief voids someones property rights they also void their own to the same degree. Just in the interest of fairness, not personal preference. As you noted restituion is far from a simple thing, it could easily become a second wrong. If a parent says
-
Well taking your looser definition of what stealing is, I think black sheep has a valid point. When you classified that person as an oppressor he was clearly defined as the initiator, to which actions of defense/restitution could be applied. Its not so much the permission of the current possessor, but the rightful owner. Now you were careful to say
-
So to Jon, perhaps I have a different definition of ontology than you (computer science version), but we are talking about a structure of elements that are objective to us, that lead to our preception right? JC, I think what you are asking is, is it possible to steal from someone who actively denies property rights by their actions. So stealing is the
-
I would say you don't have a claim to the thugs gun, but only to your own defense. So rendering his gun inoperable when its clear he is oppressing you would be moral. Not taking it and making it your own. Just my gut reaction here.
-
Hey Jon I think geoffery's quote might be an argument related to ontology.
-
Well I will end this derail by just answering your question. which is it? Its disbelief by default. *cough* stealing is always wrong, there we are back on track.
-
Hm interesting article. I think the crux was that statement "You can't prove a negative" is actually a negative, making it self detonating. So let me rephrase my comment based on what that article illuminated. So an atheist could be asked to prove that god doesn't exist its just not fair, the theist claim is more extraordinary, therefore
-
If most men are bad or evil than no system of social organization will work. No intelligent anarchist says you can't have a government in some sense. Just that you can't coerce others to be part of your system of organized robbery. If you wanna see what system is preferred than make taxation voluntary and see how long modern governments stick
-
Hey jon, not to derail the argument at all, but I had a comment on asking the atheist to prove the non existence of god. Its essentially impossible to prove a negative except by trying every state that can exist and showing its not in any of those almost infinite states. The default position is disbelief. Such as not believing in unicorns unless someone