Brainpolice said:For example, one's ownership over their home, even if it is a just case of ownership, does not give you the right to assault and murder people just because they are in one's home. In other words, property rights do not trump life and liberty.
That strikes me as odd. I thought... well, I remember reading two very poignant scenarios in which consistency in justice must prevail over liberal morality if consistency is to be maintained.
One example was that a man who has been lost in the woods for days and is on the verge of dying comes onto your cabin property and begins shuffling through your kitchen. You shoot him. Are you in the wrong or the right? The article said in the right -- for you were defending your property.
If you invite a friend over for dinner and then shank him as soon as he enters the door, well, that certainly feels different, but why is one okay and not the other (at least according to my understanding of BP's statements)?
Brainpolice:Actually my entire objection to your absolutist view on property rights is that it justiies arbitrary violence by merely appealing to ownership, divorced from any other context.
no of course there is context. i have stated it specifically on several occasions. can you anticipate to what i refer? further you consistantly play fast and loose with the word arbitrary. it means for no particular reason. Have you been unable to find the precise reasons that i have consistently offered? certainly you have failed to address my specific challanges to you and just reverted to a dogmatic mantra of. "NAP is not an axiom and should be in context." and that "violence is only justified in self defense, and a consistant test of whether the violence is justified is that it not be greater than that to which it responds". which is obviously problematic.
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
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Answer my questions. I have clarified my position ad nauseum. Your insistance on "answer my questions" is silly because you have already been addressed and your questions are based on false assumptions about my viewpoint.
GilesStratton: Answer my questions.
Answer my questions.
I have clarified my position ad nauseum. Your insistance on "answer my questions" is silly because you have already been addressed and your questions are based on false assumptions about my viewpoint.
No, BP. You have answered his questions "in principle"; that violence is acceptable only in life-threatening or escalating situations. However, we're not talking about principles anymore because you have injected opinion into it. The correct answer to the given question must be a concrete one, because the questions GS has asked you have a context, and from that context we are asking you whether violence is "acceptable".
So, please answer the questions in a concrete form, such as, "Yes, violence is acceptable in this scenario because..." or "No, violence is unacceptable in this situation because..."
You have answered his questions "in principle"; that violence is acceptable only in life-threatening or escalating situations.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
It seems to me like the problem here is a clash between libertarian legalism and libertarian interpersonal ethics. I don't consider libertarianism to be a legal system or set of laws, it is a social philosophy or a set of social philosophies that provides the pretext and context for any legal system. Libertarianism is not completely neutral to interpersonal ethics, despiten how much Walter Block would like to pretend that it is.
Brainpolice:Libertarianism is not completely neutral to interpersonal ethics, despiten how much Walter Block would like to pretend that it is.
Libertarianism is not completely neutral to interpersonal ethics, despiten how much Walter Block would like to pretend that it is.
If this is true, then how is libertarianism different from any other flavor of collectivism?
Libertarianism as I understand it is strict adherence to the non-aggression and homesteading principles. I'd like to verbally discard your description of "thick" and "thin" NAP interpretations (this is not a computer program). I do this not so you can regurgitate your tired claim, but so that my question above is given context. As NUK said previously, you're attempting to graft a sense of magnitude onto aggressions, which is a collectivist tactic. Finally, I'd like to add that you have yet to provide a list (even a truncated one) of situations where lethal force is acceptable.
Daniel Waite: Brainpolice: Libertarianism is not completely neutral to interpersonal ethics, despiten how much Walter Block would like to pretend that it is. If this is true, then how is libertarianism different from any other flavor of collectivism? Libertarianism as I understand it is strict adherence to the non-aggression and homesteading principles. I'd like to verbally discard your description of "thick" and "thin" NAP interpretations (this is not a computer program). I do this not so you can regurgitate your tired claim, but so that my question above is given context. As NUK said previously, you're attempting to graft a sense of magnitude onto aggressions, which is a collectivist tactic. Finally, I'd like to add that you have yet to provide a list (even a truncated one) of situations where lethal force is acceptable.
Brainpolice: Libertarianism is not completely neutral to interpersonal ethics, despiten how much Walter Block would like to pretend that it is.
I'm also cautious about this "thick" & "thin" classification. It seems to be yet another dichtomy to simply argue over (i.e. infamous left vs. right). Divide & conquer seems to come to mind.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Interpersonal ethics as such /= collectivism.
The NAP and homesteading principles are based on interpersonal ethics.
The thin vs. thick distinction is perfectly valid as a description of how libertarianism is concieved of (as a open tent that is compatible with any set of values, or as part of a bundle of values or as constituting a more comprehensive bundle of values itself). If libertarianism is concieved of in a way that opens it up to total subjectivity, then it risks undermining itself as tension-creating principles are mixed with it. Surely things aren't completely arbitrary, otherwise this is basically just anomie. There is nothing collectivistic about what I'm saying, I'm remaining 100% true to individualism.
Refusing to legitimize arbitrary violence is not collectivism.
Nitroadict: Daniel Waite: Brainpolice: Libertarianism is not completely neutral to interpersonal ethics, despiten how much Walter Block would like to pretend that it is. If this is true, then how is libertarianism different from any other flavor of collectivism? Libertarianism as I understand it is strict adherence to the non-aggression and homesteading principles. I'd like to verbally discard your description of "thick" and "thin" NAP interpretations (this is not a computer program). I do this not so you can regurgitate your tired claim, but so that my question above is given context. As NUK said previously, you're attempting to graft a sense of magnitude onto aggressions, which is a collectivist tactic. Finally, I'd like to add that you have yet to provide a list (even a truncated one) of situations where lethal force is acceptable. I'm also cautious about this "thick" & "thin" classification. It seems to be yet another dichtomy to simply argue over (i.e. infamous left vs. right). Divide & conquer seems to come to mind.
The scope and context of the NAP is not some kind of irrelevancy or incidental thing, it's fundamental. The definition of self-defense and the initiation of force is not incidental, it's fundamental.
Brainpolice:Refusing to legitimize arbitrary violence is not collectivism.
Please, please, please stop saying "arbitrary violence". In each situation described in this thread, the defender is always reacting to an original aggression, namely trespass.
Do you truly fail to see how requirng "proportional" defense to an aggression is collectivism? This is not geometry where a figure can be scaled upward and downward while maintaining its original shape. Everyone is going to have their personal opinion regarding what constitutes a "proportional" response.
Brainpolice:If libertarianism is concieved of in a way that opens it up to total subjectivity, then it risks undermining itself...
If libertarianism is concieved of in a way that opens it up to total subjectivity, then it risks undermining itself...
I'm glad we finally agree.
Daniel Waite: Brainpolice: Refusing to legitimize arbitrary violence is not collectivism. Please, please, please stop saying "arbitrary violence". In each situation described in this thread, the defender is always reacting to an original aggression, namely trespass. Do you truly fail to see how requirng "proportional" defense to an aggression is collectivism? This is not geometry where a figure can be scaled upward and downward while maintaining its original shape. Everyone is going to have their personal opinion regarding what constitutes a "proportional" response. Brainpolice: If libertarianism is concieved of in a way that opens it up to total subjectivity, then it risks undermining itself... I'm glad we finally agree.
Brainpolice: Refusing to legitimize arbitrary violence is not collectivism.
Brainpolice: If libertarianism is concieved of in a way that opens it up to total subjectivity, then it risks undermining itself...
It is completely arbitrary beyond a mere appeal to ownership. I've explained why ad nauseum. Someone merely stepping onto your lawn does not give you free license to shoot them. That is arbitrary. To merely appeal to ownership, divorced from any further context, justifies completely arbitrary violence only on the condition that someone is an owner of the property that the violence takes place on. If you don't see why this is an inconsistant application of the NAP, I don't know what else to tell you at this point. Murder doesn't suddenly cease to be murder just because it takes place on your private property. If I find you in my backyard, forcibly accost you and lock you in my basement, or if I invite you into my home and then shoot you, I can't just appeal to my ownership to negate my responsibility for such behavior.
Furthermore, my principle is not strict proportionality in defense so much as the proper context for something to qualify as defense in the first place. That's why it makes no sense for you guys to continually misframe this debate as if I'm denying self-defense or proposing some total proportionality principle for defense. The fact of the matter is that arbitrarily shooting someone for being on your lawn is not a defense of property rights or a genuine case of self defens, it's a misuse of property rights and a total warping of the concept of self-defense to justify an arbitrary right to use violence without regaurd for context. The act of people walking in a space you own, by itself, is not a physical threat to you.
Daniel Waite: Brainpolice: Refusing to legitimize arbitrary violence is not collectivism. Please, please, please stop saying "arbitrary violence". In each situation described in this thread, the defender is always reacting to an original aggression, namely trespass.
That is going to be his tact. He will simply ignore the part of the argument that proves he is wrong. This is just typical rhetorical tactics and why I don't engage him as much anymore.
For some reason, BP refuses to acknowledge that the initial step is the aggression of the trespasser. What he has not answered (and cannot convincingly answer without abandoning his original position, which he will not do because he never admits he is wrong) are
1. Is trespass aggression?
2. How much energy and effort must be used to repel trespass? What if 50 AnarchoBrainPolice start squatting on your lawn, and as you drag one off, the last walks back and squats again?
3. Besides our bodies, is there any other form of property we could own that is essential to our staying alive (think clean water reservoir).
I have more, but if you choose to carry on, I would first ask BP to stop fabricating and waffling, and clearly define what the value of "A" in this discussion is, because he is an expert at making "A" not equal to "A" whenever it upsets his belief system.
liberty student: Daniel Waite: Brainpolice: Refusing to legitimize arbitrary violence is not collectivism. Please, please, please stop saying "arbitrary violence". In each situation described in this thread, the defender is always reacting to an original aggression, namely trespass. That is going to be his tact. He will simply ignore the part of the argument that proves he is wrong. This is just typical rhetorical tactics and why I don't engage him as much anymore. For some reason, BP refuses to acknowledge that the initial step is the aggression of the trespasser. What he has not answered (and cannot convincingly answer without abandoning his original position, which he will not do because he never admits he is wrong) are 1. Is trespass aggression? 2. How much energy and effort must be used to repel trespass? What if 50 AnarchoBrainPolice start squatting on your lawn, and as you drag one off, the last walks back and squats again? 3. Besides our bodies, is there any other form of property we could own that is essential to our staying alive (think clean water reservoir). I have more, but if you choose to carry on, I would first ask BP to stop fabricating and waffling, and clearly define what the value of "A" in this discussion is, because he is an expert at making "A" not equal to "A" whenever it upsets his belief system.
No, all I have done is rationally denied that the act of tresspass by itself is equivolent to a physical threat to your life or body. I've rationally denied that the mere fact that you own something by itself means that the right to use violence is completely unconditional, and anyone who accepts such a view is endorsing psychopathy. I have repeatdly clarified that enegy and effort to repel tresspass only requires violence if things esclate or if the tresspasser threatens you physically. Otherwise, if you just arbitrarily start using violence on them when they are willing to leave and present no threat, you are an aggressor yourself. The logical implication of acting as if ownership by itself is the sufficient conditions for any use of force to be legitimate is to justify blatant violations of the NAP and to help lay the groundwork for a state.
As usual, it appears that you simply don't understand my position, and have erected a misrepresentation or decoy. You really need to stop trolling and misrepresenting me.
Brainpolice: Daniel Waite: Brainpolice: Refusing to legitimize arbitrary violence is not collectivism. Please, please, please stop saying "arbitrary violence". In each situation described in this thread, the defender is always reacting to an original aggression, namely trespass. Do you truly fail to see how requirng "proportional" defense to an aggression is collectivism? This is not geometry where a figure can be scaled upward and downward while maintaining its original shape. Everyone is going to have their personal opinion regarding what constitutes a "proportional" response. Brainpolice: If libertarianism is concieved of in a way that opens it up to total subjectivity, then it risks undermining itself... I'm glad we finally agree. It is completely arbitrary beyond a mere appeal to ownership. I've explained why ad nauseum. Someone merely stepping onto your lawn does not give you free license to shoot them. That is arbitrary. To merely appeal to ownership, divorced from any further context, justifies completely arbitrary violence only on the condition that someone is an owner of the property that the violence takes place on. If you don't see why this is an inconsistant application of the NAP, I don't know what else to tell you at this point. Murder doesn't suddenly cease to be murder just because it takes place on your private property. If I find you in my backyard, forcibly accost you and lock you in my basement, or if I invite you into my home and then shoot you, I can't just appeal to my ownership to negate my responsibility for such behavior. Furthermore, my principle is not strict proportionality in defense so much as the proper context for something to qualify as defense in the first place. That's why it makes no sense for you guys to continually misframe this debate as if I'm denying self-defense or proposing some total proportionality principle for defense. The fact of the matter is that arbitrarily shooting someone for being on your lawn is not a defense of property rights or a genuine case of self defens, it's a misuse of property rights and a total warping of the concept of self-defense to justify an arbitrary right to use violence without regaurd for context. The act of people walking in a space you own, by itself, is not a physical threat to you.
Wouldn't this be a given regarding polycentric law, PDA's, etc.? It seems as if you are saying that somehow, everyone would be a crypto-statist in defense of their property, when courts (obviously in tandem with individuals involved reporting the incident, as well as those affected such as the defenses' family and/or friends) could easily determine whether or not your property was in any danger (in most cases of simple trespassing, property would not be in danger), & others using the most basic common sense would obviously not condone such extreme violence for such an inadvertent obstruction. It seems as if you are saying that suddenly, people would forget that walking in space you own, by itself, is not a threat, and that people cannot be trusted with such freedom regarding their property rights. Further, it seems you are ignoring case-by-case instances where everyone involved, with the help of courts, arbitrators, etc. would determine if any harm, damage, or danger actually occurred, and that somehow, all those involved would simply appeal to ownership & justify mass murdering based on supposed private property violations. That somehow, without requiring an amount of subjectivity regarding what is proportional defense (wouldn't that be determined by all those involved with aforementioned services, on a case-by-case basis, anyway?), that automatic murder would occur in pockets across the land whenever there is a dispute regarding private property. Would not ownership imply such a responsibility? Would not freedom imply such a responsibility? Are people are not ready for these responsibilities? Should they protected from those who know better, or from one another as they strive to survive in the stateless society? I'm not a strict humanist, but I'm not an overt pessimist, either. Your objection just seems a little redundant, when in the context of the free-market individuals would realize the importance of not crying defensive murder every 10 seconds, & establish a social understanding regarding property rights.
Nitroadict: Brainpolice: Daniel Waite: Brainpolice: Refusing to legitimize arbitrary violence is not collectivism. Please, please, please stop saying "arbitrary violence". In each situation described in this thread, the defender is always reacting to an original aggression, namely trespass. Do you truly fail to see how requirng "proportional" defense to an aggression is collectivism? This is not geometry where a figure can be scaled upward and downward while maintaining its original shape. Everyone is going to have their personal opinion regarding what constitutes a "proportional" response. Brainpolice: If libertarianism is concieved of in a way that opens it up to total subjectivity, then it risks undermining itself... I'm glad we finally agree. It is completely arbitrary beyond a mere appeal to ownership. I've explained why ad nauseum. Someone merely stepping onto your lawn does not give you free license to shoot them. That is arbitrary. To merely appeal to ownership, divorced from any further context, justifies completely arbitrary violence only on the condition that someone is an owner of the property that the violence takes place on. If you don't see why this is an inconsistant application of the NAP, I don't know what else to tell you at this point. Murder doesn't suddenly cease to be murder just because it takes place on your private property. If I find you in my backyard, forcibly accost you and lock you in my basement, or if I invite you into my home and then shoot you, I can't just appeal to my ownership to negate my responsibility for such behavior. Furthermore, my principle is not strict proportionality in defense so much as the proper context for something to qualify as defense in the first place. That's why it makes no sense for you guys to continually misframe this debate as if I'm denying self-defense or proposing some total proportionality principle for defense. The fact of the matter is that arbitrarily shooting someone for being on your lawn is not a defense of property rights or a genuine case of self defens, it's a misuse of property rights and a total warping of the concept of self-defense to justify an arbitrary right to use violence without regaurd for context. The act of people walking in a space you own, by itself, is not a physical threat to you. Wouldn't this be a given regarding polycentric law, PDA's, etc.? It seems as if you are saying that somehow, everyone would be a crypto-statist in defense of their property, when courts (obviously in tandem with individuals involved reporting the incident, as well as those affected such as the defenses' family and/or friends) could easily determine whether or not your property was in any danger (in most cases of simple trespassing, property would not be in danger), & others using the most basic common sense would obviously not condone such extreme violence for such an inadvertent obstruction. It seems as if you are saying that suddenly, people would forget that walking in space you own, by itself, is not a threat, and that people cannot be trusted with such freedom regarding their property rights. Further, it seems you are ignoring case-by-case instances where everyone involved, with the help of courts, arbitrators, etc. would determine if any harm, damage, or danger actually occurred, and that somehow, all those involved would simply appeal to ownership & justify mass murdering based on supposed private property violations. That somehow, without requiring an amount of subjectivity regarding what is proportional defense (wouldn't that be determined by all those involved with aforementioned services, on a case-by-case basis, anyway?), that automatic murder would occur in pockets across the land whenever there is a dispute regarding private property. Would not ownership imply such a responsibility? Would not freedom imply such a responsibility? Are people are not ready for these responsibilities? Should they protected from those who know better, from one another as they strive to survive in the stateless society? I'm not a strict humanist, but I'm not an overt pessimist, either. Your objection just seems a little redundant, when in the context of the free-market individuals would realize the importance of not crying defensive murder every 10 seconds, & establish a social understanding regarding property rights.
Wouldn't this be a given regarding polycentric law, PDA's, etc.? It seems as if you are saying that somehow, everyone would be a crypto-statist in defense of their property, when courts (obviously in tandem with individuals involved reporting the incident, as well as those affected such as the defenses' family and/or friends) could easily determine whether or not your property was in any danger (in most cases of simple trespassing, property would not be in danger), & others using the most basic common sense would obviously not condone such extreme violence for such an inadvertent obstruction. It seems as if you are saying that suddenly, people would forget that walking in space you own, by itself, is not a threat, and that people cannot be trusted with such freedom regarding their property rights. Further, it seems you are ignoring case-by-case instances where everyone involved, with the help of courts, arbitrators, etc. would determine if any harm, damage, or danger actually occurred, and that somehow, all those involved would simply appeal to ownership & justify mass murdering based on supposed private property violations. That somehow, without requiring an amount of subjectivity regarding what is proportional defense (wouldn't that be determined by all those involved with aforementioned services, on a case-by-case basis, anyway?), that automatic murder would occur in pockets across the land whenever there is a dispute regarding private property. Would not ownership imply such a responsibility? Would not freedom imply such a responsibility? Are people are not ready for these responsibilities? Should they protected from those who know better, from one another as they strive to survive in the stateless society? I'm not a strict humanist, but I'm not an overt pessimist, either. Your objection just seems a little redundant, when in the context of the free-market individuals would realize the importance of not crying defensive murder every 10 seconds, & establish a social understanding regarding property rights.
I'm drawing out the absurd implications of a particular standard for the use of force, one that blatantly places the authority of property titles above the NAP. You yourself seem to aknowledge that such implications are absurd. Some people here are actually defending those absurd implications or trying to defend the absolutist approach that should logically lead one to defend them. I'm not describing how I think things will specifically turn out in a libertarian anarchist society, I'm analizing the logical implications of the premises in question, and saying that if we found a society on those premises it will not be a libertarian anarchist society to begin with. The point is that the logical implications of this thin interpretation of the NAP is that someone is allowed to get away with psychopathic crime. If one's theory of property rights effectively allows one to use violence in any context so long as you are the owner, one is going to have to own up to the absurd implications of that, implications that threaten to undermine the entire point of libertarian anarchism.
Brainpolice:As usual, it appears that you simply don't understand my position, and have erected a misrepresentation or decoy. You really need to stop trolling and misrepresenting me.
As usual, 3 direct arguments were made, and you managed to evade all 3 of them.