nhaag:Did it ever came across you, that, to take possesion of something, you need to make sure that it is in a natural state? If it is obviously not, as in the case of meatballs(that do not come as a natural gift) you can not claim they are free. And you can even claim less that you did not know they are not free. Because, if something is not natural, or not obvisouly given up - which in the meatball case is hard to argue, as they are fresh enough to not be rotten yet, i suppose- it is up to you to find out under what conditions the owner might exchange. End of a silly case.
If it is obviously not, as in the case of meatballs(that do not come as a natural gift) you can not claim they are free. And you can even claim less that you did not know they are not free. Because, if something is not natural, or not obvisouly given up - which in the meatball case is hard to argue, as they are fresh enough to not be rotten yet, i suppose- it is up to you to find out under what conditions the owner might exchange.
End of a silly case.
Look, all the vendor needs to do is get my explicit consent to pay for the meatball before he hands it to me. It is hardly outside the realm of possibility that a restaurant will hand out free samples to entice customers. If he hands it to me without any agreement, I can assume it's a gift.
JCFolsom:Under my implicit contract, the meatball thus given is automatically free.
No it is not. If he gives you meatball with the expectation that you'll pay and you accept the meatball expecting it to be free, the contract is void and you owe him the meatball.
Keep in mind I am still granting the validity of an implicit contract that rejects implicit contracts, which is absurd.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
JCFolsom:Look, all the vendor needs to do is get my explicit consent to pay for the meatball before he hands it to me.
In this particular case that might work. Typically implicit contracts are designed to cover tricker terrain though. For example you roll into a gas station and say "Fill 'er up please"... the guy manning the pump can't practically tell you, in advance, how much it will cost. Implicitly though, you have agreed to pay him whatever it costs, per liter, once the tank is full. If you don't have enough money or even if you do and you just drive off, you are not actually guilty of theft, technically speaking, but of "misrepresentation". When you rolled into the gas station and asked him to fill your tank up, even though it wasn't explicitly stated before the transaction took place it is "presumed" that by asking him to fill your tank you are agreeing to pay him the full price for however much gas it takes to fill the tank.
Typically such "implicit" contracts come about by way of local custom and if you don't know the local customs then too bad - ignorance of the law is no exception, as they used to say. Read the tourist brochure before you go. In practice, most of these customs are just plain common sense and so there is very rarely ever any real debate over the matter.
In your case, for example, it could be argued that it would have been "reasonable" for you to verify in advance that the meatball genuinely was free, if it could reasonably be supposed that this might not be the case. As such, by eating the meatball you've been somewhat disingeneous and it would hardly be a travesty of justice if, under local custom, you were asked to pay for the meatball.
The thing about local customs (the great thing) is that they are NOT set by some little mini hitler central controller... rather they come about by way of mutual agreement on the part of individuals behaving in accordance with what they believe to be fair and reasonable. You don't get to force other people to behave one way or another because you're a Machiavellian puteteer - you get to treat everyone else with respect and that means respecting their personal freedoms and the customs which form the law of the land (typically that implies respect for private property since this is one of the first things that most communities agree is reasonable - the communities that don't do this fail pretty early on and so the extent of their lands is but a legend and thus the boundaries in which their laws apply are nowhere to be found).
JCFolsom: AndrewKemendo:It is almost impossible to take this case past this context because I know of only a few contracts which were such that the parties did not understand the terms - but the logic is the same (the only one I know is the Maori people and the English explorers in New Zealand - however that was malicious on the part of the UK). What really brought this up was a discussion of limited liability in corporations. I say that a corporation, the ones who want an unusual condition, must get an explicit contract from everyone who does business with them, at least the first time, in which the customer agrees to limited liability. Others say that if the info is available anywhere, the onus lies on the customer.
AndrewKemendo:It is almost impossible to take this case past this context because I know of only a few contracts which were such that the parties did not understand the terms - but the logic is the same (the only one I know is the Maori people and the English explorers in New Zealand - however that was malicious on the part of the UK).
What really brought this up was a discussion of limited liability in corporations. I say that a corporation, the ones who want an unusual condition, must get an explicit contract from everyone who does business with them, at least the first time, in which the customer agrees to limited liability. Others say that if the info is available anywhere, the onus lies on the customer.
Right, so who cares what the others say if they are errant?
If the information is available elsewhere, such as information about a medical procedure, but I cant understand it because I am not a doctor or if it is not easily accessible then it is useless. It is beyond unreasonable to think we can know everything about everything - which is why we have specialization and regulation. In a free market we would undoubtedly rely on independent free bodies that we would trust to verify quality of our goods and services such as angieslist.com. In this case the consumer has abdicated the responsibility of his knowledge onto a third party varifier which he or she trusts.
While I certainly agree that there is shared responsibility in knowing what you are getting into, the responsibility mostly lies with the businessman, not the individual as they are clearly not the expert, to explicate the terms of any contract. However with the advent of widespread information on the internet - it is making it harder to make the case against sleazy business people as illegitimately duping people. The case I cite is that of the Adjustable Rate Morgage - the buyer is not responsibility free in this case because the information is available and ubiquitous.
Certainly tricky. If you are looking for a hard and fast rule here which is satisfying, let me prepare you now for disappointment.
JCFolsom: What really brought this up was a discussion of limited liability in corporations. I say that a corporation, the ones who want an unusual condition, must get an explicit contract from everyone who does business with them
What really brought this up was a discussion of limited liability in corporations. I say that a corporation, the ones who want an unusual condition, must get an explicit contract from everyone who does business with them
That would be painfully time consuming and costly for the vast majority of businesses that deal directly with consumers - what an unecessary burden to FORCE on both businesses and customers when implicit contracts work just fine. Providing the business makes it clear that their liability is limited (e.g. by calling themselves Widgets Ltd. and putting the word "Limited" on their business cards, their signs and their invoices) I really don't see the problem.
AndrewKemendo: While I certainly agree that there is shared responsibility in knowing what you are getting into, the responsibility mostly lies with the businessman, not the individual as they are clearly not the expert, to explicate the terms of any contract. However with the advent of widespread information on the internet - it is making it harder to make the case against sleazy business people as illegitimately duping people. The case I cite is that of the Adjustable Rate Morgage - the buyer is not responsibility free in this case because the information is available and ubiquitous. Certainly tricky. If you are looking for a hard and fast rule here which is satisfying, let me prepare you now for disappointment.
How about this: caveat emptor.
What IS completely unreasonable is to try to make me responsible for your lack of knowledge. In certain cases, yes it is reasonable to ask the merchant to disclose knowledge that only they can know (e.g. whether their business has limited liability or not - this is relevant to any dealings you have with the business and will change the nature of the contract that you form with them in doing business with them).
However it is entirely up to the customer taking out a loan contract to understand the terms of that contract. If you're going to borrow $200k from someone, the least you can do is read the contract and get a dictionary or ask a legal expert if you have any questions. It's not like adjustable rate mortgages were invented yesterday - they've been around for as long as I've been alive and probably since well before that... although I'd always heard these referred to as floating (as opposed to fixed rate) mortgages.
Marko: JCFolsom: Not for my sake. For theirs. I have no motivation to obey your "implicit contracts" beyond your ability to use force, and, given that I, too, might have at my disposal a certain amount of force, and since I do not believe your "implicit contracts" to have any rightful hold on me, I would gladly use it if you tried to force me. I don't much care about your claims to arbitrary rights in your ridiculous property-based fiefdoms. But, then, my concept of property is not so absolute as yours, which is carried to an extreme and ridiculous degree. LOL, tough guy. Here is another implicit contract for you. If you have no intention of obeying local custom, do not come to town. Do not feel yourself welcome. You will be expelled or lynched. Rightfully so.Should the Amish post giant "don`t take pictures of me" signs or else you can photograph them at their place? Pay the girlscouts the 5 cents for the lemmonade you had and stop making a scene. There is no free lunch. You are a Randian, you should know that.
JCFolsom: Not for my sake. For theirs. I have no motivation to obey your "implicit contracts" beyond your ability to use force, and, given that I, too, might have at my disposal a certain amount of force, and since I do not believe your "implicit contracts" to have any rightful hold on me, I would gladly use it if you tried to force me. I don't much care about your claims to arbitrary rights in your ridiculous property-based fiefdoms. But, then, my concept of property is not so absolute as yours, which is carried to an extreme and ridiculous degree.
Not for my sake. For theirs. I have no motivation to obey your "implicit contracts" beyond your ability to use force, and, given that I, too, might have at my disposal a certain amount of force, and since I do not believe your "implicit contracts" to have any rightful hold on me, I would gladly use it if you tried to force me. I don't much care about your claims to arbitrary rights in your ridiculous property-based fiefdoms. But, then, my concept of property is not so absolute as yours, which is carried to an extreme and ridiculous degree.
LOL, tough guy. Here is another implicit contract for you. If you have no intention of obeying local custom, do not come to town. Do not feel yourself welcome. You will be expelled or lynched. Rightfully so.Should the Amish post giant "don`t take pictures of me" signs or else you can photograph them at their place? Pay the girlscouts the 5 cents for the lemmonade you had and stop making a scene. There is no free lunch. You are a Randian, you should know that.
Wait a second. LYNCHED? That violates the NAP. I shouldn't have to explain why arbitrary lynching mobs violates the NAP.
JCFolsom: liberty student:Don't do that to yourself. You're better than that. Dude, I like you too, alright, but I follow where my reasoning leads. Have you ever actually read Studies in Mutualist Political Economy? Your least kewl aspect is a very reactionary tone against the left. You hate Brainpolice, so far as I can tell, and as he himself will tell you, I've moved to the left of him. Now, maybe your dislike for him is for more than just his leaning, I dunno, but I also don't see that you can react to lefterer opinions without an automatic hostility. So, don't tie me down with your hangups, man. I dislike some of Carson's connections, too. I think he's far too comfortable with actual de facto state socialists. That said, mutualism itself is more consistent, I believe, with a true and logical application of the concept of self-ownership than is Austrian economic theory, at least as put forward here.
liberty student:Don't do that to yourself. You're better than that.
Dude, I like you too, alright, but I follow where my reasoning leads. Have you ever actually read Studies in Mutualist Political Economy? Your least kewl aspect is a very reactionary tone against the left. You hate Brainpolice, so far as I can tell, and as he himself will tell you, I've moved to the left of him. Now, maybe your dislike for him is for more than just his leaning, I dunno, but I also don't see that you can react to lefterer opinions without an automatic hostility. So, don't tie me down with your hangups, man. I dislike some of Carson's connections, too. I think he's far too comfortable with actual de facto state socialists. That said, mutualism itself is more consistent, I believe, with a true and logical application of the concept of self-ownership than is Austrian economic theory, at least as put forward here.
Yes, LS's hatred and double standards is a funny thing. But you're correct: technically I'm economically to your "right".
The issue is, on this forum, the guys on the left describe themselves based on the political spectrum, and most of them are again, angry young men who have never built or owned anything. Who have never had to manage, care for, and work with their fellow employees but from the position of the owner or manager. In the theoretical world of blogs and the echo chamber of the ALL, agorism sounds wonderful. In a world with 6 or 8 billion people, many of whom see the state as a liberator and populist tool, trading organic tomatoes for pot, or making wood carvings in your garage isn't going to cut it. It's wonderful idealism. It's practically naive. Which is probably the +/- of being young.
An endless series of personalizations, ad homs and cultural cliches. And overall - outright misrepresentations. Way to go rational argumentation! Hoppe would scold you for such poor argumentation ethics.
nhaag: Marko:I would say it is actually a question of wether limited liability is common knowledge or not. Who is to decide what "common knowledge" is? And how does this "common knowledge" replace natural rights? I don't get the sense behind the whole discussion. There are no implicit contracts in the understanding of liberalism. A contract is always explicit. Whatever a cooperation offers to exchange is a question of the cooperation. If a cooperation decides that it offers a certain item without any warrenty, than it is free to do so. On the other hand it is up to the buyer to understand under what terms he buys and what kind of property right is handed over through the exchange. What kind of liabilities are limited in a Ltd.? Answer: Liabilities that are pressed onto them by state regulations. It is those liabilities a Ltd. wants to avoid. As I said, I don't get the point. In a perfect free market there are no cooperations in the sense we have them today, being artificial structures set up by state regulations and licensed to act in a certain way.
Marko:I would say it is actually a question of wether limited liability is common knowledge or not.
Who is to decide what "common knowledge" is? And how does this "common knowledge" replace natural rights?
I don't get the sense behind the whole discussion.
There are no implicit contracts in the understanding of liberalism. A contract is always explicit. Whatever a cooperation offers to exchange is a question of the cooperation. If a cooperation decides that it offers a certain item without any warrenty, than it is free to do so. On the other hand it is up to the buyer to understand under what terms he buys and what kind of property right is handed over through the exchange.
What kind of liabilities are limited in a Ltd.? Answer: Liabilities that are pressed onto them by state regulations. It is those liabilities a Ltd. wants to avoid.
As I said, I don't get the point. In a perfect free market there are no cooperations in the sense we have them today, being artificial structures set up by state regulations and licensed to act in a certain way.
I fully agree. Contracts must be explicit. More generally: consent must be explicit. If we accept an open-ended notion of "implicit consent" - welcome to the social contract all over again!
JCFolsom: Stranger:The law of the land is the law. The customs apply within the context of a specific property. If you are on your property, your customs apply. If you are on someone else's, you had better make sure you know what you are engaging in. Hmm. . . interesting. How is it determined whose land it is? Must it be marked all around? Must its designated entrances have its laws posted? How far does your "my land, right or wrong" principle go?
Stranger:The law of the land is the law. The customs apply within the context of a specific property. If you are on your property, your customs apply. If you are on someone else's, you had better make sure you know what you are engaging in.
Hmm. . . interesting. How is it determined whose land it is? Must it be marked all around? Must its designated entrances have its laws posted? How far does your "my land, right or wrong" principle go?
Far enough to justify statism all over again via propertarian rhetoric. It's "America, Love It Or Leave It" all over again.
Stranger: JCFolsom: Stranger:The law of the land is the law. The customs apply within the context of a specific property. If you are on your property, your customs apply. If you are on someone else's, you had better make sure you know what you are engaging in. Hmm. . . interesting. How is it determined whose land it is? Must it be marked all around? Must its designated entrances have its laws posted? How far does your "my land, right or wrong" principle go? What the hell kind of question is that?
What the hell kind of question is that?
A perfectly legitimate question. How far does it go? What if your "custom" is that you can murder people? What if your "custom" is that, as soon as you enter my property, I can beat the shit out of you for no good reason? Confiscate all of your belongings? Rape you? You're my defacto slave? Lock you in my dungeon?
Hence why I argue that property rights does not grant 100% absolute authority over others. The alternative is frankly outright psychopathic and it should not be hard to see why it violates the NAP. This actually really has nothing to do with left-right issues and everything to do with a coherant libertarian definition of rights and aggression.
"Custom", "Tradition" and even "Property" cannot be placed ABOVE the NAP and self-ownership. As far as I understand libertarianism, it's the other way around: they must be contextual to the NAP and self-ownership. The NAP and self-ownership is to function as a meta-ethical principle prior to the question of laws and systems.
Brainpolice: Wait a second. LYNCHED? That violates the NAP. I shouldn't have to explain why arbitrary lynching mobs violates the NAP.
Marko: Brainpolice: Wait a second. LYNCHED? That violates the NAP. I shouldn't have to explain why arbitrary lynching mobs violates the NAP. Don`t be such a patsy. Lynching is fun. Try it sometime. And who said anything about arbitrary anyway?
Your statement still confuses me. Lynching? Are you really argueing that if I don't abide by a given town's customs (and I'm not initiating force against anyone, or stealing anyone's stuff, or engaging in any real negative rights violation against anyone), suddenly I lose my right to life and can be lynched? I would hope you don't think that. From my observations, you've usually been pretty good about avoiding taking positions like this.
No that is not what I am talking about at all. If you will recall the guy in the starting post did steal a meatball.Fact is you can be from a place where people voluntarily give up some of their rights. For example you can be from a place where fathers won`t mind if you seduce their 14 or 15 year old daughters. That doesn`t mean you get to pull the same tricks in a place where they do mind. So you better do not enter with a mind to defy local custom.
Marko: No that is not what I am talking about at all. If you will recall the guy in the starting post did steal a meatball. Fact is you can be from a place where people voluntarily give up some of their rights. For example you can be from a place where fathers won`t mind if you seduce their 14 or 15 year old daughters. That doesn`t mean you get to pull the same tricks in a place where they do mind. So you better do not enter with a mind to defy local custom.
No that is not what I am talking about at all. If you will recall the guy in the starting post did steal a meatball. Fact is you can be from a place where people voluntarily give up some of their rights. For example you can be from a place where fathers won`t mind if you seduce their 14 or 15 year old daughters. That doesn`t mean you get to pull the same tricks in a place where they do mind. So you better do not enter with a mind to defy local custom.
So, if there is a place where people live in "voluntary" slavery and the custom is to be enslaved by blinking 3 times with the right eye within 30 seconds, does that mean I can be enslaved rightfully?
The whole discussion is still absurd. Law of the land, customs etc. can not be a replacement for anything. If so we are back to step one and have to agree that collectivistic groupthink is a valid source of laws.
Stealing the meatball, and it was theft, regardless whether he was aware of it or not, is a crime. Where is the issue? A second question is what a proper compensation for this crime might be. Again, this quesion has nothing to do with law of the land, but with what has to be done to compensate the victim.
At this point no third parties, like society, judges etc. are involved until the aggressor and the victim do not come to consent about the compensation or even no compensation at all. Only if they can not agree, arbitration is a way to solve the conflict. Who the arbitrator will be is again solely in the decission of the involved parties.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Yes consent is the general term I agree
Brainpolice:I fully agree. Contracts must be explicit. More generally: consent must be explicit. If we accept an open-ended notion of "implicit consent" - welcome to the social contract all over again!
The problem with the social contract is not that it is implicit but rather that it begs the question and is logically absurd. You can't escape implicit contracts, any time you enter a store or even enter the property of somebody else you make one.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:I fully agree. Contracts must be explicit. More generally: consent must be explicit. If we accept an open-ended notion of "implicit consent" - welcome to the social contract all over again! The problem with the social contract is not that it is implicit but rather that it begs the question and is logically absurd. You can't escape implicit contracts, any time you enter a store or even enter the property of somebody else you make one.
The problem with the social contradict is both that it begs the question and that it is implicit. The notion of the social contract, as traditionally concieved, inherently relies on a concept of implicit consent - that by mere virtue of living in a certain geographical area (or by mere virtue of paying your taxes or voting), you "implicitly" consent to the state. The social contract myth is logically absurd precisely because of its notion of implicit consent.
But even if we do assume legitimacy in ownership, the argument would still not apply that one implicitly consents to literally whatever the owner does (I pointed out why this risks violating the NAP well enough in my post above; for example, if you enter my home, you do not "implicitly consent" to me beating you up or killing or enslaving you if I decide to do so). Key phrase: literally whatever the owner does (I.E. regaurdless of the context of self-ownership and the NAP).
So no, your attempt to separate the social contract problem from the issue of implicit consent fails. The principle of the matter that delegitimizes the social contract doesn't magically not apply when the question is shifted to any other organization or piece of property. Merely working with a smaller sized territory does not magically make the social contract and love it or leave it argument become legitimate, because the principle of the matter remains and is qualatative, not quantative in nature.
GilesStratton:You can't escape implicit contracts, any time you enter a store or even enter the property of somebody else you make one.
I think there is a challenge regarding the term contract. Either a contract is a consensual agreement to exchange or it is any form of human interaction. If it is the later, human interaction that is, we don't need the term contract, as we have a better term for it -interaction that is. Usually to have a term for a specific part of a category means that the term is used for this part and includes being as well part of the categroy itself.
In short, a contract is a spefic form of human interaction that aims on the exchange of goods, hence change in property in some way or another. Tresspassing is not a violation of a contract but rather a violation of property rights. So each time you enter the property of someone else you might indeed aggress, but you did not agree to a contract or brake one for that matter, because no contract exists. It is a defining attribute that distinguishes a contract from interaction that it is explicit. An implicit contract is like non frozen icecream.
nhaag: So, if there is a place where people live in "voluntary" slavery and the custom is to be enslaved by blinking 3 times with the right eye within 30 seconds, does that mean I can be enslaved rightfully?
Obviously you haven`t got a clue what I was saying. Maybe you ought to re-read it, eh?
nhaag:Stealing the meatball, and it was theft, regardless whether he was aware of it or not, is a crime. Where is the issue? A second question is what a proper compensation for this crime might be. Again, this quesion has nothing to do with law of the land, but with what has to be done to compensate the victim.
For something to be a crime, you must violate another's rights either negligently or with intent. If an exploding transformer blows me onto your lawn, I have not tresspassed because it was not my action which caused me to be on your lawn. Likewise, if I have your meatball because you put it in my hand, I have not stolen it. You stole from yourself, as it were, by assuming I'd know about and agree to your nonsensical "implied" contract. If there is any theft here, it comes from your negligence, not mine.
Marko:Fact is you can be from a place where people voluntarily give up some of their rights. For example you can be from a place where fathers won`t mind if you seduce their 14 or 15 year old daughters. That doesn`t mean you get to pull the same tricks in a place where they do mind. So you better do not enter with a mind to defy local custom.
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."
Juan:Hint : people at 14 can do whatever they please. Conservatives and their 'local customs' please go...somewhere else. Oh, and I suppose that 'local custom' is OK when forced upon the local dissidents because, well, they can either love it or leave it ?
Marko:LOL? "Dissidents"?
Marko:Stateless society without pluralism is another name for perpetual war.
It`s the only thing that makes stateless society possible without the requirement to first eradicate all interpretations of natural law and to brainwash people on a massive scale.
Juan: Marko:LOL? "Dissidents"? Yes, dissidents. People born in nation X who don't care for the customs of some other people who happen to live in nation X. Marko:Stateless society without pluralism is another name for perpetual war. Your usage of the word pluralism strikes me as odd. To me pluralism entails not lynching people who don't respect arbitrary local custom. Local customs and nationalism do not, at all, trump natural law...If you want to stay within the bounds of libertarianism, that is. So, if I happen to violate your local customs without violating the NAP, then you have zero recourse against me. Pluralism means that you realize that's the case and don't make a fuss. It`s the only thing that makes stateless society possible without the requirement to first eradicate all interpretations of natural law and to brainwash people on a massive scale. I disagree. People respecting natural rights is not the same thing as people abiding by revealed socialist law, or revealed nationalist law, or revealed theocratic law, or any other form of coercive or even 'voluntary' collectivism. The idea that respect for individual rights requires brainwashing is...a bit orwellian.
Sex with a 14 year old is aggression in my book as is abortion,
No I am worse because Giles is a conservative and as such is always on the defensive. You`re only used with dealing with folks always on the retreat before ethical decadence.
Juan: Learn to mind your own business and then try to play the libertarian game.
Learn to keep your fingers of my daughter. Or you will lose them.
Marko:Sex with a 14 year old is aggression in my book as is abortion, but is not neccesarily in yours. But if you insist on only one interpretation then there is going to be a war and we are going to win it.
But if you insist on only one interpretation then there is going to be a war and we are going to win it.
But there is only one correct interpretation! All your bluster will not change what it is, nor will your war, even if you win. And, an age of 14 used to be a fairly common age to get married. A 14-year-old is a biological adult, most of the time. You need a better justification than chronological time to justify treating having sex with a 14-year-old as aggression.
Moral relativism is truly a disgusting doctrine, as your little rant here shows. It doesn't increase tolerance as it is often sold, but rather gives free rein to local bigotry and aggression. You are no libertarian, who thinks that aggression is solely relative to the local culture.
Marko:No I am worse because Giles is a conservative and as such is always on the defensive. You`re only used with dealing with folks always on the retreat before ethical decadence.
Wow. That is awesome. You are completely bugnuts.
Tell me, if the majority of people in a country support the governement's actions, does that mean its actions are no longer aggression? How large a group defines aggression? In how large an area? You poo-pooed dissidents, before, so clearly you think majority rules. Sounds to me like you're a believer in nationalist democracy, not anarchy.
JCFolsom: But there is only one correct interpretation! All your bluster will not change what it is, nor will your war, even if you win. And, an age of 14 used to be a fairly common age to get married.
But there is only one correct interpretation! All your bluster will not change what it is, nor will your war, even if you win. And, an age of 14 used to be a fairly common age to get married.
JCFolsom: Moral relativism is truly a disgusting doctrine, as your little rant here shows. It doesn't increase tolerance as it is often sold, but rather gives free rein to local bigotry and aggression. You are no libertarian, who thinks that aggression is solely relative to the local culture.
JCFolsom: Tell me, if the majority of people in a country support the governement's actions, does that mean its actions are no longer aggression? How large a group defines aggression? In how large an area? You poo-pooed dissidents, before, so clearly you think majority rules. Sounds to me like you're a believer in nationalist democracy, not anarchy.
Next time when you ask for a clarification refrain from putting words into my mouth as you do it and perhaps I will oblige.
Marko:With the consent of the parents.
Why? The parents don't own their offspring. You need the 14-year-old's consent, not the parents. You are just puritanical because you have a daughter and you don't like the fact that guys are gonna wanna plow her.
Marko:Moral relativism my arse.
How is it not moral relativism to say that the NAP is only valid as interpreted by local custom?
JCFolsom: How is it not moral relativism to say that the NAP is only valid as interpreted by local custom?
I did not say that. You put that into my mouth.There is only one NAP. And there is only one valid interpretation. = Moral Absolutism. I could not agree more with this.But I find my interpretation to be that one which is only valid just as you find your own interpretation to be that one which is only valid. I do not feel less intentely about my understanding. I just recognise the fact that people who disagree with me do not feel less intentely about theirs either.
JCFolsom:Why? The parents don't own their offspring. You need the 14-year-old's consent, not the parents
JCFolsom: You are just puritanical because you have a daughter and you don't like the fact that guys are gonna wanna plow her.
Marko:No, you need consents of both.
Why?
JCFolsom: Marko:No, you need consents of both. Why?
Because a 14 year old is fit to manage himself to some degree, but is not jet fit to make a decision of this sort solely on his own.
That was the position of most societies through most of the history and it was actually you who brought up historical precedant so don`t blame me.
BTW, I didn`t poo-poo dissidents. I was being amused by Juan`s hypocrisy and double standards. He cares deeply about "dissidents" in ethical communities, but is ever silent on "dissidents" (and worse victims from my point of view) in decadent communities. In fact he fails to acknowledge there even can be such a phenomenon.
Marko:Because a 14 year old is fit to manage himself to some degree, but is not jet fit to make a decision of this sort solely on his own. That was the position of most societies through most of the history and it was actually you who brought up historical precedant so don`t blame me.
I cannot blame you for the origins, but I can for your subscription to that view. I should also point out that it was the position of most societies that women were inferior and sort of semi-property at least, and that moderate beatings of your wife were expected and healthy. Just because a view is old doesn't mean it's worth a hill of beans. We have to look at each one and see if it's justifiable through a logical approach to ethics.
If I am in a club, and a woman looks like a woman, all secondary sex characteristics definitely in place, then she is a woman, and I am not obligated to check her ID for whether she's of whatever arbitrary age you set for adulthood before we get bizaaaah! Ages are just numbers, man. I've not yet come up with a reason why the NAP should not apply just as much to children as anyone else. Not everyone was hit as a kid, and not all the people who weren't turned out to be useless. You don't own your kids, so you have no power over what agreements I make with them. You have only the economic consequences you can rightfully impose on your kids.
Marko:I made fun of Juan`s hypocrisy and double standards.
He cares deeply about "dissidents" in ethical communities,
but is ever silent on "dissidents" (and worse victims from my point of view) in decadent communities
Juan: "ethical communities" ? Such as ?
"decadent communities" ? For instance ?
Yeah, don't you get the impression that for Marko, "ethical communities" are those which accept the use of force against those who are "decadent" in their behavior, even if they aggress against nobody, and "decadent communities" are those that *gasp* don't try to hurt people for pleasure-seeking?
Marko:Here is another implicit contract for you. If you have no intention of obeying local custom, do not come to town. Do not feel yourself welcome. You will be expelled or lynched. Rightfully so.
Marko: JCFolsom: Marko:No, you need consents of both. Why? Because a 14 year old is fit to manage himself to some degree, but is not jet fit to make a decision of this sort solely on his own. That was the position of most societies through most of the history and it was actually you who brought up historical precedant so don`t blame me. BTW, I didn`t poo-poo dissidents. I was being amused by Juan`s hypocrisy and double standards. He cares deeply about "dissidents" in ethical communities, but is ever silent on "dissidents" (and worse victims from my point of view) in decadent communities. In fact he fails to acknowledge there even can be such a phenomenon.
I'm sorry, but who the fuck are you to make this sort of statement.
I hereby declare, from my position as supreme overlord of you lesser beings, that you, a <insert your age here> year-old, are fit to manage yourself to some degree, but are not yet fit to make a decision of this sort soley on your own. So, from now on, I have arbitrarily decided that you are not allowed to have sex, nor partake in certain substances which I have again, arbitrarily decided. Furthermore, if you "get out of line" I hold the power to ration out beatings at my arbitrary discretion. You, obviously, have no recourse because I am your master and you are my slave.
You're some kind of anarchist.