wilderness: Pablo: Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:What they are not, is a mystical force that prevents 'bad' things happening to individuals.As far as I can see, no one is claiming that they are. Could you provide quotes where people here are saying such? I would very much appreciate it so we can see if you're concocting a strawman or not. Of course, we call can see that you are, but I figured I'd be nice here and make some effort. I was asked where rights come from. I wasn't saying any particular person on the forums was saying that. Generally speaking, talking about rights in the abstract lends itself to just that. The only purpose of such is to say what are 'bad' and 'good', while clearly the only person that can determine that is the individual himself. I believe it is much better to allow the individual to choose his 'good' and 'bad' than to attempt to find a 'one size fits all' approach. Voluntary contractual law allows for this. Individually chosen DRO's will account for this. And I will side with the people that are not murderers.
Pablo: Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:What they are not, is a mystical force that prevents 'bad' things happening to individuals.As far as I can see, no one is claiming that they are. Could you provide quotes where people here are saying such? I would very much appreciate it so we can see if you're concocting a strawman or not. Of course, we call can see that you are, but I figured I'd be nice here and make some effort. I was asked where rights come from. I wasn't saying any particular person on the forums was saying that. Generally speaking, talking about rights in the abstract lends itself to just that. The only purpose of such is to say what are 'bad' and 'good', while clearly the only person that can determine that is the individual himself. I believe it is much better to allow the individual to choose his 'good' and 'bad' than to attempt to find a 'one size fits all' approach. Voluntary contractual law allows for this. Individually chosen DRO's will account for this.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:What they are not, is a mystical force that prevents 'bad' things happening to individuals.As far as I can see, no one is claiming that they are. Could you provide quotes where people here are saying such? I would very much appreciate it so we can see if you're concocting a strawman or not. Of course, we call can see that you are, but I figured I'd be nice here and make some effort.
Pablo:What they are not, is a mystical force that prevents 'bad' things happening to individuals.
Of course, we call can see that you are, but I figured I'd be nice here and make some effort.
I was asked where rights come from. I wasn't saying any particular person on the forums was saying that. Generally speaking, talking about rights in the abstract lends itself to just that. The only purpose of such is to say what are 'bad' and 'good', while clearly the only person that can determine that is the individual himself. I believe it is much better to allow the individual to choose his 'good' and 'bad' than to attempt to find a 'one size fits all' approach. Voluntary contractual law allows for this. Individually chosen DRO's will account for this.
And I will side with the people that are not murderers.
Please read some of my other posts to other users on this thread.
E. R. Olovetto:Rothbard, whose position was repeated unthinkably here several times, was wrong on 'voluntary slavery contracts'. See Block: A Libertarian Theory of Inalienability
In the very beginning he fails if it is Rothbard he is trying to disprove:
1) Rothbard contends that slave contracts are perfectly legal. However, the term of service is not in any legal sense binding since it would be literally impossible for me to guarantee that I will never change my mind, no matter how certain I am at the beginning.
2) If, then, the contract transfers title of property of the purchaser (i.e. money from the master to me for my services), then it is a legally binding contract to purchase my labor, and if I take the money and do not provide the labor, I am commiting theft.
hashem: Pablo, did you forget our little talk? I asked you where rights came from. You suggested that, depending on the definition, they are imagined, or that they rely on a contractual agreement. I said "And if I refuse your contract, then what? Do you then have any rights?" [EDIT: Also, how are you getting so many points per post? And if you're getting 20-35 points per post, how is it that I am getting 5 and yet have more points than you with less posts?]
Pablo, did you forget our little talk? I asked you where rights came from.
You suggested that, depending on the definition, they are imagined, or that they rely on a contractual agreement.
I said "And if I refuse your contract, then what? Do you then have any rights?"
[EDIT: Also, how are you getting so many points per post? And if you're getting 20-35 points per post, how is it that I am getting 5 and yet have more points than you with less posts?]
hashem:And if I refuse your contract, then what? Do you then have any rights?"
Read the other posts to other people that I have responded to. I'm pretty sure I answered your question already in this thread. If you refuse the contract, then you are not bound by any of the stipulations in the contract. You are not affected by that particular contract.
The problem comes when someone acts INVOLUNTARILY. They choose involuntarily over voluntarily acting. The person to whom they are violating can then choose any reaction.
Pablo: Juan: The shop owner can try to stop the thief using proportional force - which obviously doesn't include murder. That is an entirely subjective statement.
Juan: The shop owner can try to stop the thief using proportional force - which obviously doesn't include murder.
I am sure you and your DRO can figure out a policy which will fit in perfect for you. How is proportional force measured? Calories burned? Time taken?
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."
You haven't answered the question. I am trying to prove a point, so you have to answer the question directly. Allow me to rephrase:
Me: Where do rights come from?
Pablo: Voluntary agreements.
Me: Suppose I refuse your terms. How would you have rights then?
[EDIT: Logically, it follows that if rights are strictly the result of voluntary contracts, then in the absence of agreement, rights cease to exist. But rights must always exist, or we wouldn't be able to do anything. And since, being humans, we MUST constantly do something (see Human Action or Man Economy and State) then it follows that we have rights, whether we are sure what they are or not. Thus, you have a failed theory of rights, and you need to start from the beginning and learn a valid theory of rights in order to even be able to begin debating rationally in this topic.]
Juan:Haha. You think you made a clever remark ?
Yes.
Juan:edit : force is measured in Newtons [ (kg.m)/s^2 ] - there are other units of course.
So however hard he picked up that bubble gum, is as hard as I can take it back...? Ahah! I think we finally agree. It takes relatively the same amount of force to aim, and pull the trigger!
All kidding aside...
Its really important to realize that proportional force can not be measured, and therefor is irrelevant as a tool for calculating just behavior or actions.
Pablo:I was asked where rights come from. I wasn't saying any particular person on the forums was saying that.
hashem, a post gets more points the more replies it has.
hashem:Me: Suppose I refuse your terms. How would you have rights then?
Define what you mean by rights?
hashem:But rights must always exist, or we wouldn't be able to do anything.
I dont need to have a right in order to act. Rights dont need to exist. Your logic does not follow. I need no authority to act. I am responsible for my actions, but I need no others approval in order to act.
hashem: in order to even be able to begin debating rationally in this topic.
Is that kinda like needing rights in order to act?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Lying is NOT tolerated.
Where did I accuse someone of saying that?
Juan: E. R. Olovetto:Rothbard, whose position was repeated unthinkably here several times, was wrong on 'voluntary slavery contracts'. No, Block is wrong.
E. R. Olovetto:Rothbard, whose position was repeated unthinkably here several times, was wrong on 'voluntary slavery contracts'.
Because? Being vocal isn't an argument. If history is a good indicator I am assuming your argument will be wrong, but I am listening.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:I was asked where rights come from. I wasn't saying any particular person on the forums was saying that.Bull. Lying is NOT tolerated.
I am confused as to what you are accusing me of lying about. Can you show me what you are referencing?
ps. accusing someone of lying without evidence is pretty childish behavior.
Pablo:Its really important to realize that proportional force can not be measured, and therefor is irrelevant as a tool for calculating just behavior or actions.
E. R. Olovetto:Being vocal isn't an argument.
Pablo:Where did I accuse someone of saying that?
Yeah, I can counter every attempt you make to get out of your predicament.
Me: "I wasn't saying any particular person on the forums was saying that."
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yeah, I can counter every attempt you make to get out of your predicament.
What are you saying? If you are intentionally being bothersome, can you please stop.
I'm saying that you're attempting to backpedal after your strawman was noted. Please stop being so dishonest and disingenuous. Thanks.
Juan:So, you bump into somebody, by accident (?). But the guy sees it as aggression - so next thing you know, you are dead.
If you are on property that says this is the law, then yes, he would be within his rights to shoot you. Fortunately for consumers, businesses SERVE the consumer, and more likely than not, won't allow this.
Juan:Or maybe you scratched his car ? You won't complain if the car owner shoots you will you ? I mean, how can we even know you didn't do it on purpose ? Well, you offer to pay damages but the car owner thinks it's better to kill you so that you can't do it again.
Once again, if you are on a road/parking lot thats owner states this is the law, then yes, you should not scratch anyones car. Once again, Business SERVES consumers, so I am not worried about this case taking place. If it does, well, good luck to the owner of that road/parking lot. You are also excluding the human factor from these scenarios. How many people who are willing to shoot someone over a bump or car scratch are really going to give a shit about what the law stipulates? I doubt the first thing that goes through anyones head that gets bumped into is "If I shot this guy, would I go to jail?".
Juan:Hm. Maybe you're sitting at the bar and mistakenly grab another customer's glass ? Or maybe you tried to steal it ? Bang. You're dead.
A beautiful blond walks into a bar, asks the bartender for a long island iced tea. Thirty seconds later, the bartender sets her drink on the counter. A man approaches the woman and taps her on the shoulder, she turns. "Can I get you a drink?", he asks. "Nope, I got one right here" she exclaims picking up her drink. BANG! Shes dead.
ORRRR. The bar owner understands that he needs to serve the customer if he wants to remain in business. The man sitting next to the blond is not insane, and realizes shooting random people just because the law says he can, doesn't mean he wants to.
What do you think about the laws for necrophilia? Do you need a law to make you not have sex with corpses?
Knight_of_BAAWA:I'm saying that you're attempting to backpedal after your strawman was noted. Please stop being so dishonest and disingenuous. Thanks.
There was no strawman. I was simply defining my own term. Thanks for your consideration.
Pablo:If you are on property that says this is the law,
Fortunately for consumers, businesses SERVE the consumer, and more likely than not, won't allow this.
Juan: Pablo: Why would the thief renounce his rights? Who must he renounce this right to? Does initiating violence not announce his want for coercive over voluntary relationships? No it doesn't. At best the thief's actions imply that he doesn't object to petty thievery. But it does not follow that, through the act of stealing bubblegum, the thief has declared that the death penalty and summary executions are morally justified. I know you just want to believe that anybody who engages in any act of coercion can be immediately executed. Oh well. Even the most totalitarian states are usually more civilized than that.
Pablo: Why would the thief renounce his rights? Who must he renounce this right to? Does initiating violence not announce his want for coercive over voluntary relationships?
Juan: Pablo: Why would he? The thief has committed violence (involuntary behavior), which subjects him to involuntary behavior of others in response. Yes, proportionally.
Pablo: Why would he? The thief has committed violence (involuntary behavior), which subjects him to involuntary behavior of others in response.
Juan: Pablo: The criminal who chooses an involuntary relationship over a voluntary relationship should be dealt with as such. Any coercive act done to him is legitimized by the criminals own actions. You are not going to tire of repeating the same baseless assertion no ? Yours is the "appeal-to-broken-record" argument eh ?
Pablo: The criminal who chooses an involuntary relationship over a voluntary relationship should be dealt with as such. Any coercive act done to him is legitimized by the criminals own actions.
Pablo: wilderness: And I will side with the people that are not murderers. Please read some of my other posts to other users on this thread.
wilderness: And I will side with the people that are not murderers.
Well, me doing that isn't helping my perception of what you're saying. I've been reading them and you haven't been clear at all. So I tried to give a new starting point, but you dodged this too.
Pablo, this is an excellent read.
Pablo: hashem:Me: Suppose I refuse your terms. How would you have rights then? Define what you mean by rights? hashem:But rights must always exist, or we wouldn't be able to do anything. I dont need to have a right in order to act. Rights dont need to exist. Your logic does not follow. I need no authority to act. I am responsible for my actions, but I need no others approval in order to act. hashem: in order to even be able to begin debating rationally in this topic. Is that kinda like needing rights in order to act?
Way to avoid everything. If you don't know what rights are, then why are you here talking about them? Rights may be understood as "justified allowances", i.e. "What am I justified in doing?" "What am I allowed to do?" Go to dictionary.com next time you are completely oblivious to the topic you are discussing.
Now, back to the only question worth answering, the one you've been avoiding for so long:
Pablo: From contractual agreements.
Me: And should I refuse your terms? How would you have rights then?
According to you, you don't need a right. All you need is your own permission. But that leads STRAIGHT to the might-is-right abomination which you were arguing against earlier. Perhaps you should get a clue about the topic before you start debating it. You have been confusing yourself for 3 pages of this topic.
Pablo:There was no strawman. I was simply defining my own term. Thanks for your consideration.
You've been warned.
hashem:Way to avoid everything. If you don't know what rights are, then why are you here talking about them? Rights may be understood as "justified allowances", i.e. "What am I justified in doing?" "What am I allowed to do?" Go to dictionary.com next time you are completely oblivious to the topic you are discussing.
This will never end. What does "justified allowances" or "justified to do" or "allowed to do" means?
It already has ended. The words are defined. You can usually learn the definitions by going to a dictionary. Dictionary.com is my favorite. The key is the term JUST. What is "just", you ask? Go find out.
You have a right to do that which you are justified in doing. Pablo doesn't know that.
So in your mind there is no amount of property stolen that would allow for the victim to use deadly force? So forget proportionality because the thief never has to worry about getting killed and if the thief has nothing to begin with then there is no possibility of restitution so we have an environment where stealing is basically unpunished.
Pablo is right on the money. People have to be allowed to decide for themselves what the level of force is they are going to use to protect their property. You are making the typical Austrian arguement against current government in favor of the Austrians making decisions for everyone.
I will side with Pablo and the people who want freedom.
hashem:You have a right to do that which you are justified in doing. Pablo doesn't know that.
So you are right in doing which is justified, and what is justified is doing that which you do when you are in the right?
Great! I completely understand now.
Thanks.
hashem:What is "just", you ask? Go find out.
This debate seems to be going no where. I am asking for a definition of just actions. You can not bring any to the table, because none objectively exist. The only 'rights' are ones that individuals voluntarily agree to by a contract. Rights do not exist in the ether. Rights are not granted. Rights are not derived from some drawn out theory of nature. Rights come from agreements.
hashem:The words are defined. You can usually learn the definitions by going to a dictionary
Words are subjective in nature unless referenced to a standard. I can not claim that 'thats what the word means', I must say 'according to dictionary.com, this is the definition of the word.". In common language, it is generally expected to be the case, but when someone is using a definition that is different from the common usage, it is a good idea for each individual to define it.
hashem:According to you, you don't need a right. All you need is your own permission. But that leads STRAIGHT to the might-is-right abomination which you were arguing against earlier. Perhaps you should get a clue about the topic before you start debating it. You have been confusing yourself for 3 pages of this topic.
It does not lead to 'might-is-right' rights. Contractual agreement between parties will restrict there ability to use involuntary behavior. If there is no contract between them, whoever is acting involuntary opens themself up to the contract with no rights. Plain and simple.
Juan:And we're talking about a system which is not based on geographical boundaries anyway.
Juan:You just keep on assuming that a land owner can dream up any 'law'
I am arguing for geographic boundaries. Are you sure you agree with property rights? Do you want some czar to decide what is proportional, just, right, etc on everyone? Are you accounting for cultural differences? What about language barriers? What about religious viewpoints? What about economic differences? It is difficult enough for a couple people to agree on what is proportional, let alone the entire world. Or wait, you don't care if they agree on it, because the czar enforces 'justice' no matter.
Two people have voluntarily agreed to allow a violent action to settle without punishment. Nooo, that is not proportional according to the czar, is it? Or will it be a committee? A jury panel? What collective do you want to override the contract? What will his punishment be? Do you see how quickly your dream can turn into a nightmare?
Juan:You just keep on assuming that a land owner can dream up any 'law' - but you never explained how owning a plot of land (which is mostly convention) can give to the owner 'legislative power' to override natural law.
His land is a result of his labor and time. He is responsible for his property. He is liable for his property. I don't believe in assigning property by government patent. Property is not given, it is created. His property is as much his own as his body. He need not be concerned with some other 'legislative body' who claims ownership over him. Natural law need not be overriden because, according to dictionary.com, his law is natural law "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society."
Juan:I know you just want to believe that anybody who engages in any act of coercion can be immediately executed. Oh well. Even the most totalitarian states are usually more civilized than that.
The state is the one coercing, so you are incorrect. I myself would not shoot the bubble gum theif, but I would defend the shop keepers right to do so, so again, you are incorrect.
Juan: You never ever proved why 'any' coercive action against a petty criminal is justified.
Yes I have. Let me give you an example which you might be able to understand.
In the United States, there are a set of 'just laws' which you can be punished for. In Mexico, there are another set of these 'just laws', from which you can be punished for as well. When you cross that boundary between the two nation states, you are bound by the laws of the land. You are subject to their laws. Each nation state applies these 'just laws' very differently. How can that be? If there is only one set of 'just laws', why not just eliminate the anarchy between nations as well? The answer is, 'justice' is an entirely subjective value, and therefor can only be decided by each individuals agreement to that which they find as 'just'. You dont escape your fantasy land by claiming it to be objectively true, simply because you are incorrect.
I disagree with setting arbitrary lines to decide which group has which set of laws. South of the Rio Grande there is this set of laws, and north of it, there are these set of laws. This is based on drawing lines on maps, not property. Base it on property, and wah-la, you have a moraly correct, functional, anarchism for the entire world. Unfortunately, people who advocate 'objective justice' are the primary reason we don't have the ability to disagree.
Thanks
Right: 1. "in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct." OR 18. "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please."
"a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please."
Just: 3. "based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim."
Lawful: 2. Constituted or authorized by law; rightful; as, the lawful owner of lands.
Do you see the circular reasoning here? What is just is based on what is right, and what is right is based on what is just. You go absolutely no where. Its just one wild ride of passing the definition off onto other words.
Pablo:If there is no contract between them, whoever is acting involuntary opens themself up to the contract with no rights. Plain and simple.
LOL! How can you act involuntary? Action is NECESSARILY voluntary. Go learn something n00b. You're so done.
And yes, rights come from nature. But you wouldn't know that because you're so lost you couldn't have a clue if you wanted to.
Earth to idiot. Learn a theory of justice. And learn a theory of the origin of rights. Until then, get lost.
hashem: Now, back to the only question worth answering, the one you've been avoiding for so long: Me: Where do rights come from? Pablo: From contractual agreements. Me: And should I refuse your terms? How would you have rights then?
hashem: According to you, you don't need a right. All you need is your own permission. But that leads STRAIGHT to the might-is-right abomination which you were arguing against earlier. Perhaps you should get a clue about the topic before you start debating it. You have been confusing yourself for 3 pages of this topic.
hashem:And yes, rights come from nature. But you wouldn't know that because you're so lost you couldn't have a clue if you wanted to.
From nature, how? Are they harvested? lol
Most people learn a theory of justice, it is just not the libertarian one.
Charles Anthony:Well, according to you, he does not have any rights but your "only question worth answering" no longer matters because he still has the physical ability to act.
Acting - rights = might-is-right = failure.
scineram:Most people learn a theory of justice, it is just not the libertarian one.
Then to that extent they are stagnant, necessarily onconsistent failures.
MaxSlavery:I will side with Pablo and the people who want freedom.
scineram:What does "justified allowances" or "justified to do" or "allowed to do" means?
hashem: LOL! How can you act involuntary? Action is NECESSARILY voluntary. Go learn something n00b. You're so done. And yes, rights come from nature. But you wouldn't know that because you're so lost you couldn't have a clue if you wanted to.
hashem: Earth to idiot. Learn a theory of justice. And learn a theory of the origin of rights. Until then, get lost.
This tone is inappropriate for this community.