liberty student:This tone is inappropriate for this community.
This reminds me of Joe Dirt: "Hey you're talking to my guy all wrong, that's the wrong tone...do it again, I'll stab you in the face with a soldering iron."
Where can I learn this forums rules about tone so as not to violate them again?
hashem:How can you act involuntary?
He is acting coercively. Involuntarily, as in against voluntary contract. Perhaps that was not very clear. Hope that clears things up.
hashem: Earth to idiot. Learn a theory of justice. And learn a theory of the origin of rights. Until then, get lost.
Earth to idiot. Learn a theory of justice. And learn a theory of the origin of rights. Until then, get lost.
That is why I am going to law school.
Juan:ex-cop, ex-soldier
Key prefix- EX.
hashem:Where can I learn this forums rules about tone so as not to violate them again?
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/19.aspx
#2 and #4 in particular.
Pablo:He is acting coercively. Involuntarily, as in against voluntary contract.
What if I refuse your contract? Certainly then you cannot impose it on me "involuntarily" (against my will) without violating your own rule.
Anyway, the society of "each person must have the permission of everyone else in order to do anything" is a failure by default. It can't work. Try again.
hashem: What if I refuse your contract?
Pablo: Key prefix- EX.
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."
liberty student:http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/19.aspx
Those rules are a joke. You can't abide them even if you try! The guy clearly didn't think them through before he wrote them. Take for example #2 "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false"
Pablo failed that test about a 100 times and you haven't warned him. And how is anyone to know whether he really "knows" it is false or not? LOL! I'd like to follow the rules, but nobody can take those seriously, or even follow them, even if they wanted to.
For example: "Debate on their views and positions is allowed and encouraged, but this site may not be used as a forum for...spreading ideas contrary to the well being of the Institute." What constitutes well being??? And how can anyone know if their ideas are contrary to it?
"Healthy debate is encouraged...do not belittle someone else's argument." How can you debate without disproving (and thereby belittling) someone's argument? I could write more coherent rules on mushrooms. In fact I should, just to prove a point.
Charles Anthony: hashem: What if I refuse your contract? In that case, you would be initiating aggression once you step on his property.
What constitutues aggression of property with a coherent theory of property rights, or indeed in the admitted absence of rights whatsoever? Or even/especially without a theory of justice???
Juan: Pablo: Key prefix- EX. No kid, there's no such thing as an ex-murderer.
Please don't call me kid. If you can't maintain an intelligent debate, and not resort to name calling, then I will not continue to respond to you.
Perhaps there is no such thing as an ex-murderer, but there is such thing as an ex-cop and and ex-soldier, which is what I was referring to. There is however a large difference between someone who realizes they are/were in the wrong and changes the way they are acting, and someone who does not. It is a very difficult thing to do, and I give much credit to Juan for achieving this. Perhaps you can take a little knowledge from him, and admit some of the subjective viewpoints that you have been portraying as objective truths. Just a thought.
hashem:What constitutues aggression of property with a coherent theory of property rights, or indeed in the admitted absence of rights whatsoever? Or even/especially without a theory of justice???
I never admitted to any absence of rights whatsoever. That is a strawman. I specifically stated what rights are and where they come from.
I proved that a 'theory of justice' is simply a set of subjective values enforced on others.
hashem:Those rules are a joke.
Regardless of what you think of the rules, they are there. If you participate in this community, abide by them as best you can. If you do not understand the rules, start a thread in the support forum and ask. But just because you hold them in low esteem, does not mean they do not apply to you on this private website.
Pablo: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.
His land is a result of his labor and time.
His property is as much his own as his body.
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."
I myself would not shoot the bubble gum theif,
Pablo: 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.
Juan: You never ever proved why 'any' coercive action against a petty criminal is justified.
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.
Juan: And, of course, you have not proved that non-proportional force is justified.
But that begs the question, "Justified to whom?"
Juan: MaxSlavery:I will side with Pablo and the people who want freedom. Maxie, you are an ex-cop, ex-soldier (i.e. a hired murderer) trying to lecture people on morals...Maybe you don't realize there's something wrong with it (and you)...but of course there is.You don't have a rational argument - that's why you like violence.
MaxSlavery:I will side with Pablo and the people who want freedom.
If one has the right to defend oneself, which hopefully you agree with, then one has the right to defend ones property because the property is just an extension of yourself. It is your energy and labor that created the property. What you are arguing is that the people have no right to defend their property under any circumstances.
So you come home from work one day and some guy is taking a sledge hammer to your house and you are forced to sit and watch because to take action would be an act of aggression against the guy destroying your house. That makes perfect sense.
Juan:Well, justified to anybody interested in universal ethics, human rights and libertarianism, that sort of thing. Obviously right wingers/conservatives/moral nihilists/ex cops might have a different 'subjective opinion'...
I am asking seriously, if restitution and retribution are subjective (I believe they are), then surely it is impossible to arrive at an objective level of proportionality, right?
See, I'm ok with arriving at conventions for punishment and self-defense. But I don't suspect you are. Which is why I am asking, who decides what the objective standard of proportionality is?
Try again without the Ad homs. I'm not being confrontational.
Pablo:Perhaps there is no such thing as an ex-murderer, but there is such thing as an ex-cop and and ex-soldier, which is what I was referring to. There is however a large difference between someone who realizes they are/were in the wrong and changes the way they are acting, and someone who does not.
Perhaps you can take a little knowledge from him, and admit some of the subjective viewpoints that you have been portraying as objective truths. Just a thought.
liberty student: Juan: And, of course, you have not proved that non-proportional force is justified. But that begs the question, "Justified to whom?"
My mortal enemy and I agree on something. 2 more instances and we will be ready for sainthood.
Do you seriously believe that we are going to get everyone in the world to agree on what is proportional?
Juan: Pablo:Perhaps there is no such thing as an ex-murderer, but there is such thing as an ex-cop and and ex-soldier, which is what I was referring to. There is however a large difference between someone who realizes they are/were in the wrong and changes the way they are acting, and someone who does not. Well, but the whole point is that Maxie just keeps on advocating murder (his old job). I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand. He was a criminal and he is still advocating crime. Perhaps you can take a little knowledge from him, and admit some of the subjective viewpoints that you have been portraying as objective truths. Just a thought. No sonny, I don't see why I should pay any attention to Maxie's subjective viewpoints, or yours for that matter.
Please describe the circumstances, if any, where people are allowed to use force to defend their property.
liberty student:I am asking seriously, if restitution and retribution are subjective (I believe they are), then surely it is impossible to arrive at an objective level of proportionality, right ?
MaxLiberty:If one has the right to defend oneself, which hopefully you agree with, then one has the right to defend ones property because the property is just an extension of yourself. It is your energy and labor that created the property. What you are arguing is that the people have no right to defend their property under any circumstances.
Juan:As to fallacies, here's one, chemically pure. MaxLiberty:If one has the right to defend oneself, which hopefully you agree with, then one has the right to defend ones property because the property is just an extension of yourself. It is your energy and labor that created the property. What you are arguing is that the people have no right to defend their property under any circumstances. What I'm arguing is that defense must be proportional. What Max is doing is setting up a straw man...
Please describe the circumstances in general and tell us what is proportional in the bubble gum case.
Also, please tell us how every person will know what is proportional in every case.
Juan:Why is 'restitution' of property subjective whereas, I imagine, property itself is objective ? Restitution is tightly bound to property - restitution can't be a subjective concept which derives from an objective one.
Because value is subjective. We can agree something is property, but not necessarily agree on its value.
Juan:It seems to me that one either wholly embraces moral nihilism/subjectivism, or tries to find a consistent and objective moral system.
I agree, this is tricky stuff.
Juan:Not sure what you mean. Not murdering a petty thief is a 'convention' ?
As a social convention, murder for petty theft could be an unacceptable punishment.
Juan: I think I've done two things. One, made a good deal of rational points.
Except the flame baiting (ex. sonny) I would agree.
Juan:Two, treated people - who I think are arguing for outright murder - in a less-than-polite way.
I think what's happened is what happens in many online debates. Both side move further apart as the debate continues, rather than closer together on understanding. This doesn't always happen in debates, and I would love to be able to pin down why it happens. Anyway, I don't think Max, who is pro-life, is arguing for outright murder.
Pablo on the other hand, I don't know him so well...
Juan:I don't think that my manners invalidate my arguments. IOW there were no ad-homs, but scorn.
I can dig that. Maybe you just need a hug. These arguments can be very frustrating.
Maxliberty: Juan: MaxSlavery:I will side with Pablo and the people who want freedom. Maxie, you are an ex-cop, ex-soldier (i.e. a hired murderer) trying to lecture people on morals...Maybe you don't realize there's something wrong with it (and you)...but of course there is.You don't have a rational argument - that's why you like violence. If one has the right to defend oneself, which hopefully you agree with, then one has the right to defend ones property because the property is just an extension of yourself. It is your energy and labor that created the property. What you are arguing is that the people have no right to defend their property under any circumstances. So you come home from work one day and some guy is taking a sledge hammer to your house and you are forced to sit and watch because to take action would be an act of aggression against the guy destroying your house. That makes perfect sense.
Maxliberty, this is called "moving the goalposts" and exaggerating. The example is a bubblegum thief, not a guy taking a sledge hammer to your house. You can't match the intellectual argument with reason so you pull out fantasy's that never were brought up in the discussion. Stay focused.
wilderness: Maxliberty, this is called "moving the goalposts" and exaggerating. The example is a bubblegum thief, not a guy taking a sledge hammer to your house. You can't match the intellectual argument with reason so you pull out fantasy's that never were brought up in the discussion. Stay focused.
Perhaps you would like to explain then the circumstances, if any , where violence is permissable in the defense of property. The point is simple, nobody can figure out what is going to be proportional. You might think shooting the guy destroying the house is acceptable and others won't. How can we arrive at an objective definition of proportionality in every case?
liberty student:Because value is subjective. We can agree something is property, but not necessarily agree on its value.
Maxliberty: wilderness: Maxliberty, this is called "moving the goalposts" and exaggerating. The example is a bubblegum thief, not a guy taking a sledge hammer to your house. You can't match the intellectual argument with reason so you pull out fantasy's that never were brought up in the discussion. Stay focused. Perhaps you would like to explain then the circumstances, if any , where violence is permissable in the defense of property. The point is simple, nobody can figure out what is going to be proportional. You might think shooting the guy destroying the house is acceptable and others won't. How can we arrive at an objective definition of proportionality in every case?
Never said we could in all cases. But it's obvious to me shooting a bubblegum lad that stole is murder. A guy with an itchy trigger finger that can't handle a lad that stole a piece of bubblegum is more the problem.
Hmm, bubblegum gone
or shooting a lad.
If you can't figure that out, then I think your "subjective" mind lost it's practical wisdom, but that's just me, of course.
wiki:argument[fallacy] from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
MaxLiberty:The point is simple, nobody can figure out what is going to be proportional.
Juan:Yes, but at least for things sold in the market there is a more or less objective value. If you on purpose, or by accident, break stuff which can be replaced for, say, $100, then you're liable for $100 in damages. Make it $200. What's the other option ? That you can be enslaved to the victim for life because the victim claims that his second-hand skateboard is invaluable to him ?
I agree, it is problematic. Which means we might have to rely on a 3rd party to arbitrate compensation. And it might not be objective or please everyone's subjectivity.
Juan:Also, there are situations which don't necessarily involve subjective economic value. Say Smith throws the contents of a glass of beer at Jones. Can Jones kill Smith in retribution ?
This is my point. There is no objective answer. We might have to rely on convention, precedent etc. See, I believe we can't judge intent as clearly as we can judge action. So if someone initiates violence with me, I only know that he has initiated violence, not when or why he will stop. Without needlessly risking myself, I will initiate self-defense that may not be proportional to the violence used against me thus far, but in what I consider to be a sufficient quantity to end the aggression.
I'm just saying, these guys are arguing an extreme, and you are arguing another extreme, and there is probably a lot of reasonable, common ground between both sides, which is where the bulk of these discussions have value, as it will be very rare that someone decides to kill a shoplifter, even if they are protected under law to do so.
liberty student:Which means we might have to rely on a 3rd party to arbitrate compensation. And it might not be objective or please everyone's subjectivity.
liberty student: Juan: Also, there are situations which don't necessarily involve subjective economic value. Say Smith throws the contents of a glass of beer at Jones. Can Jones kill Smith in retribution ? This is my point. There is no objective answer. We might have to rely on convention, precedent etc.
Juan: Also, there are situations which don't necessarily involve subjective economic value. Say Smith throws the contents of a glass of beer at Jones. Can Jones kill Smith in retribution ?
I'm just saying, these guys are arguing an extreme,
and you are arguing another extreme,
and there is probably a lot of reasonable, common ground between both sides,
as it will be very rare that someone decides to kill a shoplifter, even if they are protected under law to do so.
Maxliberty: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.
But then--you're the only one who ever does anything for liberty, right Max?
Juan:as it will be very rare that someone decides to kill a shoplifter, even if they are protected under law to do so. Sounds like a good recipe for abuse, not to mention an attempt, as I said before, at overriding natural law with arbitrary legislation.
I'm not sure I understood this.
The arguments against liberty are that without laws, people may do bad things. We know however that people will do bad things regardless of laws. Laws only punish or regulate the innocent.
If we really believe that shopkeepers will resort to killing bubble gum thieves as a first, second or third option, then there is nothing we can do to stop it. A libertarian society is not possible if that is the natural inclination (and thus convention) in a free society.
As time has gone on, I agree with your on a lot of things Juan, but I think you are still insisting on utopianism. We're going to have shop keepers shoot bubble gum thieves. The question is, will it be right? And that will be the test of our libertarian society. What sort of conventions we adopt to work around our conflicts. The voluntary stuff should come real easy.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty: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.No one said otherwise. What was said was that anything more than a proportional response will be made to answer for it. But then--you're the only one who ever does anything for liberty, right Max?
We have to start from some basic starting point. I start based on property rights can be defended with force. Your position is that the property owner is defenseless to protect his property because violence is by default not proportional.
As far as doing things for liberty...try baby steps...move out of your parents basement first.
wilderness: Maxliberty: wilderness: Maxliberty, this is called "moving the goalposts" and exaggerating. The example is a bubblegum thief, not a guy taking a sledge hammer to your house. You can't match the intellectual argument with reason so you pull out fantasy's that never were brought up in the discussion. Stay focused. Perhaps you would like to explain then the circumstances, if any , where violence is permissable in the defense of property. The point is simple, nobody can figure out what is going to be proportional. You might think shooting the guy destroying the house is acceptable and others won't. How can we arrive at an objective definition of proportionality in every case? Never said we could in all cases. But it's obvious to me shooting a bubblegum lad that stole is murder. A guy with an itchy trigger finger that can't handle a lad that stole a piece of bubblegum is more the problem. Hmm, bubblegum gone or shooting a lad. If you can't figure that out, then I think your "subjective" mind lost it's practical wisdom, but that's just me, of course.
If you can't use violence to protect your property how do you keep people from stealing it?
Maxliberty:We have to start from some basic starting point. I start based on property rights can be defended with force. Your position is that the property owner is defenseless to protect his property
You were saying something about baby steps? Maybe you should take your own advice and not commit basic fallacies, Maxine.
liberty student:The arguments against liberty are that without laws, people may do bad things. We know however that people will do bad things regardless of laws. Laws only punish or regulate the innocent.
If we really believe that shopkeepers will resort to killing bubble gum thieves as a first, second or third option, then there is nothing we can do to stop it.
A libertarian society is not possible if that is the natural inclination (and thus convention) in a free society.
As time has gone on, I agree with your on a lot of things Juan, but I think you are still insisting on utopianism.
We're going to have shop keepers shoot bubble gum thieves. The question is, will it be right?