Economics Questions

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

liberty student — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:27:04 GMT

I relent. It is pointless.

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

Knight_of_BAAWA — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:14:17 GMT

Ok. All of this is going to end. NOW. You want to have the same debate over and over? Take it to private message. Period.

This WILL be enforced.

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

Juan — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:01:49 GMT

LS:
Morals are subjective.

We are trying to get at what is 'right' and what is 'wrong', no ? nirgrahamUK said as much. Whether we call this field morality, ethics, or any other name, is not the point. Now, are you saying that what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is dictated by subjective preference ? Right and wrong have nothing to do with natural law ? Or maybe there's not such a thing as natural law, and 'rights' are just whims that a bunch of lawyers come up with ?

People don't have a "right to not be killed". As self-owners, they have a right for their property (their body) not to be aggressed against.

That's just a different wording. Anyway, why do self-owners own their bodies ? You realize that saying that a self-owner owns himself is just circular logic, no ?

But let's use your terms. Self-owners own their bodies, so one should not damage or destroy these bodies because bodies are 'private property'. (but why should private property be respected ?? oh, never mind)

The question, of course, remains : HOW does a trespasser lose ownership of his/her body ?

See that's just silly. Now you're making it personal again and avoiding the direct argument.

Frankly, I don't see why. You complain about subjectivism and then the next thing you say is that morals are subjective. If morals are subjective, then, IMO, so are rights and the whole discussion is pointless. And besides, if morals/rights are subjective, you've refuted your own defense of the landowner's right to kill trespassers.

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

liberty student — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:13:04 GMT

Juan:
The thing is, rights are based on moral values. There's a "right to not be killed" because killing is morally wrong.

Morals are subjective. They differ, person to person, culture to culture etc. No one can live "morally" unless it is by his own personal code, because there are simply too many variations for an individual to account for every time they take an action.

People don't have a "right to not be killed". As self-owners, they have a right for their property (their body) not to be aggressed against.

Juan:

Really, this is a subjectivist approach.
Your is, yes.

See that's just silly. Now you're making it personal again and avoiding the direct argument. Which is why this discussion never progresses.

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

Juan — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:35:11 GMT

LS:
Killing in self-defense is not wrong, or is it?

If by self-defense you mean stopping a lethal threat, no it is not wrong.

Should one pursue pacifism?

If one wants to...

It is hard, because you continue to assert that your values which coincidentally are similar to my values, are the basis for rights.

The thing is, rights are based on moral values. There's a "right to not be killed" because killing is morally wrong.

On the other hand, saying that rights are based on 'objective' lines on the ground doesn't really make rights objective.

Actually it begs the question of the origin of those more conventional(for lack of a better word) property rights.

So, I wonder if you really understand the problem at hand.

Really, this is a subjectivist approach.

Your is, yes.

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

liberty student — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:28:37 GMT

Juan:
Because killing people is wrong.

Killing in self-defense is not wrong, or is it? Should one pursue pacifism?

Juan:
Realizing that is what makes us civilized.

I think restraint and compassion make us civilized.

Juan:
Any more quibbling ?

It is hard, because you continue to assert that your values which coincidentally are similar to my values, are the basis for rights. Which is all well and good, until we encounter someone with different values, who also believes that their value system comprises the basis for rights.

Really, this is a subjectivist approach. It's similar in argument, after argument after argument here. Everyone wants to insist that their value system is the correct one, and when someone like me tries to argue for value neutrality, somehow I am the bad guy for being open minded.

So yeah, there is still quibbling, but do you feel today is any different than yesterday, or the last 300 days, in that we might actually make some progress in the discussion, by removing your personal value judgments from the discussion? I'm not holding my breath.

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

Juan — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:34:12 GMT

Indeed.

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

hayekianxyz — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:21:30 GMT

Juan:
GIlesStratton:
I'm curious, if person A says to person B, jokingly, "if you do X, you're so dead", can person B put a bullet in A's brain ?
I don't think so. I'm not sure what you're getting at, though. Anyway, unless A is really threatening B's life, how can A be justified in using violence ?

That given that it's not always clear when somebody is initiating aggression if you disregard proportionality then things will be very "messy" for lack of a better word.

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

Juan — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:02:34 GMT

Because killing people is wrong. Realizing that is what makes us civilized. "To believe otherwise, is uncivilized." -- Any more quibbling ?

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

liberty student — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:52:33 GMT

Juan:
To respect the right to life of a trespasser is NOT a positive obligation. Now, go back to square one.

is it an obligation at all? If so, why?

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

Juan — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:27:52 GMT

GIlesStratton:
I'm curious, if person A says to person B, jokingly, "if you do X, you're so dead", can person B put a bullet in A's brain ?

I don't think so. I'm not sure what you're getting at, though. Anyway, unless A is really threatening B's life, how can A be justified in using violence ?

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

Juan — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:05:56 GMT

LS:
The trespasser, doesn't place a positive obligation on the property owner by aggressing against him. To believe otherwise, is uncivilized.

Liberty Student, a lot of your posts offer me an annoying choice. Do I waste time replying to your ridiculous misrepresentations or not ? In this case I will :

To respect the right to life of a trespasser is NOT a positive obligation. Now, go back to square one.

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

Juan — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:04:43 GMT

Daniel Waite:
Specifically in what I quoted of NUK's, what's a lie?

Yes, I should have worded that one better. But I didn't feel like editing it. What I mean is that NUK's 'answers' answer nothing. He knows that if he gives an honest answer he will undermine his point so he 'lies'. Technically it's not a lie. It's evasion...or something.

In a free society, I don't HAVE to serve you candy if I don't want to. Beautiful, isn't it?

Yeah. Who said otherwise ?

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

liberty student — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:35:00 GMT

Daniel Waite:
what's a lie? Life isn't fair. In a free society, I don't HAVE to serve you candy if I don't want to.

See my last post. I've butted heads with Juan on this many times. He really believes that conflict won't arise, can't arise because a libertarian society, always follows the NAP.

Also, in a free society, people won't serve people they don't like. They will fire warning shot at strangers standing in their yard. They will release their dogs to play on their property, if there is a stranger in the back yard, and they will not call the dogs off if they attack a trespasser.

As it should be. The trespasser, doesn't place a positive obligation on the property owner by aggressing against him. To believe otherwise, is uncivilized.

Re: Brainpolice's statements in "You are free to leave..."

liberty student — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:33:48 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

its almost like you know less about libertarianism than you did when we started

Juan has been making it up as he goes for a long time. It's all his preferences, and a society that follows libertarian values without conflict, which is why his ever mentioning PDAs is laughable. Juan believes that a "libertarian society" will include stepford people who follow the NAP without question or conflict. It's as utopian as it is naive.