Political Theory

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

Sam Armstrong — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:42:03 GMT

What if I'm dying of thirst. Don't I have the right to shoot him so that he doesn't drink my water and cause me to die of thirst if he persists in trying to steal it? If I have the right to stop him, I have the right to stop him in all situations. Rights aren't contextual. If you ever make rights contextual, you defeat the purpose of having them, and thus you defeat the purpose of the system. Of course I can share the water, or even sell it to him at a price we agree on. But if we don't agree on the price, he doesn't get to take it from me.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

JAlanKatz — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:30:59 GMT

Sam Armstrong:
The argument is that it is most likely the best political system for you to live in and achieve your goal of living. There's nothing metaphysical about it, it's just the most logical choice of politic if your goal is to live. If your goal isn't to live and instead to kill people, then it's not the best political system, but don't be surprised when people who's goal is to live then kill you.

I don't know that this is true. A system that allows you to put people in a position where they must, in either case, die - drink my water and I'll shoot you! doesn't seem to be the one that best enables living.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

wilderness — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:17:14 GMT

Nitroadict:
Would love to read / hear a convincing argument for natural law and/or natural rights, then.

This was one of the most lucid posts in the forum I've read on rights.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

wilderness — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:14:58 GMT

Sam Armstrong:
No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law. I think it's legal in a natural law sense that I can deny someone starving my food, or deny someone dying of thirst my water, or to deny someone who's drowning refuge on my island. It's all the same thing. Rothbard addressed life-boat ethics, and he even said that if you own the life boat, you can deny a drowning person entry onto that boat. The same holds if you own an island.

Or you could give somebody water or save somebody from drowning. Not violating property that way either.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

Sam Armstrong — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:05:17 GMT

Nitroadict:

Sam Armstrong:

No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law.

Would love to read / hear a convincing argument for natural law and/or natural rights, then.

The argument is that it is most likely the best political system for you to live in and achieve your goal of living. There's nothing metaphysical about it, it's just the most logical choice of politic if your goal is to live. If your goal isn't to live and instead to kill people, then it's not the best political system, but don't be surprised when people who's goal is to live then kill you.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

Bostwick — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:41:10 GMT

Sam Armstrong:
No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law. I think it's legal in a natural law sense that I can deny someone starving my food, or deny someone dying of thirst my water, or to deny someone who's drowning refuge on my island.

QFT

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

Angurse — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:37:37 GMT

The problem I have with this argument is that it really has no end.

Where can I actually draw the line and exclude you, when you cross "my" fence, when you trample "my" grass, when you enter "my" home etc... to answer conclusively is impossible.

I like the idea of common law determining the amount of acceptable trespass, as the nature of the property and how it is used differs from location, the laws should follow suit.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

Nitroadict — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:14:58 GMT

Sam Armstrong:

No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law.

Would love to read / hear a convincing argument for natural law and/or natural rights, then.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

Sam Armstrong — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:26:02 GMT

No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law. I think it's legal in a natural law sense that I can deny someone starving my food, or deny someone dying of thirst my water, or to deny someone who's drowning refuge on my island. It's all the same thing. Rothbard addressed life-boat ethics, and he even said that if you own the life boat, you can deny a drowning person entry onto that boat. The same holds if you own an island.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

wilderness — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:52:16 GMT

Sam Armstrong:
Then according to you, stopping someone who is starving from eating my food also violates self-ownership and the NAP. Tell me, if I had water in the desert, and there was someone who was dying of thirst, would I be violating the NAP or self ownership if I stopped him from drinking my water?

You're appealing to personal ethics not law which is political and can't account for every single particular event that deals with virtue or vice.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

Sam Armstrong — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:25:31 GMT

ladyattis:

Sam Armstrong:
And I could set any price for him for use of my land to survive.

So you have the right to aggress on another person in terms of misfortune and/or happenstance? Sorry, but not only does that violate NAP, it violates self-ownership. Try again. *facepalm*

Then according to you, stopping someone who is starving from eating my food also violates self-ownership and the NAP. Tell me, if I had water in the desert, and there was someone who was dying of thirst, would I be violating the NAP or self ownership if I stopped him from drinking my water?

JAlanKatz:

Sam Armstrong:
Any given criminal act has a low probability of coming back to bite you in the ass. So if you break into someone's house while they're gone and steal all their stuff, you will likely get away with it. Over time however, your chances of being caught generally rise to a level which is unacceptable to over all utilitarianism.

This is some egoist form of utilitarianism. The fact that your chances of getting caught once are low does not imply that doing it that one time increases overall utility.

Yes it is egoist. That's the only way that any type of morals exist. Your goals define your morals. If you goal is to live, then voluntarism is the best set of rules. And people only do things because they think it'll increase their utility. When it does not increase their utility, it's called a mistake.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

Marko — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:51:52 GMT

What is a thick libertarian anyway? Is that like a bad thing?

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

ladyattis — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:49:22 GMT

Sam Armstrong:
And I could set any price for him for use of my land to survive.

So you have the right to aggress on another person in terms of misfortune and/or happenstance? Sorry, but not only does that violate NAP, it violates self-ownership. Try again. *facepalm*

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

ladyattis — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:47:40 GMT

Marko:
Is a 'no non-thick libertarian' something like a 'no true Scotsman'?

No, because the point of view that NAP is all you need is not commonly asserted by non-thick libertarians. Again READ the bubble thief thread here on this forum to see why.

Re: Voluntarism vs. Anti-Authoritarianism

JAlanKatz — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:07:19 GMT

Sam Armstrong:
Any given criminal act has a low probability of coming back to bite you in the ass. So if you break into someone's house while they're gone and steal all their stuff, you will likely get away with it. Over time however, your chances of being caught generally rise to a level which is unacceptable to over all utilitarianism.

This is some egoist form of utilitarianism. The fact that your chances of getting caught once are low does not imply that doing it that one time increases overall utility.