Brainpolice said:For example, one's ownership over their home, even if it is a just case of ownership, does not give you the right to assault and murder people just because they are in one's home. In other words, property rights do not trump life and liberty.
That strikes me as odd. I thought... well, I remember reading two very poignant scenarios in which consistency in justice must prevail over liberal morality if consistency is to be maintained.
One example was that a man who has been lost in the woods for days and is on the verge of dying comes onto your cabin property and begins shuffling through your kitchen. You shoot him. Are you in the wrong or the right? The article said in the right -- for you were defending your property.
If you invite a friend over for dinner and then shank him as soon as he enters the door, well, that certainly feels different, but why is one okay and not the other (at least according to my understanding of BP's statements)?
LS:For someone who isn't sure what my position is, that has't prevented you from running your mouth now has it?
I have challenged Stranger, Jon and Giles all recently, people you would likely call "my allies".
I got quite a laugh out of your shock that I am for non-violence as a preference, and yet took a position of principle supporting the defense of property as an extension of one's self ownership.
You really haven't been interesting to argue with for months.
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: LS:For someone who isn't sure what my position is, that has't prevented you from running your mouth now has it? The fact is, you want to hold two contradictory positions. You realize that the kind of violence Waite and co. advocate is nonsense (not to mention evil), but at the same time you don't want to side with 'left libertarians' (and Rothbard ?). So, I do know BOTH your positions. I have challenged Stranger, Jon and Giles all recently, people you would likely call "my allies". Yes, in some other threads/subjects. But I'm talking about the current thread. I got quite a laugh out of your shock that I am for non-violence as a preference, and yet took a position of principle supporting the defense of property as an extension of one's self ownership. Non-violence in this case is not just a preference but a matter of principle...I realize that your moral intuitions are correct, yet you play these sophistic games for whatever reason (Oh, and I was not shocked by your preference for non-violence) You really haven't been interesting to argue with for months. Sorry to disappoint you...=]
It's true: LS's behavior is indeed hypocritical. One one hand, he wants to shy away from the implications of those positions, yet he falls back on defending the people argueing those positions out of a knee-jerk opposition to LL's and an obvious motivation to defy me here. Hence, in a given case he may very well have a similar position to me, but because of irrational movitations he will persistantly nitpick and troll me throughout the threads.
Daniel Waite: liberty student: majevska:So if Bob accidentally drops a pencil in a coffee shop and it falls onto Jim's open book, leaving tiny mark on one of the pages, Jim is allowed to shoot Bob in the head immediately and Jim will not be put on trial for murder in a libertarian society? No. Wait, maybe I am missing something then. No? Why not? The logic appears the same to me -- violation of property. Accidental or otherwise... Hmm...
liberty student: majevska:So if Bob accidentally drops a pencil in a coffee shop and it falls onto Jim's open book, leaving tiny mark on one of the pages, Jim is allowed to shoot Bob in the head immediately and Jim will not be put on trial for murder in a libertarian society? No.
majevska:So if Bob accidentally drops a pencil in a coffee shop and it falls onto Jim's open book, leaving tiny mark on one of the pages, Jim is allowed to shoot Bob in the head immediately and Jim will not be put on trial for murder in a libertarian society?
No.
Wait, maybe I am missing something then.
No? Why not? The logic appears the same to me -- violation of property. Accidental or otherwise... Hmm...
See, Daniel is actually openly defending the absurd implications of this position. Straight from the horse's mouth, he effectively thinks that any kind of violence is justified so long as it's in the name of property, and hence he is forced to support someone who shoots you in the head for dropping a pencil on their book. LS and some others are shying away from those implications while at the same time trying to stick to the same principle that they follow from, and siding with those who they actually disagree with out of a motivation to be on whatever side of a debate that I'm not on.
Moral of the story? Don't fall from the 25th story of a building unless you own the property you intend to fall on.
If noone can see how INSANE a statement like this is, I don't know what to tell you. It functions as a nice get-out-of-empathy-free card for just about any situation. Noone in their right mind in such a scenario is going to favor letting someone fall to their death. A sane individual is going to focus on saving this person's life, not advocating their death in the name of a ridiculous interpretation of property rights. Oh, and quite obviously the person does not intend to fall to begin with.
Easier question, a guy is climbing through my 5th story reason for whatever reason. Do I have the right to refuse him entry?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Juan:The fact is, you want to hold two contradictory positions.
Oh, so now you do understand my position?
Juan:So, I do know BOTH your positions.
There is only one position, so again you are wrong.
Juan:Sorry to disappoint you...=]
I doubt it. You've probably spent most of your adult life being a waste of time and resources, disappointment is the one field you can thrive in.
Brainpolice:It's true: LS's behavior is indeed hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical at all. I've known you are a liar for months. I've exposed you numerous times. People are starting to catch on, and question you the same way I do, and you just keep proving over and over again, that you are a liar and a socialist.
It is what it is. You can protest as much as you want. More and more people are on to your act daily. The more you protest, the more you expose who you are and what you are about.
Daniel Waite: Wait, maybe I am missing something then. No? Why not? The logic appears the same to me -- violation of property. Accidental or otherwise... Hmm...
The only thing you are missing, is reading closely. I believe we're both on the same page still.
majevska:So if Bob accidentally drops a pencil in a coffee shop and it falls onto Jim's open book, leaving tiny mark on one of the pages
When Jim and Bob entered the coffee shop with their property, they agreed to the terms of dispute resolution of the shop owner.
majevska:Jim is allowed to shoot Bob in the head immediately and Jim will not be put on trial for murder in a libertarian society?
Permission, in the rhetorical form of "allowed" is nonsensical. Allowed by whom?
Secondly, why would anyone try one man for killing another in a libertarian society? Where is the market for paying for the dispute resolution of two 3rd parties? And lastly, a "libertarian society" presumes one size fits all. Law, dispute resolution, PDAs, insurance firms, and such will differ region to region.
That is why I answered "No" to the ridiculous example. Not because I don't support the right to use lethal force to defend one's property.
What BP (forget Juan, he's just a troll, constantly on the lookout for Calvinists like Gary North) can't adequately explain, and he won't, because he will make up some BS (already answered, thick and thin libertarianism, Ad Homs etc etc etc) is why our body as property, differs from our food, or our tools, or our clothes, or our shelter.
And don't buy the BS about proportionality, it requires an ex post facto determination to judge proportionality, so if a man shoots you dead, you can only conclude lethal defense strategy would have been permissible, if only you could get reincarnated for a second go round.
These guys live in an unfulfilling fantasy world. I've pretty much stopped taking them with any amount of seriousness. There is a reason why they are not just marginalized in society, but in the libertarian spectrum as well. They are, kooks and trolls. When we talk about the growth of libertarianism, we're talking about Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, not BrainPolice and Kevin Carson.
liberty student:They are, kooks and trolls. When we talk about the growth of libertarianism, we're talking about Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, not BrainPolice and Kevin Carson.
Now, now, I think you're forgetting that Kevin Carson wrote a (self published?) book, with a truly insightful cover of a guy sticking his head up his own ass. How profound and scholarly these leftists are.
GilesStratton: Easier question, a guy is climbing through my 5th story reason for whatever reason. Do I have the right to refuse him entry?
Once again, your questions are disingenous because they shift the question away of what's atually in contention. Noone is denying the right of exclusivity, what is being denied is the right to arbitrary use violence by merely appealing to a property title, and that one is required to let people fall from buildings in the name of preserving property rights. It isn't necessary, and such a position is psychopathic.
liberty student: Brainpolice:It's true: LS's behavior is indeed hypocritical. It's not hypocritical at all. I've known you are a liar for months. I've exposed you numerous times. People are starting to catch on, and question you the same way I do, and you just keep proving over and over again, that you are a liar and a socialist. It is what it is. You can protest as much as you want. More and more people are on to your act daily. The more you protest, the more you expose who you are and what you are about.
I am not a liar. Your claims are slanderous and false. I genuinely believe the positions I take. You have not exposed anything, you have made an ass out of yourself by persistantly trolling me and misrepresenting my positions. I have no "act", and your grandois claims attempting to act like I'm part of some kind of conspiracy is frankly downright kooky. The more I protest, the more I shield myself from being slandered by an irrationally motivated pest on a message board.
Your behavior is hypocritical, and my post explains exactly why. You avoided addressing my reasoning for calling you hypocritical.
GilesStratton: liberty student:They are, kooks and trolls. When we talk about the growth of libertarianism, we're talking about Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, not BrainPolice and Kevin Carson. Now, now, I think you're forgetting that Kevin Carson wrote a (self published?) book, with a truly insightful cover of a guy sticking his head up his own ass. How profound and scholarly these leftists are.
Yes, surely the tongue and cheek picture of a managerial person with their head of up their ass on the cover of his book means that we can just write Carson off entirely without addressing the content of his work. Yea, that's real rational and professional. *eyeroll*
As for the rest of LS's post, he just persists in making off-the-cuff personal attacks and naked appeals to populism. If none of you can see how weak such arguments are and how obviously irrationally motivated he is being, you're lost. It's impossible for me to have a rational debate without anyone else here with LS sticking his nose in it and proceeding to make off-the-cuff personal attacks against me that are uncalled for and are not a response to any such behavior on my part. I try to debate ideas here. LS is blatantly disruptive of rational debate, sidetracking threads through personal attacks on me. If you don't see this, you're a fool.
Brainpolice:I am not a liar.
The only way you can make this claim, is because you refuse to answer for any of your lies when challenged on them.
Brainpolice:Your claims are slanderous and false.
Don't stutter. Slander by definition is false.
Brainpolice:I genuinely believe the positions I take.
Like I said, you're an unfulfilled kook on the margins.
Brainpolice:You have not exposed anything
You're right. You have exposed yourself every time you debate with someone dishonestly.
Brainpolice:I have no "act"
Brainpolice:The more I protest, the more I shield myself from being slandered
Uh, sure. Whatever floats your boat.
Brainpolice:You avoided addressing my reasoning for calling you hypocritical.
I don't take you with any seriousness. You're a known liar, and you lack credibility.
liberty student: Daniel Waite: Wait, maybe I am missing something then. No? Why not? The logic appears the same to me -- violation of property. Accidental or otherwise... Hmm... The only thing you are missing, is reading closely. I believe we're both on the same page still. majevska:So if Bob accidentally drops a pencil in a coffee shop and it falls onto Jim's open book, leaving tiny mark on one of the pages When Jim and Bob entered the coffee shop with their property, they agreed to the terms of dispute resolution of the shop owner.
Gotcha. Makes sense. "In a coffee shop...", as usual, the question applies, "Who owns the property?" Nice.
... why our body as property, differs from our food, or our tools, or our clothes, or our shelter.
Agreed. I like Badnarik's position that rights are derived from property, pure and simple. This also nullifies statements in this thread like, "mere property rights" or some such nonsense. If not property, then what? Life? Life in what? Your body. Your property. *nods*
It also nullifies BP's argument that violation of "non-life" (wtf?) property does not imply justification for loss of "life property". If it's all property, it's all the same. And isn't that easier? Property is property.
That said, I can sympathize with BP to a degree. I don't *want* to see a little girl get electrocuted by a perimeter fence, but hey, that's life. Watch your kids and tell them what will likely happen if they violate Mr. X's property rights. Beyond that, his argument amounts to the same argument as my political science professor, or this book sitting in front of me entitled "Inequality and Stratification: Race, Class and Gender" -- a bunch of whiners complaining about why Parison Hilton has more money than they do when she "doesn't deserve it". F off.
A hard-and-fast rule is easy to follow. Know the rules, play the game. Walk softly and carry a big stick.