E. R. Olovetto: TelfordUS: Snowflake: How can you use the word in this sense if you only advance a moral theory of subjective preferences. Because my personal laws and preferences don't extend to the personal laws and preferences of others. I don't try to dictate what's good and evil to someone else through force, and I expect others to treat me the same way. What if they don't "do unto others"? How will your legal system work when I can stab you and say that I don't believe it is wrong?
TelfordUS: Snowflake: How can you use the word in this sense if you only advance a moral theory of subjective preferences. Because my personal laws and preferences don't extend to the personal laws and preferences of others. I don't try to dictate what's good and evil to someone else through force, and I expect others to treat me the same way.
Snowflake: How can you use the word in this sense if you only advance a moral theory of subjective preferences.
How can you use the word in this sense if you only advance a moral theory of subjective preferences.
Because my personal laws and preferences don't extend to the personal laws and preferences of others. I don't try to dictate what's good and evil to someone else through force, and I expect others to treat me the same way.
What if they don't "do unto others"? How will your legal system work when I can stab you and say that I don't believe it is wrong?
Well, then it sucks to be me. I would just hope that my supporters would stab you for revenge, but that's all I can ask for without dictating unto others.
The Late Andrew Ryan:How do I deal with this moral paradox and how do you?
It's just doublethink. People generally haven't thought through these matters far enough to clear up all contradictions. Hence they can believe both halves of a contraction. They are at a less advanced stage in their political evolution. Good vs. evil isn't a very helpful way of looking at the world.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
TelfordUS:I would just hope that my supporters would stab you for revenge
Revenge is not synonymous with justice. I missed the earlier part of your debate, but that sentence stuck out to me. When we're dead, the last thing we will be worrying about (whether you believe in an afterlife or not) is whether or not the guy who got you, got his.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Eric: The Late Andrew Ryan: In what cases is it ok? Lets say a little kid falls out of a tree and breaks his neck on my property. He cannot move, and his parents run over to bring him to the hospital. However, since I acquired the property legitimately, I tell the parents they cannot come on my property. Do I think it is immoral for the parents to violate my property rights? No. That is just one example, but I can imagine many. But I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I am an AnCap. But the NAP is not the way to go in my opinion.
The Late Andrew Ryan: In what cases is it ok?
Lets say a little kid falls out of a tree and breaks his neck on my property. He cannot move, and his parents run over to bring him to the hospital. However, since I acquired the property legitimately, I tell the parents they cannot come on my property. Do I think it is immoral for the parents to violate my property rights? No.
That is just one example, but I can imagine many. But I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I am an AnCap. But the NAP is not the way to go in my opinion.
All the statists and Keynesians will look up and shout "Save Us!" and I'll wisper "No."
I just noticed I missed this post.
Edmund Carlyle: You think it is moral to prevent a kids parents from saving their child's life, while I do not. Again, why are children exceptional? Why would this not be identical to some wandering homeless man sneaking onto my property and the salvation army demanding entrance to save his life? The deification of the child I find to be one of the most absurd and easily exploited human failings. "For the children" is the excuse for probably 60% of the sadistic lunacy that passes for government in the past two centuries.
You think it is moral to prevent a kids parents from saving their child's life, while I do not.
Again, why are children exceptional? Why would this not be identical to some wandering homeless man sneaking onto my property and the salvation army demanding entrance to save his life? The deification of the child I find to be one of the most absurd and easily exploited human failings. "For the children" is the excuse for probably 60% of the sadistic lunacy that passes for government in the past two centuries.
I care more about the well being of little kids playing on their neighbors tree than homeless people breaking into others houses. Now, maybe the homeless person has a starving family he needs to feed, in which case I can be more lenient. But again, this is just us discussing what is moral and immoral. I don't think we will actually see people stopping parents from saving their child's life and homeless people breaking and entering in a free society.
Eric: Lets say a little kid falls out of a tree and breaks his neck on my property. He cannot move, and his parents run over to bring him to the hospital. However, since I acquired the property legitimately, I tell the parents they cannot come on my property. Do I think it is immoral for the parents to violate my property rights? No. That is just one example, but I can imagine many. But I don't want you to get the wrong idea.
That is just one example, but I can imagine many. But I don't want you to get the wrong idea.
But that has nothing to do with the NAP. It's important to be clear about that.
Eric:I am an AnCap. But the NAP is not the way to go in my opinion.
Why?
The Late Andrew Ryan:I am an AnCap. But the NAP is not the way to go in my opinion.
The NAP is really a foundational principle. Removing it changes the entire concept of not just Ancap but Libertarianism if you follow that among other things.
Statism is a religion.
liberty student:But that has nothing to do with the NAP. It's important to be clear about that.
I thought violating a persons property rights was a violation of the NAP? Anyways, I can think of other examples where I wouldn't find it wrong to actually initiate force on an actual person.
filc:The NAP is really a foundational principle. Removing it changes the entire concept of not just Ancap but Libertarianism if you follow that among other things.
You can be an AnCap while opposing the NAP.
You have every right to demonstrate your conviction of the NAP and other libertarian concepts. If it's worth not associating with family and friends, then do what you think is best. Just realize that you may be lonely for it - saying your a Libertarian isn't exactly an icebreaker these days. Or, if you love your family and friends, then you really need to press the point that much harder to convince them where their error lies.
Regardless of what the meaning of good and evil are, both are thrown about too freely in order to obtain an emotional response. If the vast majority of a person's actions and beliefs are in serious error with the intent to do wrong, then you could call that person 'evil.' That doesn't mean the person is totally worthless and should be wiped off the face of the earth. Only in the most extreme cases would you even begin to consider that (in a free society these types of people tend to wipe themselves off the face of the earth). Most folks are a mix of good and evil - or more appropriately right and wrong. But then, with our own demons, who are we to judge?
Eric:I thought violating a persons property rights was a violation of the NAP?
Sure, but you decide what is and is not a violation of your rights. If you consent, then there is no violation of the NAP.
Eric:Anyways, I can think of other examples where I wouldn't find it wrong to actually initiate force on an actual person.
Such as?
Eric:You can be an AnCap while opposing the NAP.
You can also be an ancap if you are a robot. On the one hand, you're saying you are compassionate, and then on the other side, you reject a moral standard of compassion.
I don't think the NAP must be a law necessarily, but it certainly informs us as to how to interact with one another. Not in the matters of trivial border disputes, but rather in how we resolve conflicts in general. Never by throwing the first punch.
Eric: liberty student:But that has nothing to do with the NAP. It's important to be clear about that. I thought violating a persons property rights was a violation of the NAP? Anyways, I can think of other examples where I wouldn't find it wrong to actually initiate force on an actual person. filc:The NAP is really a foundational principle. Removing it changes the entire concept of not just Ancap but Libertarianism if you follow that among other things. You can be an AnCap while opposing the NAP.
While it may be morally justified to violate the NAP, it is not justifiable by reason. Acting on these morals would then change you from a libertarian to something else.
liberty student:Sure, but you decide what is and is not a violation of your rights. If you consent, then there is no violation of the NAP.
But in my scenario, the owner of the property does not consent to the parents entering his property.
liberty student:Such as?
If there is some high school punk kid who makes fun of a little girl every single day because her parents are poor, and the only way to stop him from acting like an asshole is by punching him in the face, then I feel perfectly morally justified to do so. I could come up with even more extreme scenarios.
liberty student:I don't think the NAP must be a law necessarily, but it certainly informs us as to how to interact with one another. Not in the matters of trivial border disputes, but rather in how we resolve conflicts in general. Never by throwing the first punch.
In real life, I think most people tend to agree with the NAP under most circumstances. I definitely do not think people must adhere to it at all times in order to have a prosperous free society. My examples were to just prove the point that I don't think it is good to say that violating the NAP is always immoral.
Eric: If there is some high school punk kid who makes fun of a little girl every single day because her parents are poor, and the only way to stop him from acting like an asshole is by punching him in the face, then I feel perfectly morally justified to do so. I could come up with even more extreme scenarios. liberty student:I don't think the NAP must be a law necessarily, but it certainly informs us as to how to interact with one another. Not in the matters of trivial border disputes, but rather in how we resolve conflicts in general. Never by throwing the first punch. In real life, I think most people tend to agree with the NAP under most circumstances. I definitely do not think people must adhere to it at all times in order to have a prosperous free society. My examples were to just prove the point that I don't think it is good to say that violating the NAP is always immoral.
It's important to hold as a guideline, as are most foundational topics. It's not a law and you won't be smited by god for breaking the NAP. I actually have in fact been in the exact situation you outlined above and felt no remorse for beating the crap out of that bully. I even had teachers thank me and I don't regret doing it. He was beligerant however and he did all the instigating. I even gave him fair warning that I was about to beat him to kingdom come should he continue.
At any rate we can make little stories of such situations all day long it doesn't make the NAP any less relevant. Coupling the NAP with a clear definition of private property helps us decide who the aggressors are and it helps us decide how to deal with those aggressors based on the situation. Without the guideline we wouldn't have a clear starting point. Both definition of Private Property and NAP need to be defined. Without a definition of Property the NAP is useless and without a definition of the NAP private property is useless. They are guidelines and foundational ones at that.
Eric:But in my scenario, the owner of the property does not consent to the parents entering his property.
As is his right. But the NAP does not prevent you from reacting differently. If you're not for the NAP, and you're not for property, then I don't think you're an ancap.
Eric:If there is some high school punk kid who makes fun of a little girl every single day because her parents are poor, and the only way to stop him from acting like an asshole is by punching him in the face, then I feel perfectly morally justified to do so. I could come up with even more extreme scenarios.
So basically, your sense of ethics is only restricted to what you want to do at any given moment. Again, and how are you an ancap then?
Eric:My examples were to just prove the point that I don't think it is good to say that violating the NAP is always immoral.
So you're saying that being aggressive is not immoral. Which means you are not an ancap. What pray tell, is immoral in your world?
filc: It's important to hold as a guideline, as are most foundational topics. It's not a law and you won't be smited by god for breaking the NAP. I actually have in fact been in the exact situation you outlined above and felt no remorse for beating the crap out of that bully. I even had teachers thank me and I don't regret doing it. He was beligerant however and he did all the instigating. I even gave him fair warning that I was about to beat him to kingdom come should he continue. At any rate we can make little stories of such situations all day long it doesn't make the NAP any less relevant. Coupling the NAP with a clear definition of private property helps us decide who the aggressors are and it helps us decide how to deal with those aggressors based on the situation. Without the guideline we wouldn't have a clear starting point. Both definition of Private Property and NAP need to be defined. Without a definition of Property the NAP is useless and without a definition of the NAP private property is useless. They are guidelines and foundational ones at that.
Sure, the NAP is generally a good principle to abide by. But when the NAP conflicts with some of my other ethical beliefs, then it gets a little more complicated. My whole point was that it is not a good idea to claim that it is always immoral to initiate force. In my opinion, the examples I provided do make the NAP less relevant because it means that I do not think it is always immoral to initiate aggression.
liberty student:As is his right. But the NAP does not prevent you from reacting differently. If you're not for the NAP, and you're not for property, then I don't think you're an ancap.
I do believe in the right to property. But I do not think this right is so absolute that it is never moral to violate it.
liberty student:So basically, your sense of ethics is only restricted to what you want to do at any given moment. Again, and how are you an ancap then?
I am an AnCap because I believe all services currently provided by the government should be provided by the market. It is not like the market requires property rights to be 100% enforced in order to function properly.
liberty student:So you're saying that being aggressive is not immoral. Which means you are not an ancap. What pray tell, is immoral in your world?
So your definition of an AnCap is "one who views aggression as immoral?"
Eric:I do believe in the right to property. But I do not think this right is so absolute that it is never moral to violate it.
So you don't believe in the right to property. That's what you're saying. I believe in the right (which is an absolute) but not all the time (which undermines the absolute). It would be like saying, I don't believe in property, except sometimes it is moral to believe in it.
Eric:I am an AnCap because I believe all services currently provided by the government should be provided by the market. It is not like the market requires property rights to be 100% enforced in order to function properly.
How do you propose to accomplish the latter if you claim to believe the former?
Eric:So your definition of an AnCap is "one who views aggression as immoral?"
Yes. What is yours?
liberty student:So you don't believe in the right to property. That's what you're saying. I believe in the right (which is an absolute) but not all the time (which undermines the absolute). It would be like saying, I don't believe in property, except sometimes it is moral to believe in it.
I do believe you have a right to own private property. If you have a "keep off property" sign on your front lawn, and someone steps on your property, do you think you have a right to shoot him? If not, then aren't you saying that the right to property is not absolute?
liberty student:How do you propose to accomplish the latter if you claim to believe the former?
I do not know how to achieve an AnCap society. But my point was that a sucessful AnCap society does not requie the complete enforcement of property rights.
liberty student:Yes. What is yours?
I always considered an AnCap to be someone who wanted all services to be provided by the market.
Eric: liberty student:So you don't believe in the right to property. That's what you're saying. I believe in the right (which is an absolute) but not all the time (which undermines the absolute). It would be like saying, I don't believe in property, except sometimes it is moral to believe in it. I do believe you have a right to own private property. If you have a "keep off property" sign on your front lawn, and someone steps on your property, do you think you have a right to shoot him? If not, then aren't you saying that the right to property is not absolute?
You don't have a right to shoot him because killing isn't a proportionate response. You do have a right to some kind of recompense, though, if you do not consent to this person being on your property—they violate your property rights, so they forfeit a proportionate amount of their own.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Justin Spahr-Summers:You don't have a right to shoot him because killing isn't a proportionate response. You do have a right to some kind of recompense, though, if you do not consent to this person being on your property—they violate your property rights, so they forfeit a proportionate amount of their own.
It seems like what the "proportionate response" is would depend on the person. Maybe the shooter thought his action was the proportionate response. What do you think is the proportionate punishment for stepping on a persons property should be? 10 dollars? 20 dollars? 17.62?
Eric:I always considered an AnCap to be someone who wanted all services to be provided by the market.
Why by the market?
Eric:I do believe you have a right to own private property. If you have a "keep off property" sign on your front lawn, and someone steps on your property, do you think you have a right to shoot him?
Yes. And you also have a right to not shoot him based on your discretion. But you are not precluded from defending your property with force anytime someone transgresses against it. In the circumstance you describe, the notion of ownership is meaningless or relies on some party other than the property owner to determine what they may do with their own property. Who is that party?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap