Total Posts:128|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Two Questions For Anarchists

TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A meteor randomly lands on Earth, and some random guy from Texas claims ownership and uses it for whatever. But, out of nowhere, aliens show up and want to take it, but he refuses to give it up. The aliens threaten to destroy all life on Earth by hurling the planet into the sun if somebody doesn't give the meteorite to them.

Question 1: Is it right for someone to steal the meteor and save the human race, or is that a violation of the owner's negative rights, and should not be done?

There is a dude living out in the woods, and you see him starving his one-year old child nearly to death. He is not committing a positive act of aggression, but what he's doing is certainly questionable.

Question 2: Is it right for someone to steal the child and take care of it, turn it over to child services, etc? Or, is that also a violation of negative rights, and should not be done?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:13:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Question 1: Is it right for someone to steal the meteor and save the human race, or is that a violation of the owner's negative rights, and should not be done?

Its a violation of his negative rights. Bla bla bla you should try other ways, but if push comes to shove you have to do it.

There is a dude living out in the woods, and you see him starving his one-year old child nearly to death. He is not committing a positive act of aggression, but what he's doing is certainly questionable.
Actually libertarians do consider this an act of aggression. http://www.lewrockwell.com...

Question 2: Is it right for someone to steal the child and take care of it, turn it over to child services, etc? Or, is that also a violation of negative rights, and should not be done?

Emotional appeals are boring btw. The general form of your questions is the same: "What if we can commit small acts of injustice for great rewards in utility?". Even if we concede that there's a threshold where the tradeoff is acceptable, there's no reason to make an institution that is judge in its own case.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:21:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:13:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Question 1: Is it right for someone to steal the meteor and save the human race, or is that a violation of the owner's negative rights, and should not be done?

Its a violation of his negative rights. Bla bla bla you should try other ways, but if push comes to shove you have to do it.

There is a dude living out in the woods, and you see him starving his one-year old child nearly to death. He is not committing a positive act of aggression, but what he's doing is certainly questionable.
Actually libertarians do consider this an act of aggression. http://www.lewrockwell.com...
It depends what you mean by "starving" presumably. If by "not feeding" that assertion would be ageist for anyone remotely libertarian, for one can "starve" adults that way all one likes. If by "holding captive and not feeding..." well, the problem is the first part :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:21:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
though I can't speak for anarchists on that, you brought up the term libertarian Sieben :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:23:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:13:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Its a violation of his negative rights. Bla bla bla you should try other ways, but if push comes to shove you have to do it.

So, your views of property ownership are inconsistent.

Actually libertarians do consider this an act of aggression. http://www.lewrockwell.com...

But Anarchists don't. This thread is geared toward Anarchists whom agree with Rothbard's views of this situation.

Emotional appeals are boring btw. The general form of your questions is the same: "What if we can commit small acts of injustice for great rewards in utility?". Even if we concede that there's a threshold where the tradeoff is acceptable, there's no reason to make an institution that is judge in its own case.

My questions pose hypothetical extremes in which the Anarchist viewpoint becomes unreasonable, as you always do to Statists. And, the issue with modern Judicial law is off topic.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:25:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:13:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Question 1: Is it right for someone to steal the meteor and save the human race, or is that a violation of the owner's negative rights, and should not be done?

Its a violation of his negative rights. Bla bla bla you should try other ways, but if push comes to shove you have to do it.

Care to explain your reasoning?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:26:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:23:26 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:13:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Its a violation of his negative rights. Bla bla bla you should try other ways, but if push comes to shove you have to do it.

So, your views of property ownership are inconsistent.
What views?
Actually libertarians do consider this an act of aggression. http://www.lewrockwell.com...

But Anarchists don't. This thread is geared toward Anarchists whom agree with Rothbard's views of this situation.
Block is an anarchist. Block is a Rothbardian.

My questions pose hypothetical extremes in which the Anarchist viewpoint becomes unreasonable, as you always do to Statists. And, the issue with modern Judicial law is off topic.
So at what point do we pay attention to hypotheticals hmm?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:32:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Question 1: Is it right for someone to steal the meteor and save the human race, or is that a violation of the owner's negative rights, and should not be done?

I don't believe in any property rights. Possession should be based on consensus. There obviously wouldn't be a consesnsus for the random guy to claim it in-light of the circumstance.

Question 2: Is it right for someone to steal the child and take care of it, turn it over to child services, etc? Or, is that also a violation of negative rights, and should not be done?

Steal it? STEAL IT? Nobody owns the child. Let them choose.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:40:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Incidentally, clearly the aliens are in the wrong in regards to the meteor (since he didn't just claim it, but used it). Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute-- you don't have to be an anarchist or even a libertarian to recognize that surrendering is a bad idea, and will just lead to an unbroken chain of further demands if there is no anonymity to be found in the situation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:42:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:23:26 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:13:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Its a violation of his negative rights. Bla bla bla you should try other ways, but if push comes to shove you have to do it.

So, your views of property ownership are inconsistent.

Not really from what I'm reading.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:42:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:32:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Question 1: Is it right for someone to steal the meteor and save the human race, or is that a violation of the owner's negative rights, and should not be done?

I don't believe in any property rights. Possession should be based on consensus. There obviously wouldn't be a consesnsus for the random guy to claim it in-light of the circumstance.

Question 2: Is it right for someone to steal the child and take care of it, turn it over to child services, etc? Or, is that also a violation of negative rights, and should not be done?

Steal it? STEAL IT? Nobody owns the child. Let them choose.

Agreed. Nobody owns the meteor, the meteor must choose.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:47:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rothbard writes:

In the first place, a lifeboat situation is hardly a valid test of a theory of rights, or of any moral theory whatsoever. Problems of a moral theory in such an extreme situation do not invalidate a theory for normal situations. In any sphere of moral theory, we are trying to frame an ethic for man, based on his nature and the nature of the world — and this precisely means for normal nature, for the way life usually is, and not for rare and abnormal situations. It is a wise maxim of the law, for precisely this reason, that "hard cases make bad law." We are trying to frame an ethic for the way men generally live in the world; we are not, after all, interested in framing an ethic that focuses on situations that are rare, extreme, and not generally encountered.

Let us take an example, to illustrate our point, outside the sphere of property rights or rights in general, and within the sphere of ordinary ethical values. Most people would concede the principle that "it is ethical for a parent to save his child from drowning." But, then, our lifeboat skeptic could arise and hurl this challenge: "Aha, but suppose that two of your children are drowning and you can save only one. Which child would you choose? And doesn't the fact that you would have to let one child die negate the very moral principle that you should save your drowning child?" I doubt whether many ethicists would throw over the moral desirability or principle of saving one's child because it could not be fully applied in such a "lifeboat" situation. Yet why should the lifeboat case be different in the sphere of rights?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:50:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It helps to think of libertarianism as a political philosophy, rather than a code of personal morality. It says, "X is a violation of A's property rights, so A has a right to demand compensation for X in a court of law", rather than, "You must never do X."
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:54:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:50:57 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
It helps to think of libertarianism as a political philosophy, rather than a code of personal morality. It says, "X is a violation of A's property rights, so A has a right to demand compensation for X in a court of law", rather than, "You must never do X."

So for your first, completely absurd, question, I would take the rock and give it to the aliens. But I'd have to compensate the rock owner if he sued me.

As for the 2nd one, as Sieben explained, taking the child is not in conflict with libertarianism at all.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 4:59:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, I love how you people need to make up absurd, impossible scenarios to critique libertarianism. If I'm talking about why leftism is wrong, I talk about all of the terrible things it does in practice, right now or in the past. If I'm talking about why war is wrong, I'd use arguments about wars that have actually happened or are happening now. I don't say, "well what if the government decided to promote equality by harvesting rich people's organs and giving them to poor people" or "well what if a psychopath got elected president and declared war on Canada, killing millions."
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:28:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:59:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Also, I love how you people need to make up absurd, impossible scenarios to critique libertarianism. If I'm talking about why leftism is wrong, I talk about all of the terrible things it does in practice, right now or in the past. If I'm talking about why war is wrong, I'd use arguments about wars that have actually happened or are happening now. I don't say, "well what if the government decided to promote equality by harvesting rich people's organs and giving them to poor people" or "well what if a psychopath got elected president and declared war on Canada, killing millions."

Theories aren't properly executed in reality, so the real world situations are often (if ever) accurate representations of the theory and so cannot accurately critic them.

Of course, if you're doing something as simple and broad as "the left" or "war" that is very different.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:30:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:26:47 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:23:26 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:13:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

What views?

Your views pertaining to property and negative rights.

Block is an anarchist. Block is a Rothbardian.

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights."

I'm sure you know where it's from.

So at what point do we pay attention to hypotheticals hmm?

The point when somebody hypocritically masquerades around accusing Statists of having double-standards.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:31:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Incidentally, clearly the aliens are in the wrong in regards to the meteor (since he didn't just claim it, but used it). Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute-- you don't have to be an anarchist or even a libertarian to recognize that surrendering is a bad idea, and will just lead to an unbroken chain of further demands if there is no anonymity to be found in the situation.

These aliens have the ability to hurl Earth into the sun... Also, assume that the aliens would leave us alone after we gave them the meteor.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:33:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:30:08 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:26:47 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:23:26 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:13:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

What views?

Your views pertaining to property and negative rights.
I value property rights.

Block is an anarchist. Block is a Rothbardian.

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights."

I'm sure you know where it's from.
What's your point? I've already given you the Rothbardian position.
So at what point do we pay attention to hypotheticals hmm?

The point when somebody hypocritically masquerades around accusing Statists of having double-standards.
Well I already proved that you did. And you have yet to catch me in a self contradiction...

But this is not an answer to my question. Hypotheticals can disprove any theory. Simply put - "What if <the theory> is wrong?". So at what point do hypotheticals become valid?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:33:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 4:59:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Also, I love how you people need to make up absurd, impossible scenarios to critique libertarianism. If I'm talking about why leftism is wrong, I talk about all of the terrible things it does in practice, right now or in the past. If I'm talking about why war is wrong, I'd use arguments about wars that have actually happened or are happening now. I don't say, "well what if the government decided to promote equality by harvesting rich people's organs and giving them to poor people" or "well what if a psychopath got elected president and declared war on Canada, killing millions."

Well, there's no contemporary scenarios of Anarchism to critique, which gives you the advantage of just saying how great it would work out hypothetically. The only thing even remotely close is Somalia, which has plenty of problems.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:35:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:33:47 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:59:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Also, I love how you people need to make up absurd, impossible scenarios to critique libertarianism. If I'm talking about why leftism is wrong, I talk about all of the terrible things it does in practice, right now or in the past. If I'm talking about why war is wrong, I'd use arguments about wars that have actually happened or are happening now. I don't say, "well what if the government decided to promote equality by harvesting rich people's organs and giving them to poor people" or "well what if a psychopath got elected president and declared war on Canada, killing millions."

Well, there's no contemporary scenarios of Anarchism to critique, which gives you the advantage of just saying how great it would work out hypothetically. The only thing even remotely close is Somalia, which has plenty of problems.
Why does it have to be contemporary?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:38:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:33:47 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:59:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Also, I love how you people need to make up absurd, impossible scenarios to critique libertarianism. If I'm talking about why leftism is wrong, I talk about all of the terrible things it does in practice, right now or in the past. If I'm talking about why war is wrong, I'd use arguments about wars that have actually happened or are happening now. I don't say, "well what if the government decided to promote equality by harvesting rich people's organs and giving them to poor people" or "well what if a psychopath got elected president and declared war on Canada, killing millions."

Well, there's no contemporary scenarios of Anarchism to critique, which gives you the advantage of just saying how great it would work out hypothetically. The only thing even remotely close is Somalia, which has plenty of problems.

Plenty of problems compared to what?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:38:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:35:02 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 5:33:47 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:59:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Also, I love how you people need to make up absurd, impossible scenarios to critique libertarianism. If I'm talking about why leftism is wrong, I talk about all of the terrible things it does in practice, right now or in the past. If I'm talking about why war is wrong, I'd use arguments about wars that have actually happened or are happening now. I don't say, "well what if the government decided to promote equality by harvesting rich people's organs and giving them to poor people" or "well what if a psychopath got elected president and declared war on Canada, killing millions."

Well, there's no contemporary scenarios of Anarchism to critique, which gives you the advantage of just saying how great it would work out hypothetically. The only thing even remotely close is Somalia, which has plenty of problems.
Why does it have to be contemporary?

Because Medieval Europe doesn't tend to persuade people since it ended with statist intervention.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:44:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:33:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 5:30:08 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:26:47 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:23:26 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:13:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

I value property rights.

Not consistently.

What's your point? I've already given you the Rothbardian position.

You gave me an article that referred to aggressive acts of violence, along with Walter's views. If your position is consistent with that, then why and how is simply neglecting a child considered an act of aggression? Not to mention, your own article goes through the issues of who is going to bust down who's door.

Well I already proved that you did. And you have yet to catch me in a self contradiction...

You're willing to violate negative rights in the meteor scenario.

But this is not an answer to my question. Hypotheticals can disprove any theory. Simply put - "What if <the theory> is wrong?". So at what point do hypotheticals become valid?

When it comes to demonstrating logical consistency, which neither of us withhold.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:46:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:38:00 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 1/17/2011 5:33:47 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:59:12 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

Plenty of problems compared to what?

Any nation on Earth. From nearly every measure of health, Somalian society is right at the bottom.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2011 5:47:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/17/2011 5:44:51 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 5:33:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 5:30:08 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:26:47 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:23:26 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:13:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 1/17/2011 4:07:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

I value property rights.

Not consistently.

I value ice cream.

What's your point? I've already given you the Rothbardian position.

You gave me an article that referred to aggressive acts of violence, along with Walter's views. If your position is consistent with that, then why and how is simply neglecting a child considered an act of aggression? Not to mention, your own article goes through the issues of who is going to bust down who's door.

Did you even read the article?

Well I already proved that you did. And you have yet to catch me in a self contradiction...

You're willing to violate negative rights in the meteor scenario.
That isn't a contradiction.

But this is not an answer to my question. Hypotheticals can disprove any theory. Simply put - "What if <the theory> is wrong?". So at what point do hypotheticals become valid?

When it comes to demonstrating logical consistency, which neither of us withhold.
What about a hypothetical that disproved all other hypothetical scenarios? What would that be?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...