This is becoming a pet-peeve of mine, a nit-pick, but you haven’t said anything except how you don’t like the axiom. What’s your solution? I’ve been trying to follow along in this thread and I can’t find it. My nit-pick: “objectively” is not an answer. That’s like me going up to you and going: Badadoskesalaklze… understand?
Yes good point. By “objective” I mean obvious truths within our perception. For example it’s an objective truth that the sun will appear in the sky in the morning.
Any philosophy must begin with a statement of the facts of what is currently known of the universe. For example, how the universe began, how the earth wasformed, how cells arose and how evolution proceeded.
If your philosophy proclaims an axiom which is in denial of these things then it is invalid.
And yet you still have not offered your axiom, or demonstrated clearly how the NAP violates…
It’s a shame we’re not racing dirigibles what with all the hot air being pushed around…
I think we have a right to torture things that do not have rights. I also think we have a right to kill creatures that do not have rights. And since humans are the only known creatures on earth to have the ability to reason, I think we have a right to torture and kill any other living thing on the earth, that is our property.
No, I did not.
If a dog is your property, then it is not torture.
What is the point in continuing to make assertions totally disconnected from the conversation? We don’t advance ideas by this sort of rhetorical dishonesty.
You have not proposed anything axiomatic. The closest you have come is “if property is burning an oranguatan then animals are not property” which is akin to saying “if an animal doesn’t melt in the rain then it must not be made of sugar”.
You still have not
- clearly defined if an animal can or cannot be property (choosing instead to play the “what is property?” card)
- what your axiom is
- how specifically the NAP fails with regards to distinguishing between animals and people
Now that others have stopped discussing the topic and have turned to your assertions about knowledge, the burden is on you to offer something substantive to the discussion. We’re waiting.
That’s how I see libertarian stuff too.
Because you can never move from “is” to “ought”, you have to make an ethical “faith-leap” somewhere.
Amen.
Yet, every second libertarian thinks he can objectively make that. That is what I believe is the major weakness in libertarianism – the false belief in bridging the “is - ought” divide.
If that is indeed what he does, that is a slightly different discussion.
I guess I gave your posts too much credit. In any case, you will continue to chase your tail like most philosophers. Libertarianism has nothing to do with it.
In that case, I think you are in the wrong place because the non-aggression principle** is an axiom.
**N.B.: Just in case it is not obvious, the non-aggression principle is what defines libertarians and virtually everybody here on this whole website fits that label.
Perhaps you did not read the thread?
This has the faint scent of an empiricist/rationalist debate.
– or perhaps I see a difference between what a person does and what acts of retaliation a person believes he can successfully repel. As such, I find his advocacy uninteresting.
You don’t have any such right, no more than you have a right to eat. At best you can say you have the right to use your property as you wish, and that may include kicking the shit out of your dog anytime you get pissed off. Even then, such an act is morally disgusting.
One more thing, if you’re going to want to live in a community, kicking the shit out of your dog in the front yard probably isn’t going to be the best idea. See, there’s a lot of people out there like Curlz who would only too happily take the dog from you if they saw you doing such a thing.
But that would be property theft!
Oops. I should have written, “I think we should have a right…”
Yes, well, dog beaters will have to live with some disruptions.
What does this mean? 99% of the discussions here are not based on what people do, but rather what their ideological positions are.
Well it’s good you no longer claim to relate to him as a libertarian. Because there is nothing libertarian about aggression or arbitrary justice.
This ^^
I don’t think there are many people who would risk their lives trying to mess with my property. I can assure everyone that if I am responsible for my own property and security, I will be deadly serious about protecting it.
Let’s assume comatose people are no longer sovereign, and are now property. Can you go into the hospital and shoot the MRI machine?
If we decided people had a right to health care, wouldn’t they?
Right, and yet, I don’t think members of most communities would be too fond of people kicking their dogs in their front garden. Neither of us can make any sort of scientific prediction here though, so it’s not really worth discussing.
I love dogs. I like all animals. But kicking a dog, punching a dog, swatting a dog, scolding a dog, chaining a dog, screaming at a dog, doesn’t matter.
I’ve made clear many times, that when it comes to proportionality, I will err on the side of deadly force.
Anyone who eats meat is in no position to lecture me on animal rights.
Trust me, there’s few things I enjoy more than a nice, medium done steak (with pepper or mushroom sauce). I also despise animal rights protesters with a passion.
That said, I wouldn’t take too kindly whatsoever to the next door neighbour who decides to beat his door in front of my (hypothetical) children.