Yeah but isn’t the main purpose of this forum? To discuss crazy theoretical mad men or lifeboat situations that will most likely never happen? lol
No, because they do not clarify at all.
As we’ve seen here they are used as justifications for initiating violence.
Not exactly a Libertarian clarification is it?
Right its a slippery slope which is why im so concerned…
But if we rule out all consequentialist objections to universal property rights, doesn’t this set us up for trouble?
It would be disastrous to follow Libertarian property rights in “situations where it would be disastrous”
If somebody declares they have an armed nuclear weapon they can activate at the press of a button that is the same as issuing a threat. No specific demands must be given for it to be understood as such. Your property is within blast range, and a bomb can only do one thing. The declaration thus can serve only one purpose - to intimidate.
You are allowed to own a weapon, any weapon. But you are not allowed to with it intimidate the people around you on their own property.
Since a nuclear weapon must intimidate the people with property around the nuke`s location, you can only own one if it is in some state of disassembly. Eg a museum piece.
There is nothing consequentialist about it. It follows from my property rights that my property shall not be vandalised. Therefore issuing a threat to vandalise my property is also illegal. Therefore it is illegal to for you to load up a 120mm cannon on your yard and aim it at my house. Since a loaded cannon is only good for one thing, this is the same as threatening to blow up my house.
You can not complain if I sneak up onto your property and disable the loaded cannon that is aimed at my house.
"Yeah but isn’t the main purpose of this forum? To discuss crazy theoretical mad men or lifeboat situations
that will most likely never happen? lol"
Libertarian_for_Life
I’ll agree. But seriously, let’s hope the Obama’s and the Bernanke’s of the world bring this nation down in economic flames BEFORE one of their enemies finds a way to use “WND’s” against them, which could wipe out all of us and those we care about along with those collectivists.
Organized governments are dangerous entities. Right?
Samarami
Consequences.
You don`t belive that.
How on earth are negative / normative rights a slippery slope?
What are you concerned about precisely?
No, it doesn’t. Allowing for consequentialist objections to universal property rights sets us up for trouble.
Why would universal property rights set ‘us’ up for trouble anyway?
How would it? A respect for universal property rights decreases “situations where it would be disastrous”. Consequentialist objections actually increase it, as we’ve seen - they are used for justifications to violate the NAP. And that’s a hop skip and a jump to a justification for the state, although yes I know you are not doing so, and don’t worry that isn’t the primary source of my objections.
I meant allowing consequentialist objections is a slippery slope.
A specific example? Well, maybe I could come up with one and we could spend the next 10 posts arguing about it, but even if I failed to establish my example it does not follow that no such example exists. The real burden is to categorically deny that Libertarian property rights can ever lead to disaster. This is why I spoke so tautologically.
99/100 times violating the NAP is a bad idea.
I will never give this point up. Even if violation of the NAP were regularly justified in my view that is not near enough to justify a state.
I don’t know if anything can be “objectively” or “subjectively” defined. I look deeper.
since I don’t know I’ll throw that out to not confuse your next words.
Well you threw in “subjectively” and I don’t know what you are talking about.
I’m going to re-write that taking out “subjectively” and see if anything changes:
…can’t most acts of aggression be arbitrarily justified by defining threats that they are trying to eliminate?
So are you saying most acts of aggression can be arbitrarily justified?
Is there such a thing as an “objective threat” – devoid of (not subject to) any subjective interpretations? Or are all threats subjective – i.e. in the eye/mind of the threatened? A simple question, really. Btw, thx for mangling my question into one you’d equally rather not answer.
That’s what I asked you.
Z.
I have no idea what you are talking about. objective, subjective… makes no sense to me. Provide what you really mean. I guess if you have to, then understand that definitions do go deeper or in other words, they do elaborate with more knowledge than the label of what is.
that’s better. if somebody is going to shoot into a crowd why would many people, not just one, try to run. sure some people may not be reflexive enough to get out of the way, but others will. More than one person understood the event. Is there an event where only one person might understand the situation? I’m sure that’s possible. Sometimes threats begin with one person realizing something complied by the ideas of others. This one person then may try to convince others of what they percieve as a threat.
don’t be so short-sighted. Instant gratification doesn’t always get a person somewhere. Dialogue on a particular topic might take more than one post by each of us.
cool. I think I understand you a bit more now. I hope my response above answers what I understand. What do you know?
Forgot which side you were meant to be arguing? lol. Yes they are, which is why it is odd that you seem to continually attempt to defend them.
I don’t think you could. Nothing personal though, I don’t think anyone could. But a specific example would be great.
Until you or someone else proves that an example exists, all you have is faith. Lets remember where the burden of proof lies. It doesn’t rest with those who champion natural law, that’s for sure.
100/100 times violating the NAP is a bad idea. Again, what is this 1 objection out of the 100? What is it? Didn’t you just say you had no example?
Good, now you just need to never give up the point that a violation of the NAP is justified. Because it isn’t.
Sorry for the long time between replies. I go to bed kind of early.
Well I was always playing devils advocate for the utilitarians.
I don’t know… stealing bread when you’re dieing of starvation from a man who has so much bread he would never notice it went missing?
Spying on someone who has not shown any signs of threatening you, but you have to be sure because what if he has guns or a nuke you don’t know about?
I just woke up, so brainstorming session is on low power…
From the link:
“But if Descartes were right — if we couldn’t be justified in believing anything unless we first ruled out all possibility of error — then we would never be justified in believing anything, since whatever evidence we pointed to in order to prove our starting beliefs reliable would in turn have to be justified by appeal to further evidence and so on ad infinitum. And if that were so, then we couldn’t be justified in holding the belief that started us down this infinite regress in the first place — namely, the belief that in order to be justified in believing anything we must first rule out all possibility of error. So Cartesian skepticism ultimately undermines itself: if everything should be doubted, then the claim that everything should be doubted is itself one of the things that should be doubted — and once we go doubting that, we lose our original reason for doubting everything else.”
I usually like Long a lot, but this is a little sketchy. First, this really only applies to empirical reasoning. You can’t be skeptical that 2+2=4 because it is tautologic; all its truth content depends on what those symbols mean and those alone. Nothing can further clarify this. So it seems that while Long is right about empirical things, the same does not apply to metaphysics.
Libertarian law is metaphysical! Though I was trying to object to it on grounds that there might be evidence against its practicality. So here I am with the burden of proof and I chose to argue empirically. Examples were provided above.
Consider this alternative approach: Just like 2+2=4 is true because of definitions, let’s relate the NAP and practicality in terms of their definitions. NAP =/= practicality, therefore it cannot be shown a priori that the NAP is practical. Now I have at least philosophical grounds for rejecting the NAP as the only standard of conduct. In real life, the NAP might turn out to be practical 100% of the time but this would be a happy coincidence, and I would still be right in the eyes of a consequentialist for abandoning the philosophy of the NAP.
I like Long a lot. In his anarchist legal order his arguments against the efficacy of the state don’t actually depend on the NAP. I typically use his observations with a few others that also don’t depend on the NAP to argue against the state.
Using the NAP is far too easy 
Including morals, ethics, and law (NAP, Natural Law, Natural Rights, etc.)?
You mean, it’s subjectively defined by the self-perceived depth of one’s observation?
So the objectivity (of a threat) is somehow correlated to majority’s perception of it? Is that what you mean by “deeper”?
I know that there are no such things as objective (absolute, i.e. devoid of subjective interpretation) threats, laws, rights, ethics, and morals. If most in a group think/believe that slaughtering and eating pigs is acceptable, while doing the same to dolphins and children is not, that’s what’s going to be reflected in the group’s ethics and laws.
What do you know?
Z.
I don’t use those terms. I explain myself more than using such vague concepts. to each his or her own…
I don’t know what you mean. I don’t know why you are hung-up on subjective and objective as terminology to be used. Everybody uses their self to perceive the world.
NO. I defined “deeper” as being able to define what you mean instead of merely using such terms as subjective and objective. This is totally getting off track of the main content of this discussion.
All human beings perceive. I don’t know why that is anything particularly revealing.
Absolute ie devoid of subjective interpretation? what does that even mean?
Fine. “to each his or her own…”
Though, you do seem to be using “I don’t know” a bit too often for someone claiming to be in possession of knowledge.
Z.
You are using terminology yet have not been able to delve deeper, in other words, provide your intent, your defining of why you use such words.
I don’t know. I know. Have you ever watched the “Twilight Zone”?
The topic of this thread is about nukes. You have derailed the thread with your focus upon “know” and “I don’t know”. I gave you what I think earlier and asked you what you think. Yet you use words that are foreign to my understanding. Do you get that? So I had asked you to use different words to describe what you are talking about. In my last post I had asked what something meant, but you continue to wonder about on your own in this discussion. Dialogue involves two or more people unless you like to hear yourself talk?
Here’s what I had replied some time ago:
“if somebody is going to shoot into a crowd why would many people, not just one, try to run. sure some people may not be reflexive enough to get out of the way, but others will. More than one person understood the event. Is there an event where only one person might understand the situation? I’m sure that’s possible. Sometimes threats begin with one person realizing something complied by the ideas of others. This one person then may try to convince others of what they percieve as a threat.”
good day. if you’re not in the mood to hold a conversation then it’s not necessary to continue on I hope you know or if would like to talk about something else than the current thread then PM me.
wilderness, good day to you, too. No hard feelings and I hope it’s mutual, honestly.
Z.