Ok, let’s go back to the thief for a moment. You say his claim to your property is illegitimate. But he has the threat of violence and presumably the willingness to use violence to achieve his ends. You contest his claim on the grounds that you don’t believe he has the legitimate right to take your stuff. What sort of power is backing your claim?
I like to think of Autolykos as a badass. Therefore, he matches the thief with equal violence. Now what?
Then he overthrows the government.
All by himself, huh? Autolykos must be really tough!
You’ve already asked this question. If you recall, I answered earlier that whatever (if any) power I possess to back my claim is irrelevant to the legitimacy I impute to it.
Take a look at the Latin phrase in my signature. Translated, it says, “Power does not beget its own authority”.
And yet it does.
Am I to take this to mean that you’re disputing my statement that whatever (if any) power I possess to back my claim is irrelevant to the legitimacy I impute to it?
Otherwise, how are you defining “authority”? And are you aware of the distinction in Roman law between potestas and auctoritas?
That’s right, I’m saying that your powerlessness is entirely relevant to your claim. You seem to think that your money is yours. That your stuff is yours. Even if you can’t protect it. Even if no one will protect it for you. How is it then yours?
And no, I was not aware of those terms, I just looked them up.
Now that I know what they mean I see we’re coming to the idea of “consent of the governed.”
Are you aware that other animals make claims of ownership too? The difference between humans and other animals is that animals must resolve their disputes with violence. They do not argue.
The threat of force is not the only relevant aspect of legitimacy, justice, and property.
I don’t understand how you can talk about arguing (mediation/arbitration) without talking about the threat of force.
The threat of force is not the motivating factor behind absolutely every argument. Anyway, my point is that you ignore the arguing factor in disputes and only look at the threat of violence factor. It is not the case that all disputes are resolved by violence. That is the point of law - to resolve disputes without violence. The threat of violence is often in the air, but that does not make it the only relevant factor.
So I’m quite puzzled as to why you believe might makes right.
I, for one, don’t see possession and ownership being the same thing. Just because someone possesses something doesn’t mean that possession is legitimate.
On another note, you’ve looked into the is-ought problem, haven’t you? If not, I recommend you do so.
If I understand you correctly, then I disagree. Potestas can be translated as “power” - i.e. raw physical ability - whereas auctoritas, while it has a direct descendant in the English word “authority”, I think can be translated better as “legitimacy” in modern-day English usage. So essentially potestas is the “is” and auctoritas is the “ought”.
I’m sorry but this quote function is completely broken, I cannot seem to segment the questions and responses in the way that I would like to.
Surely it’s not difficult for you to put quotation marks around my statements, and even affix my name to them, if you so desire.
I have structured my replies in the exact format that is supposed to work and it still says “non matching quote blocks in post.”
That’s happened to me before, actually. I suggest selecting your entire post, copying it, and then pasting it into a new reply. IIRC, that worked for me before.
Yes it is. We argue because it’s often cheaper than fighting.
The threat of violence is always in the air. Resolutions reached through ADR are binding in a court of law.
I believe that might makes relevant. It’s pointless to me to entertain questions of right and wrong in the absence of the power to enforce such values.
That means it’s pointless for you to entertain questions of right and wrong, ever. So logically you wouldn’t complain if, for example, I came up to you and punched you in the face. (No, that’s not a threat.)
I am not entirely powerless. Neither are you.
I think I might have the power to do something about that.
Thanks for proving my point. Entertaining questions of what’s in your power to do is not at all the same as entertaining questions of right and wrong.
No, you wouldn’t. I would’ve already punched you in the face - it would already be in the past. So it sounds to me like you’re implicitly agreeing with me that you wouldn’t complain if I did that. In other words, you’d think it would be right for me to do so, because I was able to do it.