Rights

[wilderness]

@Juan

But the scenario was introduced as an analogy for abortion - aborted fetus always die, just like people thrown in, say, very cold water, will die in minutes.

I think the problem has been the person and who they are that has caused interpretation problems in this boat scenario. I was thinking guest or friend, but then realized these definitions taken to their ends will not be thrown overboard. It’s impossible to throw a guest or friend overboard on a boat. They wouldn’t be either a guest or a friend anymore. The person doing it or they will change in name. The person going overboard will either be a trespasser or victim, etc… It all depends on the ocean - the great sea of life. The boat owner will either be self-defending or murdering, etc… But I think who this person is, is more clearly analogous to somebody on life support. Because as Juan says above - the fetus will die. We know that, depending upon the age of the fetus - at eight months possible to live still.

So instead of guest, friend, or even trespasser, it would be best to name this person as being on life support. The plug has been pulled and the person is now going into the ocean - the great open sea of life.

I still find Kali to be a good description of what I’ve been talking about. Representative of the great ocean of life:

[wilderness]

@Nitroadict

I think the boat example is a loaded hypothetical

good post Nitro. The whole example is ripe with possibilities. it has a huge contingent factor.

[Maxliberty]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Maxliberty

If they are pregnant then the baby is under their care, by definition.

Let’s break that down, shall we?

Under their care means a binding, IRREVOCABLE obligation, according to Max. Meaning: you can’t change your mind. Meaning: even if there was some sort of contract (which there never was), it cannot be broken. Meaning: a woman has somehow ceded ownership of her womb to the fetus. Now there’s a tricky bit: how exactly does that happen? Max just says: “RESPONSIBLITY! OBLIGATION!” and fails to prove both. Max thinks that just asserting is the same as demonstrating. Max is sorely mistaken.

Here is the difference between our arguements. You believe that under no circumstances can a contract bind one person to take some physical action on behalf of another person. For example, a doctor has no obligation to provide care in surgery and if he walks away and leaves you to die he has no accountability because any contract that obligates him to take some physical action with his body is by definition a slave contract according to you. This is the crux of our differences. I believe you can make contracts that bind your actions and hold you accountable if you fail to do with your body what you said you would. This is true of a pregnant woman or a doctor or a ship captain or anybody who willingly takes another under their care.

You can’t answer the boat scenario either because if your consistent you sound like an idiot like Nitro and Wilderness or you are contradicting your position.

[Maxliberty]

@wilderness

@Nitroadict

I think the boat example is a loaded hypothetical

good post Nitro. The whole example is ripe with possibilities. it has a huge contingent factor.

Your position and Nitro’s that even a paying customer can simply be thrown overboard in the middle of the ocean whenver the capitain feels like it and there is no accountability for the captain is so absurd it bears no further discussion. If you really believe that and really believe that society should be organized in this way then you are advocating something humans generally are not capable of doing. I feel very safe in saying that the vast majority of humanity does not think this is acceptable and as such your theory about how society should be organized is not compatible with humanity.

[Maxliberty]

@Laughing Man

@Maxliberty

If they are pregnant then the baby is under their care, by definition.

If they can change their mind then we are back to the boat scenario, which you never fully answered, unsurprisingly.

Well I remember you stating that a boat owner is not a slave to a contract…Did I read it incorrectly?

That is what I was asking you…I say yes he is obligated by the contract and intentional failure is something he can be held accountable for. If that makes him a slave to the contract then so be it, but it is a position he places himself in. Your position equates all contracts requiring personal services to be slave contracts.

[Nitroadict]

@Maxliberty

@wilderness

@Nitroadict

I think the boat example is a loaded hypothetical

good post Nitro. The whole example is ripe with possibilities. it has a huge contingent factor.

Your position and Nitro’s that even a paying customer can simply be thrown overboard in the middle of the ocean whenver the capitain feels like it and there is no accountability for the captain is so absurd it bears no further discussion.

**

**

And yet, nowhere in my post did I say, based on emotional whims, the captain has a right to throw people off of his boat. I find this ironic because I object to the very type of emotional reasoning that’s behind your position on abortion.

On topic, I took it in the context of him defending his property, & imo, property cannot be a proper concept if one relies on emotional logic & reasoning (or I’d be much more of a communists and/or socialists).

If the captain flippantly acts on emotional whims to defend one’s property from trespassers & aggressors, seeing nothing but trespassers & aggressors in every situation (even in an emergency situation, such as the life boat scenario, where there may in fact be no real trespasser and/or aggressors), he has taken the rationalization of the defense of property into the coercive realm & has more or less reverted to a statist, imo, by claiming a territorial monopoly over the property in an emergency, when he could be better served by economically coming to terms with non-property owners & in an emergency situation, they could eventually work together as maintainers of the said property until the emergency situation ceases the necessity of there being more than one property owner.

By patronizing the non-property owners to become co-owners via agreements, there would be no conflict of interest regarding property. In emergency situation, it might be correctly realized that working together might be a good thing, but it might also be realized individuality & boundaries should be respected at the same time.

This is why I am tempted to see the situation as a non-issue for a libertarian, who would utilize economic means to persuade the others to become temporary co-owners of the property, possibly under some sort of formal agreement or contract.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was often arranged for survivors of other ships at sea by a captain of the vessel that found the survivors, wherin they would not be able to reach land for a number of months, & in the mean time, the survivors might be patronized to become members of the crew that found them, if only until their emergency situation subsides.

@Maxliberty

If you really believe that and really believe that society should be organized in this way…
**

**

I said it was a possibility, not a bloody mandate. Get off your high horse for a second and you might learn something.

@Maxliberty

…then you are advocating something humans generally are not capable of doing.

**

**
You should put down the hammer every once in a while & pick up a screwdriver.

@Maxliberty

I feel very safe in saying that the vast majority of humanity does not think this is acceptable and as such your theory about how society should be organized is not compatible with humanity.
**

**

Says the increasingly neo-libertarian MaxParody leaning on the naturalistic fallacy every other paragraph. I feel very safe knowing that not everyone agrees with your views on women & abortion.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Maxliberty

Here is the difference between our arguements. You believe that under no circumstances can a contract bind one person

Strawman. My position is that there is no contract in the first place. You have to show that there is a contract.

And I haven’t answered the boat scenario because it’s not relevant. I know–you’ll bitch and moan and say that it is. Well then prove that it is. Stop thinking that your blatant assertions are proof, Max. They. Are. Not.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Maxliberty

Your position and Nitro’s that even a paying customer can simply be thrown overboard in the middle of the ocean whenver the capitain feels like it and there is no accountability for the captain is so absurd it bears no further discussion.

Well that’s good, since you created a strawman of their positions!

[Laughing_Man]

@Maxliberty

If that makes him a slave to the contract then so be it, but it is a position he places himself in. Your position equates all contracts requiring personal services to be slave contracts.

I say the owner can throw the trespasser off the boat, you denounce that as inhuman and yet while saying if the contract makes him a slave then so be it yet all my postulated contracts are slave contracts?

Have we suddenly journeyed off to bizarro world? The ‘rights’ of a fetus you speak of [ whether existent or non-existent ] is irrelevant for the very fact that the rights of one cannot rationally omit the rights of another [ something you agreed upon by announcing that no class of individuals has more rights then another ] Therefore in order to sustain a fetus against one’s will then they are giving up their self-ownership. They are no longer in control of their body in a manner of speaking. They are merely incubators for the fetus and thus the rights of the fetus supersede [ irrationally ] the rights of the mother [ again something you say is not possible ]. It truly is no different from me sitting down on your lawn, eating your food, drinking your water, contributing to squalor, and in the process of you trying to throw me out, some stranger comes along and says ‘You can’t do that because you are sentencing him to death by such action’

[Juan]

I say the owner can throw the trespasser off the boat, you denounce that as inhuman and yet while saying if the contract makes him a slave then so be it yet all my postulated contracts are slave contracts?

It’s not a trespasser if he was invited. Even if he was a trespasser, no property owner can kill trespassers qua trespassers.

Let me ask again : do you consider yourself a ‘left-libertarian’ or are you now explicitly parroting the block line ?

[Laughing_Man]

@Juan

It’s not a trespasser if he was invited

And people can become uninvited can they not?

@Juan

Even if he was a trespasser, no property owner can kill trespassers qua trespassers.

Well

1. Throwing someone into an ocean [ without immediate risk like sharks etc. is not ‘killing them’ ]

2. A land owner can certainly kill a trespasser if they fear for their life

@Juan

Let me ask again : do you consider yourself a ‘left-libertarian’ or are you now explicitly parroting the block line ?

So wait…because I don’t agree with you, I now have to choose between left-libertarian and Block? If I must choose then I choose Rothbardianism.

[Juan]

And people can become uninvited can they not ?

Funny wording. People don’t just ‘become uninvited’.

1. Throwing someone into an ocean [ without immediate risk like sharks etc. is not ‘killing them’ ]

I think that was clarified enough. However you seem to forget to add the proper qualifier every time you defend the ‘rights’ of the boat owner.

2. A land owner can certainly kill a trespasser if they fear for their life

Wrong. I mean, you can do whatever you want. Whether you are justified is a different story.

So wait…because I don’t agree with you, I now have to choose between left-libertarian and Block?

Whether you are agree with me or not is not the point. I’m just ‘putting a label on you’, for efficiency’s sake. If, for instance, you claimed that “the workers should own the means of production” I’d call you a marxist - it’s handy.

If I must choose then I choose Rothbardianism.

Did Rothbard believe that you can throw your guests overboard ?

[Maxliberty]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Maxliberty

Here is the difference between our arguements. You believe that under no circumstances can a contract bind one person

Strawman. My position is that there is no contract in the first place. You have to show that there is a contract.

And I haven’t answered the boat scenario because it’s not relevant. I know–you’ll bitch and moan and say that it is. Well then prove that it is. Stop thinking that your blatant assertions are proof, Max. They. Are. Not.

Well answer the boat question independently then. I say the boat scenario is relevant so your response would be greatly appreciated for understanding your position.

I won’t hold my breath because I think you are afraid to answer that question.

[Laughing_Man]

@Juan

Funny wording. People don’t just ‘become uninvited’.

Certainly they can. Say you said something about my mother in my living room. I tell you I will not stand for such insults and demand you leave.

@Juan

Wrong. I mean, you can do whatever you want. Whether you are justified is a different story

So an invader sulking around your house in the middle of night is not justification?

@Juan

Did Rothbard believe that you can throw your guests overboard ?

Rothbard was pro-choice which is what this whole discussion is about.

[Maxliberty]

@Laughing Man

@Juan

It’s not a trespasser if he was invited

And people can become uninvited can they not?

@Juan

Even if he was a trespasser, no property owner can kill trespassers qua trespassers.

Well

1. Throwing someone into an ocean [ without immediate risk like sharks etc. is not ‘killing them’ ]

2. A land owner can certainly kill a trespasser if they fear for their life

@Juan

Let me ask again : do you consider yourself a ‘left-libertarian’ or are you now explicitly parroting the block line ?

So wait…because I don’t agree with you, I now have to choose between left-libertarian and Block? If I must choose then I choose Rothbardianism.

The practical application of what you are saying is not possible in the human context. Now anyone who wants to kill somebody just invites them on a plane ride and throws them out midair and you think that is permissable behaviour and should go without punishment. Furthermore, if the guy resists being thrown out of the plane he is the aggressor. I think you need to take your medicine.

It’s absurd on the face of it.

[Maxliberty]

@Nitroadict

And yet,…

Your response basically comes down to I don’ think this will ever happen so we don’t need to discuss it. The point of discussing the margins is to discover the limits of any theory and what areas it may have conflicts.

@Nitroadict

@Maxliberty

I feel very safe in saying that the vast majority of humanity does not think this is acceptable and as such your theory about how society should be organized is not compatible with humanity.
**

**

Says the increasingly neo-libertarian MaxParody leaning on the naturalistic fallacy every other paragraph. I feel very safe knowing that not everyone agrees with your views on women & abortion.

I don’t pretend to seek universal agreement.

[Laughing_Man]

@Maxliberty

The practical application of what you are saying is not possible in the human context. Now anyone who wants to kill somebody just invites them on a plane ride and throws them out midair and you think that is permissable behaviour and should go without punishment. Furthermore, if the guy resists being thrown out of the plane he is the aggressor. I think you need to take your medicine.

It’s absurd on the face of it.

I’ve noticed that you can only make absurd comments about new events like your airplane example without actually addressing my original point.

@Laughing Man

The ‘rights’ of a fetus you speak of [ whether existent or non-existent ] is irrelevant for the very fact that the rights of one cannot rationally omit the rights of another [ something you agreed upon by announcing that no class of individuals has more rights then another ] Therefore in order to sustain a fetus against one’s will then they are giving up their self-ownership. They are no longer in control of their body in a manner of speaking. They are merely incubators for the fetus and thus the rights of the fetus supersede [ irrationally ] the rights of the mother [ again something you say is not possible ]. It truly is no different from me sitting down on your lawn, eating your food, drinking your water, contributing to squalor, and in the process of you trying to throw me out, some stranger comes along and says ‘You can’t do that because you are sentencing him to death by such action’

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Maxliberty

Well answer the boat question independently then.

Why? It has nothing to do with the topic. So I will not bother with a red herring.

Tell me, Max: are you at all capable of arguing without the use of fallacies, cop-outs, and blatant assertions?

[Maxliberty]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Maxliberty

Well answer the boat question independently then.

Why? It has nothing to do with the topic. So I will not bother with a red herring.

Tell me, Max: are you at all capable of arguing without the use of fallacies, cop-outs, and blatant assertions?

Your typical cowardly response. I said you were afraid to answer it and I was right. Will you answer it if we start a new thread?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

How about you kill the fallacies. Maybe then you’ll be taken seriously.