Can I call you maxi pad? How can you start with property rights if you don’t believe in rights? Or, if you think you believe in property rights, then based on what? From what do you derive the right to property?
Yeah. And I admit, I don’t have an answer for that. I don’t see how we can reach an answer objectively.
I agree with you. But I don’t expect everyone else will or should. And that is why I am saying that you may be utopian.
What is your solution on proportionality?
Yeah, ain’t it grand! [:D]
LS, I think you are rare in that you seem to view argument as a search for truth. Most people view argument as a battle to be won.
In the adversarial view, people assume they are right and the other person could not possibly teach them anything, nor could the discussion spark any change to their existing beliefs. “To win is all.”
I submit that the focus on “winning” is based on a fall premise: that by proving the other person wrong they will have furthered their cause. But as they say, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” Calling people out and proving (or even suggesting) that they are wrong just makes them get defensive. This adversarial atmosphere gets their ego involved, thereby incentivizing them to shift goalposts (to win), employ strawmen (to win), contort analogies (to win), use ad hominims (to feel like they’re winning), and get rigid/extreme/dogmatic in their viewpoints (because their position gets entwined with their ego; it becomes part of their identity).
In short, it’s inefficient. Given what’s at stake, I don’t think we (Austrians/libertarians) can afford the luxury of the adversarial view.
Some would try to justify by pointing out the need to bring others to their viewpoint, which they already know is right. Even in that case, as soon as the other person’s ego gets involved all likelihood of changing their opinion is lost. And notice how often people think they’re being attacked even when they’re being agreed with. Notice how many people seem to get defensive even before anyone really opposes what they’re saying. Many people even seem to be addicted to arguing, and will try to bait their opponent’s ego into the mix to ensure that mistakes are made on both sides.
Does this mean we should be careful not to bruise people’s egos? I don’t know, but I always try to point out
-
The purpose of argument is to learn, not to win. People can only ever convince themselves, and we can only show them the ideas that make our views self-evident through their own reflection.
-
The world is too vast and strange, and human knowledge too incomplete, for anyone to be free of views that most other people would consider those of a “crackpot,” “moonbat,” etc. Let’s not take it personally.
Since although people may agree with those two points if raised neutrally, few people act as if they were true (all too often myself included).
I do value truth more than argument generally. I still make a lot of mistakes and don’t always show the best judgment.
Nice post AJ.
@ JB
As far as I can tell, we only disagree on what would make an agreement binding and on what is and isn’t alienable property. Seeing as this thread has been totaled, would you like to flesh these two principles out, between just the two of us in a private convos or the “fight club” group?
I like your initial analysis AJ, but I’m not sure I agree with all of your conclusions.
I liken arguments such as these to games of chess. When you are playing someone who is close to you in skill level (not much above it or below it), it can be very fun and exciting. A good game of chess will always have strong emotional involvment and people’s egos are on the line. This isn’t a big deal if they are mature and appreciate and enjoy brilliant moves, whether they are made by them or their opponents (analogous to brilliant arguments). But if they are immature sore losers that swipe the board when they are frustrated, it can be pretty annoying. Same thing in the discussion forum.
Well, for starters, a coherent theory of property rights is not a necessary condition.
Regardless, the very fact that the property owner mounts a resistance is enough to suggest that aggression is perceived to have taken place at least by him. He might be wrong, though, as you seem to suggest as a possibility. In that case, the libertarian solution involves arbitration.
All you need is mutually accepted arbitration. Any more theory is hardly relevent if both sides of the dispute agree to abide by an arbitrator’s ruling.
This seems to be your problem: you are searching for objective law. You are never going to find it – not in Libertariania nor anywhere else on this planet.
Consider the case where the trigger-happy shopkeeper is deemed to be in the wrong. In that case, your position faces the same dilemma: you have identified an aggressor (the shopkeeper) and a victim (the bubble-gum thief). The aggressor is convinced that he is right and will fight to the death to defend himself against you, the libertarian lawyers and the libertarian defense contractors. So, what do you do? You have to resort to might-is-right anyway to get the justice you seek.
I don’t have ‘my’ solution on proportionality or even ‘a’ solution. I think proportionality is part of any theory of justice worth its salt and is something any civilized people take for granted. And proportionality is nothing new and is not a creation of social-democrats or hippies.
Consider on the other hand how a statist legal system works. Say you refuse to pay a $10 fine. You know full well that if you consistently refuse to pay the gov’t will try to collect using force and will in the end kill you if you resist. Doesn’t seem very proportional.
BUT notice that even this totalitarian government will use some sort of ‘due process’ UNLIKE the advocates of murder who plague this forum.
AJ you’re wrong. The purpose of argument is to win. But the nice thing about arguing is that in order to win you must stick to truth…and in the process hopefully learn something. When you say that people win by doing these things
you’re mistaken. You don’t win a logical contest by tampering with logic. As to personally attack persons who advocate crime, I see nothing wrong with it - it’s not really part of the argument of course.
It seems that my position is clear. Violence can be used to defend property. Please confirm if you agree with that. Also, please tell us how we determine proportionality.
It seems that my position is clear. Violence can be used to defend property. Please confirm if you agree with that. Also, please tell us how we determine proportionality.
That is of course utter nonsense. Contracts presuppose rights.
Charles Anthony’s position is no different than believing that a language can have no words (building blocks) but can still be used to build sentences…using…what ? Magical Amoral Stuff ™ ?
Well, this is a problem, if you can’t answer how much force is reasonable or acceptable (I won’t even ask why it would be reasonable or acceptable) then how can anyone else?
Some people are applying a reductio, and if you don’t like where it goes, then we need proportionality, and not just the word, but an actual scale. They are already applying proportionality. They are saying that lethal force could be an adequate response and it seems to me, the onus is on you and I to show how it is now.
I’m fresh out of ideas.
I think that’s already been dealt with. Read, dunno, Rothbard ? Or just look around ? Do you see people being enslaved to pay a $10 debt ?
Who are ? I used a reductio-ad-absurdum to show that non-proportionality, leads, to, well, absurd outcomes. Or are you referring to Max’s glaring lie ?
Not sure what you mean by scale. At any rate, it seems that you don’t like where it goes. You don’t want to admit that if a thief steals bubble gum, a civilized and libertarian person will have to use a proper mean to deal with that problem and that DOESN’T include murder.
Are you joking ? Is that a provocation = ] ? Or ?
Are you seriously saying that “anything goes, including murder” is the same thing as proportionality ? Are you saying that a murderer is applying proportionality ? Please, don’t play the moral subjectvist game - it’s boring and annoying.
It’s hard to have a civilized discussion with you. Shiva knows I try. You always have to take every argument up to a fever pitch and then resort to condescending remarks.
You may have the time for discussions like that. I don’t.
Good luck with the debate.
I appreciate this way of looking at it, and I agree that it can actually be really fun to engage someone in debate when you both appreciate and enjoy such brilliant maneuvers. It’s just that my experience leads me to believe that such matchups are quite rare, and I find the few arguments that start off that way seldom end that way. I don’t know exactly why, but I’d venture to guess that most people invest more of their ego in their ideas and beliefs than in their chess-playing ability (the ones that wipe the board being an exception).
Fully agreed. My point was rather that people think such tactics will help them win, or at least save face. Also I didn’t mean to imply that you (or anyone in particular) used an ad hominim – an attack “on the man” is only illogical if it is used as part of the argument proper. My post was just a response to LS’s musing.
You try by redefining ‘proportionality’ so that it means “anything goes” ? You’re not trying very hard in my not humble opinion.
Well, when you have any free time, try to answer, to yourself, the points I raised.
You want objectivity and yet you don’t want to admit that the kind of ‘restitution’ you seem to support, or at least don’t reject, is fully subjective .
I never said it couldn’t, Maxine. Please refrain from creating strawmen.
We determine proportionality by the deed. Pretty simple, really. I’m amazed that you haven’t grasped that yet.
What property? You can’t have property if you don’t have property RIGHTS. You can be in possession of something, but without the right to the property then it is no more yours than it is mine.
But it IS yours, because you have the RIGHT to the property. And from what do you derive the RIGHT to property?
I don’t think the dispute is over whether or not the actions of the shopkeeper in the scenario are proportional or not. They obviously are not. The whole reason for the scenario is to illistrate that it is possible to gain the right to use what would normally be supraproportional force by including it in an agreement as a penalty clause for breaking the agreement. The entire argument hinges on two controversial presuppositions. The first being that the human body is alienable and that an agreement which transfers titles to a person is legally binding. The second being that actions which are not normally considered as a signal of entry into a binding agreement, namely entry onto a person’s property constituting entry into an agreement.
The reason why we might want to consider this, besides exploring how various legal systems could be integrated into a libertarian framework, is that the state removes the option of proportionality in many cases. In fact in almost every case where the police get involved they use supraproportional force. However, if it is to be expected that the police will use supraproportional force and an individual decides to use the state police to gain justice, they are merely using the state as a means to an end which makes them criminal for using a supraproportional means of punishment against a criminal. So, decent people are left with a choice between being victimized or becoming criminals. The monopolization of justice is in a way a soft variant of conscription.
It would seem odd if there was no way within the libertarian framework for decent people to extricate themselves from the dilemma. And setting a penalty contractually seems to me to be a way to do it.