I have put forth both my theory of property, my theory of contracts, and my theory of self-soverignty. All are consistent with reality, reason, and logic. The fact that they do not agree with your gut emotional response means nothing.
Perhaps you should quit being a sophist.
Nope. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that it’s ok to use more force than was used initially.
Baseless, ridiculous assertion. You assume what you need to prove. Epic fail.
As I explained, land has no laws and PDAs are non territorial.
Okay. Individual rights derive from self-sovereignty, NOT from contracts - happy now ?
And my reply is even simpler. The thief has not agreed to be killed. Can you GET that ?
Justice is not a subjective value either, you little moral nihilist.
Congratulations. You think you’re some sort of great philosopher ? Oh wait, you’re a ‘law’ student…that explains a lot…
Or perhaps the strawmen and ad hominem attacks should stop. It is childish and shows a lack of intelligence. I have had just about as much ad hominem attacks and strawmen that I can take for one thread.
I reject your clam that proportionality is the back bone of defense. I don’t believe in an eye for an eye. I believe in protection of ones property, without the need to be required (by coercion) to submit to a third party czar. The burden of proof still lies with you to provide what is a proportional defensive action to take against a bubble gum theif.
Until you can provide me with a universal definition of proportionality, this argument will continue to go no where. Avoid the question at your own loss.
And the only one doing such is you.
I reject your rejection based on the fact that we are self-owners.
The burden of proof is upon you to show that it’s ok to use more force than was used initially. Until you can do that, this argument will go nowhere. IOW: don’t try to shift the burden of proof; I’ll have none of that. And I will keep reminding you of your burden until you either get it through your head or you end the discussion. It’s your choice, sophist. I suggest you make your choice now.
If you believe that land is derived as a result from ones labor in nature, and that man is responsible for his own actions (labor), then he is indeed responsible for his own land. If he is responsible for it, the land can be bound by his laws.
You are still using multiple definitions of rights and portraying them as if they are the same idea. Self-sovereignty is not a ‘right’, it is a must. Every acting individual must choose. His ability to choose implies the ability to contract.
He does not need to have agreed if he is acting coercively/violently. I have said this before. Good luck getting a trespassing criminal to agree to be punished though. I would love to see the world you live in.
You are joking right? I have not made a single of either. You have repeatedly called me derogatory names and misrepresented nearly everything that I have been saying.
That is a non sequitor. Proportionality has nothing to do with self-sovereignty.
You are incorrect. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a ‘proportional’ amount of defensive force is needed to combat aggression. How would you measure such force? Who is to decide what is proportional? You can not just continue to claim a shift in the burden of proof when you still have made no argument that requires my disproof.
Another unfounded ad hominem. Do you even know what a sophist is? Your attacks are becoming more and more ridiculous every time you speak. I am here to debate, not to have my person attacked by unfounded accusations. Your inability to look beyond your own beliefs is proving to me that you are a fool, and because of this, I am henceforth discontinuing any discussion with you on this topic
No, it isn’t. Proportionality has everything to do with self-sovereignty, sophist. As we are self-owners, responding with more force than initially used goes far beyond retaliatory force and into intiating force.
So sophist–got anything I can’t shoot down?
The burden of proof is upon you to show that it’s ok to use more force than was used initially. Until you can do that, this argument will go nowhere. IOW: don’t try to shift the burden of proof; I’ll have none of that. And I will keep reminding you of your burden until you either get it through your head or you end the discussion.
You clearly do not know what an ad hominem is. Please read this, sophist: The ad hominem fallacy fallacy. And yes: you are a sophist.
Just like proportionality isn’t subjective?
Perhaps you should read a little book entitled “Anarchy and Law: The Political Economy of Choice”.
Once again, I am not a nihilist. I believe in subjective values and morals.
Wow. You accuse me of not putting forth my ideas. I challenge your claim, and I am accused of being a ‘know it all’, which is exactly what you have been portraying yourself as this entire conversation. That is laughable. To make such a claim because someone is a law student is simply.. mind boggling.
I know I said the last post was my last, but your ability to propose irrational beliefs as truth, and maintain them with pure stubborness is too much for me to let go.
Have you read the article you sent me? I am well aware of the meaning of ad hominem. You have exhibited a perfect case. You are avoiding the argument entirely, and instead are resorting to attacking my character based on unfounded ignorance.
"Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument"
I’m also not sure if you read the other link you sent me, because you are clearly mistaken.
Sophist: Wandering teachers who came to Athens from foreign cities, and sought to popularize knowledge. They filled a need felt in Greece at this time for a general dissemination of that scientific knowledge which had previously been more or less privately cultivated in learned societies. Nowhere was this need more widespread than in Athens where a political career necessitated an acquaintance with the intellectual attainments of the race. The Sophists came to Athens to assist young men in achieving political success. Before long, this brought with it the subordination of purely theoretical learning to its practical usefulness, and the Sophists, far from teaching what is most likely to be true, instructed the youth in what is most likely to bear political fruit. Thus eloquent public appeal and the art of rhetoric soon took the place of pure science and philosophy. In this very desire, however, to persuade and refute, the problem presented itself as to whether among the various conflicting opinions which the Sophists had taught their pupils to defend and to oppose, there was anything of permanent value which could claim the assent of all men everywhere. This quest of the universal in knowledge and in conduct forms the basis of the Socratic Ques
The word has come to mean someone who uses philosophy in order to gain political or economic advantages. How am I doing this?
Yep. And you committed the ad hominem fallacy fallacy. I addressed your argument (by pointing out the fallacies therein) AND made some sarcastic comments. That’s not the ad hominem fallacy, little one. Perhaps you should take Logic 101 for the twelfth time.
Except that I’m not:
“Sophism: An eristic or contentious syllogism, distinguished from paralogism by the intent to deceive (Aristotle). – G.R.M.”
As you’re clearly trying to deceive vis. shifting the burden of proof, you are a sophist.
I pointed out the fact that land just exists - it’s not created by man. “Land is derived” is nonsense. Maybe you meant that conventional land ownership is derived from etc.
Nonsense. Man is responsible for his actions if they cause harm. Otherwise being “responsible” means nothing.
What do you mean ? He should care and feed his land ? Send the land to school ? Or ?
You mean than now ‘land’ is a moral agent which should abide by rules such as “not kill” ?
Do you realize that in one sentence you managed to come up with four nonsensical assertions and then tied them all together in one big non-sequitur ?
You’re just a broken record who will keep on asserting that what he needs to prove ?
Exactly.
Okay. I’m not a murderer - I just believe that killing when I feel like is the right thing to do.
I am trying to deceive? Who am I trying to deceive by asking you to be more precise in your definitions? That is absurd.
Yeah, and if individuals put penalty clauses into their contracts that are much greater than the original amount exchanged, than the proportional force one is allowed to use to enforce the contract is much higher than the value lost from the other party breaking the contract.
Reread the article- slowly. Step by step. Your lack of ability to comprehend it is beyond belief. You clearly have been avoiding my question of what your supposed ‘answer’ is. You still have yet to answer my question to your definition.
Do you understand what sarcasm is? Because, you are not being sarcastic. You are being rude and childish. You can not maintain the debate so you stand firm in assuming you need provide no proof for your arguments. The reason you will not accept the burden of proof is due soley to the fact that you have no proof. You continue to make radical accusations based on incorrect understandings of the words you use.
Irrationality is no substitute for intelligence. Stubbornness is no substitute for truth.
Keep on proving your foolishness.
Yes.
All of us by trying to shift the burden of proof. What you most certainly are NOT doing (and thus you’re lying again) is asking me to be more precise in my definitions.
Indeed. Pardon the mistype. Property is what I meant.
I have. You should take your own advice, little one. Further, you should actually provide some evidence for your outlandish claims, given that you have the onus of proof.
If you can’t, I suggest turning off your computer and going back to school.
I don’t see why any sensible person would do that. But even if, as an intellectual passtime, it’s posible to imagine a tiny minority who ‘agree’ to be executed on the spot**, that doesn’t mean that normal people in a libertarian society would sign such agreements.
** no due process
Anyways, here’s a business model : I sell lottery tickets that costs $1000. If you win, the prize is $50. How many tickets do you think I’m going to sell ?
… Perhaps reread what I wrote? I am advocating just this.
Having responsibility for an object is different than ‘being responsible’. You confused this, that is the reason the second portion does not make sense to you.
No, the land is the mans responsibility.
Or, more simply, you did not understand me.
Non sequitor. Do me a favor. Learn what subjective and objective means.