Property doesn’t speak. Doesn’t act. Property by definition is material, dead, objects. And law is not arbitrary rules allegedly tied(how?) to a plot of land. And we’re talking about a system which is not based on geographical boundaries anyway. You fail in so many ways.
This has nothing to with consumers, business or serving. You just keep on assuming that a land owner can dream up any ‘law’ - but you never explained how owning a plot of land (which is mostly convention) can give to the owner ‘legislative power’ to override natural law.
Also, you didn’t address part of my previous posts so I’m reposting them…
You never ever proved why ‘any’ coercive action against a petty criminal is justified.
Well, me doing that isn’t helping my perception of what you’re saying. I’ve been reading them and you haven’t been clear at all. So I tried to give a new starting point, but you dodged this too.
Way to avoid everything. If you don’t know what rights are, then why are you here talking about them? Rights may be understood as “justified allowances”, i.e. “What am I justified in doing?” “What am I allowed to do?” Go to dictionary.com next time you are completely oblivious to the topic you are discussing.
Now, back to the only question worth answering, the one you’ve been avoiding for so long:
Me: Where do rights come from?
Pablo: From contractual agreements.
Me: And should I refuse your terms? How would you have rights then?
According to you, you don’t need a right. All you need is your own permission. But that leads STRAIGHT to the might-is-right abomination which you were arguing against earlier. Perhaps you should get a clue about the topic before you start debating it. You have been confusing yourself for 3 pages of this topic.
It already has ended. The words are defined. You can usually learn the definitions by going to a dictionary. Dictionary.com is my favorite. The key is the term JUST. What is “just”, you ask? Go find out.
You have a right to do that which you are justified in doing. Pablo doesn’t know that.
So in your mind there is no amount of property stolen that would allow for the victim to use deadly force? So forget proportionality because the thief never has to worry about getting killed and if the thief has nothing to begin with then there is no possibility of restitution so we have an environment where stealing is basically unpunished.
Pablo is right on the money. People have to be allowed to decide for themselves what the level of force is they are going to use to protect their property. You are making the typical Austrian arguement against current government in favor of the Austrians making decisions for everyone.
I will side with Pablo and the people who want freedom.
So you are right in doing which is justified, and what is justified is doing that which you do when you are in the right?
Great! I completely understand now.
Thanks.
This debate seems to be going no where. I am asking for a definition of just actions. You can not bring any to the table, because none objectively exist. The only ‘rights’ are ones that individuals voluntarily agree to by a contract. Rights do not exist in the ether. Rights are not granted. Rights are not derived from some drawn out theory of nature. Rights come from agreements.
Words are subjective in nature unless referenced to a standard. I can not claim that ‘thats what the word means’, I must say 'according to dictionary.com, this is the definition of the word.". In common language, it is generally expected to be the case, but when someone is using a definition that is different from the common usage, it is a good idea for each individual to define it.
It does not lead to ‘might-is-right’ rights. Contractual agreement between parties will restrict there ability to use involuntary behavior. If there is no contract between them, whoever is acting involuntary opens themself up to the contract with no rights. Plain and simple.
I am arguing for geographic boundaries. Are you sure you agree with property rights? Do you want some czar to decide what is proportional, just, right, etc on everyone? Are you accounting for cultural differences? What about language barriers? What about religious viewpoints? What about economic differences? It is difficult enough for a couple people to agree on what is proportional, let alone the entire world. Or wait, you don’t care if they agree on it, because the czar enforces ‘justice’ no matter.
Two people have voluntarily agreed to allow a violent action to settle without punishment. Nooo, that is not proportional according to the czar, is it? Or will it be a committee? A jury panel? What collective do you want to override the contract? What will his punishment be? Do you see how quickly your dream can turn into a nightmare?
His land is a result of his labor and time. He is responsible for his property. He is liable for his property. I don’t believe in assigning property by government patent. Property is not given, it is created. His property is as much his own as his body. He need not be concerned with some other ‘legislative body’ who claims ownership over him. Natural law need not be overriden because, according to dictionary.com, his law is natural law “a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society.”
The state is the one coercing, so you are incorrect. I myself would not shoot the bubble gum theif, but I would defend the shop keepers right to do so, so again, you are incorrect.
Yes I have. Let me give you an example which you might be able to understand.
In the United States, there are a set of ‘just laws’ which you can be punished for. In Mexico, there are another set of these ‘just laws’, from which you can be punished for as well. When you cross that boundary between the two nation states, you are bound by the laws of the land. You are subject to their laws. Each nation state applies these ‘just laws’ very differently. How can that be? If there is only one set of ‘just laws’, why not just eliminate the anarchy between nations as well? The answer is, ‘justice’ is an entirely subjective value, and therefor can only be decided by each individuals agreement to that which they find as ‘just’. You dont escape your fantasy land by claiming it to be objectively true, simply because you are incorrect.
I disagree with setting arbitrary lines to decide which group has which set of laws. South of the Rio Grande there is this set of laws, and north of it, there are these set of laws. This is based on drawing lines on maps, not property. Base it on property, and wah-la, you have a moraly correct, functional, anarchism for the entire world. Unfortunately, people who advocate ‘objective justice’ are the primary reason we don’t have the ability to disagree.
Right: 1. “in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.” OR
18.
“a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.”
Just: 3. “based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.”
Lawful: 2. Constituted or authorized by law; rightful; as, the lawful owner of lands.
Do you see the circular reasoning here? What is just is based on what is right, and what is right is based on what is just. You go absolutely no where. Its just one wild ride of passing the definition off onto other words.
Well, according to you, he does not have any rights but your “only question worth answering” no longer matters because he still has the physical ability to act.
Any belief that rights derive from your own sentience is just a different type of of might-is-right abomination.