Let me give you an obvious example about what I’m talking about that has nothing, even indirectly, to do with “reprocussions”: the question of whether or not you can enslave and torture someone because they happen to be in your home at the moment. In this scenario, noone has violated your property rights, they have not broken into your home, they are a guest that you invited in and proceeded to enslave and torture - it is not a question of reprecussions, it is a question of whether or not your ownership of your house justifies an infringement on the liberty of an occupant of your home. This is what I’ve been talking about the whole time - the more fundamental question about the scope of decision-making power granted by property rights. It is nonsensical to conflate that with the legal issue of reprecussions or punishments.
The question I am pursueing is NOT “what can an owner do once someone has violated their property rights”, the question I am pursueing is “what legitimate power does property rights grant the owner in the first place, prior to any infringments” - that is, defining what an owner’s property rights are in the first place! Half the point of a theory of property rights is to specify this, and it is not strictly a question of reprecussions, it is a broader question of the scope of decision-making power that ownership can legitimately grant. I have just undeniably demonstrated to you that this cannot be completely reduced to a question of punishment or reprecussions. If you continue to insist that it is purely a question of reprecussions after this point, then it is clear that either you simply do not understand what I am talking about or you purposefully are avoiding the point.
Forgive me. I started typing my last reply before you posted this one (the one to which I’m currently replying).
I understand you point a whole lot better now. Strangely, it doesn’t seem that far off from mine. It’s coming down to a difference of definitions. When I say “property rights”, I don’t mean how those rights may be defended, but in what situations may those rights may be defended. When I say absolute property rights, I mean in all situations. You are including severity of force used in defence as part of the of the overall definition of the right, whereas I am not. I’m fairly sure wilderness is not, as well.
Since we’re starting off with this misunderstanding, it becomes a lot more understandable that you are put off by the contention that property rights are absolute. Going with your definition, of rights, that would justify shooting the kid with the jellybean. Please believe me, that is not the case. Again, an absolute property right, as I am using the term, means that I have the right to defend (or choose not to defend) against all acts of aggression against my property. The kid stealing the jelly bean qualifies. But the amount of force used in the defence of my property, or used to seek restitution or repercussions, must be proportional to the resistance of the aggressor or the initial aggression, respectively. So for the jelly bean thief, taking the jelly bean back, or perhaps a good whack on the rump would suffice.
Again, to summarize, and an absolute right to property is the right to use force to defend absolutely all agression against one’s property. It is not way implies that that force may be propotionally larger than the aggression or of the resitance to said defensive force.
A guest is not violating your property correct. But because they are on your property does not mean you can coerce them. They are free thinking people that came upon your property under the impression that they were guests. So they are not criminals and so repercussions is not an issue here.
You conflate property with repercussions and life and liberty and when you stop seeing distinctions with these rights you come up with petty scenarios that are loose cannons and are false flag dire straits. It’s unfortunate for you.
People are capable of all kinds of decision making power such as I’m about to go get a drink of lemonade - what power of the mind decided upon this is wonderful indeed! We are capable of various decisions to make. In this instance, the guest is not a criminal and you conflate this into an inquiry of repercussions when it’s obvious you changed the scenario to now include a guest and not an intruder. You say you have been talking about this all along is called strictly lying. Cause the whole thread is about Tom’s cabin - not a guest being tortured.
You are seeking the holy grail of repercussions. I have shown you the way. Peace be with you on your journey.
There is nothing “unfortunate for me” about actually trying to work out the kinks of property rights theory. These questions are not irrelevant, they strike at the heart of defining property rights in the first place. You misunderstand my position if you imply that I am argueing that the different rights are irreconcilable, since my entire purpose is to reconcile them into a coherant whole and the entire point of my arguement is that one’s theory of property rights is incoherant if it is set up in a way that causes one right to completely destroy the function or purpose of another right. In fact, my perspective is a matter of the unity of those rights, and I’m argueing against what I consider to be incomplete property theories on the grounds that they do not unify the rights, they undermine the general right of personal liberty via appeal to an improperly formed property rights concept.
Your claim that I’m lieing is incredibly bogus. I know what I’ve been argueing this whole time, and you consistently have not understand my point.
The sense in which I’m questioning “absolute” property rights is as a rejection of appeals to property in the attempt to justify what are unjustified uses of force and various violations of people’s liberties. The point of me bringing up such scenarios is to point out that a sound libertarian theory of property rights doesn’t justify them and that a theory of property rights that does justify them is incoherantly formed.
Yes it is absolutely unfortunate for you cause you conclude violations of liberty and play with scenarios that prey upon innocent people. Jack has pointed out why you come to these conclusions of absurdity (in the sense that I prize liberty and your reasoning is not). The way I’m using property rights in no way comes to conclusions that violate liberty. Your way of using property is emerging scenarios that do violate liberty. So I would check your premise if your pursuance is liberty and not statism (coercion of liberty). I have not coerced liberty and you are in your intellectual exercises. That should pop a red flag up in your mind to recheck why your intellectual exercises violate liberty whereas mine don’t and yet I’m saving people’s lives without violating and doing a Bush along the way.
I hate to dust off the NAP again, but it’s begging to come out. Even if my property rights are absolute, they end at aggression upon your property (and your person, as you reject the premise of self ownership). Since the people in my home are guests, they are not aggressors, and I therefore have no right to use force on them. I can demand they leave, and if they don’t comply, or refuse, then and only then may I use force to get them to leave. This force may not be greater than their resistance.
Honestly, from a property rights perspective, I really don’t see any difference in this scenario than sitting on my porch using my gun to shoot my bullets at my neighbor’s windows. Yes, the porch, gun and bullets are my property, but my neighbor’s windows are not. Yes the house is mine, but my guests’ persons are not. Using my property to aggress upon my neighbor’s windows or my guests’ persons in not covered in property rights, even absolute property rights.
I conclude violations of liberty? Where are you getting that from? I have not presented a single conclusion that violates liberty. The entire point of my arguement this whole time has been an arguement against violations of liberty (shooting the gumball thief, enslaving and torturing one’s house guests, etc. - these are all violations of liberty)! My entire point has been that an improperly formed property rights theory logically entails violations of liberty! This is why your claim especially astounds me, given that you seem to have completely missed the point of my argument.
What the hell are you talking about? When I bring up scenarios that violate liberty, my entire purpose is to argue against them! The way that I am “using property” is in contrast to these scenarios. The “intellectual excersizes” are not for argueing in favor of liberty violations, they are to demonstrate that liberty violations are entailed by incomplete theories of property rights.
Wowzers, you’ve completely misunderstood this debate. Either that or you’re being intellecually dishonest.
Well we were talking about Tom’s cabin and now you’ve shifted it into several different scenarios. I don’t know if you’re using these new scenarios to justify Tom’s cabin scenario or you’re bringing up completely new scenario’s. I find the lack of focus in your approach difficult to say the least, but hey we’re discussing to figure this out which is a whole lot better than coercion. So the NAP works after all.
Rawls isn’t a social democrat, he’s a welfare liberal and there are important distinctions. For example, welfare liberals are interested in giving individuals their due as the criterion for a just society, whereas social democrats want to promote democratic society as the criterion of justice.
Libertarians seem to be incapable of making any sort of distinctions between political philosophies, all they can see are anarchists and socialists.
And, as for Brainpolice, you are totally wasting your time, you know? Look at how many people throw around the word ‘a priori’ with no understanding what it even means. These people aren’t interested in philosophy, they’re ideologues. You’d have as much luck arguing with anarcho-communists.
Well there is a sense in which political democracy is not a political system in any broad sense but a mechanism for the transition of power in a given political system. There is a neutral element to it in that the principle of majoritarianism and voting-as-source-of-legitimacy can theoretically sanction anything. So in this sense, it is a possible means to power for any group.
