lol
Yes, and I’m also quite sure that it’s a stretch to say that stealing a loaf of bread to feed your children would be considered aggression.
Now, now, before you mock me, you’d better go read your Ludwig von Mises.
Spoken like a true Randroid.
After reading TVS I really don’t expect an objectivist to be able to give a coherent account of biology (amusing, since it is apparently an ethics based on human “nature”). As far as I’m concerned, the very act of choosing a homosexual lifestyle is indicative of high time preference. Especially in the context of a family orientated, stateless society.
Damn is that all. This thread could have been over a long time ago if you would have said this a long time ago, but I’m sure you can counter-argue this by saying, “I have said this repeatedly.”…lol
Damn, if you would have only said this before…lol
And I’ve said repeatedly, if I was Tom I would be ok with it as long as Klemm cleans up the mess caused. But again this is not up to me. Why even go through all this. What’s really the point other than cultivate a Tom that would agree with me and show compassion? Are you trying to say this should be law? I’m leaving Tom’s free-will intact. Tom can be ass and not show mercy. I’m protecting liberty and somehow it’s benefiting both Tom and Klemm.
Damn it’s not like you haven’t said that before. Couldn’t be done awhile ago, but…lol
Well I’ve said over and over again my position. But you “annoying” don’t care what I say and rehash this to death.
And yet mercy and justice cleans up this mess, restores, and no consideration of aggression need to have even been thought to have occurred. Liberty thus not violated.
Ha. First Tom was about to be robbed and now he’s also getting killed…
lol
But think of the children.
Thou shalt not steal. Doesn’t get any clearer than that Giles. Direct commandment from God.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t believe that man was created to live on his knees and hate his existence. Spoken like someone who believes that life is good, and living life can be good, and how we decide to do things, separates good from evil, and that is a conscious decision we all make.
In order to be an Objectivist, I would have to vehemently oppose homosexuality, as Rand was such a fanatical homophobe that it would put you to shame, and I would have to be a minarchist. I am neither. And that’s barely even scratching the surface, but I have already questioned how much you actually know about Objectivism. It seems you can’t even identify one accurately.
Biology has nothing to do with it. Hoppe made a mistake when he tried to project values onto his theories. Everyone does it. Which is why I try to be as value free in debate as possible.
I don’t believe Giles thinks people can be merciful and just. He certainly doesn’t believe those are rational choices someone can make.
It’s my feeling we’re seeing the real deal with a lot of folks. That under it all, there is a latent discomfort with freedom, and a desire to resort to aggression as soon as an adequate emotional lever can be pushed.
Not surprising. If everyone had an inherent and consistent sense of virtue, then we wouldn’t be in the mess we find ourselves in each day.
Again, you’re simply sidestepping having to address the question with a fully comprehensive answer. Noone is saying that it’s “up to you” or “up to us” in the sense of some governmental decision-making body, I’m asking you to actually give me a coherant answer to the philosophical question about moral permissibility in the scenario. You have consistently sidestepped doing that by insisting on talking about the matter in an ex-post-facto sense and as a restitutional issue, when the question is one of the agent’s moral permissibility in the scenario. You keep shifting the question to “What can or should Tom do after the scenario occurs?”, when you are being asked “What is it permissible for Klemm to do in the scenario, and why or why not?”.
Is Klemm morally obligated to die or do nothing by virtue of the absolute authority of Tom’s property rights? Or is it is morally permissible for Klemm to do that which is necessary to save his life in the scenario?
You side stepped my last response to you. You’ve been doing it a lot lately. I enjoyed it much more when you argued a losing position.
I didn’t argue a losing position - I have argued with people who don’t even comprehend half the posts of the people they are trying to argue with, coupled with an intrigueing display of mob psychology.
I think my position on “lifeboat situations” is reasonable. They do not negate libertarianism, but they aren’t irrelevant either. They inform us of the limits of norms. On one hand, “the argument from doomsday” is disingenous in that no moral philosophy can “pass it’s test”, so to speak. On the other hand, to dismiss all circumstantial questions as irrelevant, even to the point in which you are forced to choose death for yourself or others in the name of some lesser or entailed principle, is to divorce your ethics from the real world and establish internal inconsistency. If your theory of “property rights” logically entails mass-murder and slavery being justified via appeal to some arbitrary legal claim of absolute decision-making power, you should probably re-evaluate your property theory. I also think the tendency of some libertarians to be broadly anti-consequentialist is retarded.
Once again, I’m done. Soon enough everybody else will be too. At that point you guys can go back to challenging each other’s knowledge of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and discussing how much you hate dyslexics (after all, they do tend to get a bit confused when it comes to that whole “A = A” business).
Oh and, for the record, BP turns out to be correct.
A big if there. I mean if you can give me one situation where Klemm (not us in our thought experiment, but Klemm hisself) could be sure of this, then you would have a stronger case, that I would still dispute.
If you had a sense of humour, you probably wouldn’t be too difficult to hang out with.
You’re still sidestepping my response.
Situations of dire need may very well absolve the sin of theft; of course, though, “dire need” should not be interpreted lightly. Keep in mind that the later commandments address the organization of social relations, and the commandement “thou shalt not steal” is aimed at the proper organization of the external things that man both has a natural, and divinely right dominion over; due to this fact, when a human life is at stake, knowing that human life is of a sacred value, it may not be a sin to steal in order to live. I must emphasize that “dire need,” in this context, essentially means when human life is at stake.
Not before another one of these:
W: “Man, Liberty Student, it really is a shame that Danny can’t even decide whether or not the cabin belongs to Tom; his position is so full of holes that I can’t even understand why he thinks he has any intellectual credibility left. And to think; it’s so simple: it’s Tom’s cabin, after all, and so once we acknowledge this it becomes clear that it’s just an inquiry of repercussions! Look at how much he tripped over himself trying to deny that property rights mean that it’s Tom’s decision. Really sad, actually.”
LS: “Danny is just confused. He simply doesn’t understand that his position leads directly to communism. But it’s okay; I think he’s still an okay guy, even if he just sits around calling people names. It’s a shame that Sage and Giles don’t see him for what he is, but Giles is a snivelling child anyway.”
Z: “RothbardFTW!!1!”
Can a need be dire if it is manufactured by the party in need? That’s really another one of the questions at the foundation of this lifeboat.
Hasn’t Klemm created his own need? And hasn’t the father put his children in a bad way?
As I understand incentives, if we make it morally permissable for people to create their own need, they will stop taking any responsiblity for their actions. It is moral hazard.
Danny, thanks for the laugh.
You won’t answer direct queries in debate but you will talk to yourself.
After calling us lunatic wingnuts, you are now making up conversations that you then laugh at.
At least the conversation has turned turned to light hearted strawmen.
I must admit that I never really intended to comment on this situation; instead, I merely desired to critique your interpretation of “thou shalt not steal.” I have not considered the conditions of this specific though-experiment enough to comment here.