@Sage, please go back and read the discussion. I don’t think you have been following it based on your comments.
Educational credentials have no weight in debate, the appeal to authority (not the first time you did this today) is lame. We all stand eye to eye in discussion here. The merit of your argument, not the size of your diploma is what matters.
Wilderness, that’s not a coherent theory for the context of this conversation. There’s no axiology and no moral content whatsoever.
If someone can or can’t defend the absolutist NAP, that doesn’t prove Danny’s position.
Please stay on topic.
It’s most definitely within the context of this conversation. Do you need rope too?
No axiology and moral content to what? Basic definitions are troubling you.
On the whole property rights and the conflict of survival vs them thing that I’m seeing as a general theme in the discussion so far, I think one has to acknowledge that proportion always is important here. As well as the concept of exceptional cases.
In the case of the guy breaking into a cabin of yours during a blizzard, the proportion response depends on the particular situation itself. Say you actually lived in that cabin at the time, and say the cabin’s area is well known for violent breakins. The response of self-defense may not be so out of proportion compared to the same case applied with a different context. In this case, say you’re not there at the time of the breakin, and that in this case, you do happen upon the person later. It makes little sense to “shoot first” and all that it entails for the simple fact that such an action or set of actions have additional costs for the property owner (possible hike in insurance, cost of clean up, and the loss of funds for all factors, including the loss of value to the cabin if the person breaking in damaged it irreparably).
As such, the concepts therein are not static, they require the acceptance of variation of situations no matter how similar they are. Property rights can survive variation, but the response in the defense of property rights if remaining ‘static’ will never survive variation as such. As a static response often can be found to have absurd situations both conceptual and real. But if the response is always attentuated with the concepts of proportion and exceptional cases (of variation), then I see no issue in the case of the person breaking into the cabin not being held liable for damages to property. And that he should pay when the blizzard passes on his honor. Such an idea isn’t so unreal as some cultures have enshrined such ideas with hospitality and reciprocation. So I don’t see it being logical for a person breaking into the cabin to refuse to pay back a debt accrued by his actions. Unless he’s a free loader, then you have a situation in which you’ll never get anything out of him (as he’s a stone).
Yes, you already tried to make the point that the people on this website are different than the bulk of people who share your common sense. [sic]
No, I have reposted the questions verbatim. You keep avoiding them.
So you will start answering direct questions?
Hahaha, Ad hominems. Priceless. “You are all lunatic wingnuts!”
You don’t have to figure out reasons. People are asking you direct questions that one would expect you could resolve with the same clarity you started the discussion off with. You seem to be resolute and adamant about the justifications for Klemm, but confused and unsure about everything else. That doesn’t help your argument, and the fact you can’t produce simple direct answers to very simple questions is giving me the impression that you have no interest in answering these questions because you know they undermine your premise.
I think basic summaries of rights as being absolute and negative have been advanced, and are more than sufficient for the discussion. As I wrote to Sage, flipping this around to making us justify our position, won’t validate yours. It also detracts from direct criticism on your position, as you seek to make criticisms on the position of others. When you have resolved the basic issues that have been pointed out with Respectarianism, I would be more than happy to be strung to a whipping post where you can beat the hell out of my understanding of rights. But right now, it seems to me unnecessary to the existing discussion, and likely an attempt to continue avoiding basic questions posed to you as a representative of the Respectarian viewpoint.
No, I think I summarized quite nicely. Did you actually read the link?
To state the difference more formally: some party ‘A’ has a negative right to x against another party ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is prohibited from acting upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x; and likewise, ‘A’ has a positive right to x against ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is obliged to act upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x. For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A’; while if ‘A’ has a positive right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of ‘A’.
If Klemm’s right to life is a negative right: Tom “is required to refrain from killing” Klemm. This is what I hinted at, though I did not come right out and say it. I simply pointed out that by disallowing the use of the cabin, Tom’s is, in fact, not violating Klemm’s negative right to life. Nature is killing Klemm, not Tom.
If Klemm’s right to life is a positive right: Tom “is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of” Klemm. Again, this is exactly what I said: “You are asserting that Tom has an obligation to allow, or no standing to disallow, his property to be used to protect that life.”
Liberty student, none of that was a theory.
Jack, are you suggesting that allowing someone to do something is an action? By that standard, “not killing” would be “allowing to live” and all rights would be positive.
That seems to be basically what’s going on in this thread ladyattis. But you are bringing up repercussions and this is the current fault line.
Danny thinks it’s a property issue, but yet Danny says it’s Tom’s cabin (so thereby it’s not a property issue, but Danny insists it is even though Danny says it’s Tom’s cabin). Danny keeps on discussing what Tom (or society) ought to do to the invader of the cabin, which is a repercussion inquiry. But Danny doesn’t think it is about repercussions, yet, he’s arguing what ought to or not ought to be done to the cabin invader. In other words - Danny’s kinda stuck.
Jack, your understanding of nature killing Klemm and not Tom is priceless. I’ve enjoyed that angle tremendously.[:)]
Danny, after you ad hominemed me as a lunatic, what were you expecting?
The problem with you guys not having a theory is that you have no claim to the terms you’ve been nitpicking about without one. You can’t tell me that rights must be this, that, or the other thing without an explanation of what rights are and why we should care about them. So your positions are empty if you can’t tell me why Klemm should give a darn about Tom’s property rights, never mind when his life is on the line. And thus far, you haven’t offered one.
Well when a persons reasoning fails they do tend to get desperate.
I am asserting that inaction is, by definition, refraining from killing someone. That is, Tom is obligated to refrain from killing Klemm. Tom refraining from admitting Klemm is not killing Klemm, and therefore, not a violation Klemm’s negative right to life. Stabbing or shooting or poisoning Klemm - these would be examples for violating his negative right to life. Doing nothing, by definition, is not.
I am also asserting that giving my consent is an action.
I am further asserting that a right that imposes a positive obligation on another is necessarily a positive right. If Tom is obligated to allow the use of his cabin to protect Klemm’s right to life, then that right is a positive right.
Of course I don’t want to argue that Danny’s academic credentials prove his argument. I’m just saying it’s arrogant and insolent to assume he’s completely ignorant of natural rights theory. Principle of charity and all that.
I raise the question because in my view, none of the traditional arguments (e.g. Rothbard’s argument by elimination, argumentation ethics) do in fact justify an absolutist NAP. So based on these arguments, libertarianism is implausible. I see efforts like respectarianism and thick libertarianism as attempts to repair this, and make libertarianism more robust.
But isn’t this the false dichotomy again? You’re saying that either Tom has the property right or he doesn’t. If he does, then Klemm’s actions are a rights violations and the only question left is that of repercussions. Is that a fair representation?
I’m saying that Tom does have a property right, and yet Klemm’s actions are not a rights violation, they are merely a rights infringement.
So you’re saying that Klemm is violating Tom’s rights, whereas I’m saying that he is only infringing them. What is the root of our disagreement?
I’m going to nit-pick this to smithereens… hmmm, let’s see. I know the difference between rights and repercussions.
I posted on this, but you stumble along incoherently bouncing, bouncing, bouncing like Tiger. But you might need a little more Pooh, “Think, Think, Think.”
[view:
Let’s start with basics Danny:
Is it Tom’s cabin? yes or no
No. Is it Tom’s cabin? yes or no
I’m asking you: Is it Tom’s cabin? yes or no
Property rights are simply stating it’s Tom’s cabin. This says nothing about what Tom (or society) ought to do with Klemm. How they ought to handle Klemm. The repercussions have to do with what ought Tom (or society) do about Klemm now that Klemm has infringed, violated, choose your verb, Tom’s cabin.
If you agree it’s Tom’s cabin, then the inquiry is now about repercussions. It’s no longer about who’s cabin it is.
I honestly fail to see the difference. Can you elaborate? Webster’s Dictionary is no help, as it defines infringe as " to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." Isn’t an infringement of rights then necessarily a violation of rights?
It’s a false dichotomy only if property rights aren’t absolute. “A or not A” is not a false dichotomy, nor is “black or not black”. If propety rights are absolute, “my property” or “not my property” is not a false dichotomy. So… are property rights absolute?
What does it mean for a cabin to be “Tom’s”?
It’s not ignorant or insolent if you don’t know Danny’s qualifications.
I don’t know how to say this discreetly, so I will just say it. Thick libertarianism and Respectarianism are complete BS. They are based on the premise that people have positive obligations. They undermine methodological individualism.
What is being proposed is collectivism.
