No one can offer more to a trade than he can when getting robbed.
But you can trade with more people than you can rob.
So, because you are scared that we will have chaos, you think we should continue to allow people to be robbed and peaceful people to be tased, caged, and killed - I do? I don’t remeber saying that.
I don’t know if your contradicting yourself, or just confusing me.
If rights are arbitrary, then property is up for grabs. This leads us down the road of might makes right. We would have to ignore or reject the homesteading principle, ignore human action and the need to satisfy desires, and ignore scarcity of property for us to correct consider this arbitrary.
Filc, you can claim a right to whatever you want to, but if you cant do it, you dont effectively own it.
Jon and Filc, The fundamental problem of this “rights” idea is that it is applying to real life to what it wants real life to be like. But in the end, it is only imagination. While effective property is what someone can effectively do. And yes, might makes right is exactly what happens in real life.
I think that he thinks that the “exploitation” would be more severe under anarcho-capitalism than under a relatively good state, like that of the United States, Switzerland, or whatever. I of course don’t think that he ever successfully made the argument that it would be, but it isn’t like you could refute anything that isn’t anarcho-capitalism with such an easy jab.
We face trade-offs. We can’t ever get everything that we want. Maybe we always will have to deal with systematic “exploitation”, and will just have to choose whatever system is the least “exploitative”, and can’t ever choose one that isn’t “exploitative” at all. Do you think that is impossible? Should we reject that possibility right away? Do you really think that the argument that such a utopia where there isn’t any systematic “exploitation” at all is so established that we should reject anything that doesn’t measure up to that right away?
Filc, you can claim a right to whatever you want to, but if you cant do it, you dont effectively own it.
Jon and Filc, The fundamental problem of this “rights” idea is that it is applying to real life to what it wants real life to be like. But in the end, it is only imagination. While effective property is what someone can effectively do. And yes, might makes right is exactly what happens in real life.
When you’ve got something other than pure assertions to offer, I’m all ears. Till then, I’ll go order a pizza.
Great, then you must agree that when a thief is shot by entering my home, it was his fault, and none of my own. I was simply practicing my personal beliefs of effective property.
Now you may argue that the theif was doing the same. The problem is normatively speaking everyone disagrees with you. Even the Thief’s own subscribed judicial service, and mine do not agree with him. Since most people whether they realize it or not are adherents of the homestead principle are most likely to lean toward the protection of private property, as opposed to effective property.
So unfortunately for you society does not favor your envisioned dilemma.
If this were true we would have no capital structure whatsoever. Likewise however there are several firms that protect private property, not effective property. Consumers have shown they are interested in the former, not the latter. Consumers are interested in saving, and protecting their hard earned acquisitions. They are not interested in stealing from others, and they are not interested only protecting their property when they are around to do so.
If it were the other way around, then society would have moved in the opposite direction of capital accumulation. Unfortunately bot history and modern practice seems to be at odds with what your arguing. In the only case where this is not true is when the state has been involved. That I would agree, is a might makes right juggernaut.
where is the error in my assertions? They are some pretty basic descriptions of real life that every child knows. Im quite surprised that some guys hare have problems coping with them.
Effective property is not a “should” idea unlike property right theories, like filc is thinking. It is merely a description of reality, to illustrate the same way robbing and defending alter property
Yeah, it is because we can’t cope with reality. You got us.
Maybe we always will have to deal with systematic “exploitation”, and will just have to choose whatever system is the least “exploitative”, and can’t ever choose one that isn’t “exploitative” at all. Do you think that is impossible? Should we reject that possibility right away? Do you really think that the argument that such a utopia where there isn’t any systematic “exploitation” at all is so established that we should reject anything that doesn’t measure up to that right away? - Spot on, spot on.
The errors are as follows.
-
Your repeating yourself needlessly
-
Your providing only assertions, unsubstantiated by logic or otherwise
-
They are your own opinions, and cannot extend beyond that. As has been pointed out your only giving us assertions, and we’re easily throwing them back at you with little effort. Assertions generally never make very much headway.
-
Your arguing that your describing “real life”, and that implies that we must be disconnected from real-life and in error. Unfortunately for you real-life seems to ebb in the direction away your descriptions. As we have observed massive capital accumulation throughout history, where private property was respected and protected, not temporary effective possession.
It’s even gone so far that capitalists have temporarily lent out their private property, and granted effective possession to laborers. The agreement being that the laborers are paid a regular salary. Thus providing even another example where society has built itself on a concept of private property, not effective property. The examples go on from there. The only place where this is not the case is a state structured framework, and such entity’s are not built voluntarily so we can not in honesty say that society prefers it.
The entire capital structure is built in a framework entirely incompatible with effective property. Since the capital structure was for the most part built voluntarily, we can only conclude that people are not concerned with protecting “Effective property” but are concerned with protecting private property.
- Your greatest flaw is that you do not even for a moment consider our points. Your already typing your next response even before you have time to digest whats been provided(no offense). Don’t be in such haste to be right.
Finally, the fact your asking where your flaw is shows you havn’t give what i’ve said much thought. Engage my arguments a bit more, show me where my logic is flawed. What you’ve done is deduced a conclusion from a false premise IMHO.
Oh, so you are fine with letting people not pay taxes then?
I don’t know about all this “effective property” stuff. Sounds made up. Also, it sounds like it should be in another thread. Most posts are now disputing Xarthaz, not me, the OP. Her arguments are her own and seemed to branch off a while ago. I wish we could stick to the case of a weak group needing to get defense from a strong one, the origin of the state, monopolist exploiters vs competing exploiters, and/or the feasibility of private defense …
where is the error in my assertions? They are some pretty basic descriptions of real life that every child knows. Im quite surprised that some guys hare have problems coping with them.
It’s more so that you think that they prove anything. The question is, what actions could be legitimised or not in a court, i.e. what would it just throw out of hand as inconsistent nonsense? Here’s a fact of life for you: humans need resources (which by their nature are scarce and rivalrous in their uses) and property in order to act and thus will continue appropriating and making use of them as time progresses. In order for there to actually be civilisation and not pure chaos they will rely on mechanisms of ownership, the one outlined in that article being the most reasonable one I’ve hitherto encountered. Individuals transgressing the property of others will still need to justify why they may make such use of resources, i.e. why their claim is superordinate to the first-user’s (and courts only deal with justificatory claims, if there is not one the whole thing is irrelevant.) Now it’s true they may not care about this. In which case they are like mere animals, to be put down and dealt with, and resources to be pried from them. Technical problems. Otherwise they will settle their disputes in a civilised manner. They’ve offered no justification as to why ownership should remain with them.
Effective property is not a “should” idea unlike property right theories, like filc is thinking. It is merely a description of reality, to illustrate the same way robbing and defending alter property
Could you tell me what the use of this concept is to a court trying to settle a dispute, please?
How does “acting in [one’s] own best interest” necessarily imply stealing whenever he’s given the chance? Note that you’re appealing to an absolute standard of “best interest”, which cannot exist objectively. - Why would anyone steal something if they didn’t think it would be in their own “best interest”? If I steal something you can conclude that i determined (by my own subjective standards) that I would benefit from it.
No it is all about company’s relative power in the market. I have less power than everyone I contract with. I could never beat them in government courts. But they don’t screw me over because they have competition.
The internet is international. Latvia basically has no internet law. The best hackers are basically uncatcheable, especially by governments.
It is possible that the people who steal are simply wrong about it being their MOST profitable option. As stipulated before, the average criminal has a short life expectancy and is very poor.
I have to illuminate this point. Aside from government, how many groups of “Ocean’s Eleven” do we have out there? If thievery were so profitable why arn’t entrepreneurs driven to it?
It is possible that the people who steal are simply wrong about it being their MOST profitable option. As stipulated before, the average criminal has a short life expectancy and is very poor. - First you tell me that value is subjective and i can’t possibly say what is, or isn’t, in someone “best interest”. And in your next post you tell me that people are mistaken about what their “best interests” are. How could you know/judge that?
As to your morality issue i will address it one more time. I do not discount the FACT that people often behave in accordance to their code of morality and thus willingly forego “material” gain for some other thing the value higher, say an ethical code. This is true.
But If the only way you can justify your system is to say people will behave in such and such a way because of their morality, i contend you have already conceded my point. I could propose any system i felt like, say communism, and then argue that people are motivated by communist ethics and thus the system will work. If your system depends on this, it is a failure. People mainly behave based on incentive.
Aside from that, any moral/ethical code is just as subjective as any value scale, if not more so. The Nazis had a moral code. It was deep and complicated, and the movement contained many intellectuals, philosophers, economists, and artists. It had Mises Institute-like institutions, where students explored the theoretical basis of nazism, etc , etc, etc. I recommend “Nietzsche and the Nazis,” which explains the philosophical roots of Nazism.
Whatever else you want to say about Nazism, it was diametrically opposed to Libertarianism. It argued for a centralized state, with absolute power. It argued that human history is a struggle between races, and a variety of other things … all fully justified by a moral code. Did the Nazi exploit people. Hell ya they did. Did they have an established moral code which, if followed, fully justified that exploitation. Yes. Morality can’t be relied upon to make your system work.
Some “ideal” moral code is a pathetic foundation for a theoretical argument regarding the viability of PDAs.
I have to illuminate this point. Aside from government, how many groups of “Ocean’s Eleven” do we have out there? If thievery were so profitable why aren’t entrepreneurs driven to it? - You should read the whole thread. This has been discussed at length. All potential exploiters are currently under the umbrella of a monopolist exploiter (gov’t), who is protecting its victims from other exploiters. The same reason a farmer doesn’t let wolves eat his sheep, he want exclusive right to using them. The activities of this monopolist exploiter dramatically drive down the profits from additional exploitation (and cut down on the life expectancy of those who try to mussel in on governments game). All the good exploitation rackets are already taken over by the monopolist exploiters (Law making, central banking, wealth redistribution, theft, protection rackets, etc.)