I was just wondering but: did walter think about defending other characters he might not have thought of or forgot to mention in his original book such as:
Tax evader,Anarchist rebel, person who curses too much in public, belcher, flag burner, protester, nationalist etc.
I was also wondering but could you defend the non trespassing peeping tom?
Thanks
We are mostly anarchists here.
What public? Everything is privately owned.
Champions of liberty?
I agree. troll…
Why does he have to be a troll? He could be simply offering other actors that are deemed bad in the public eye but may not be.
I think some of those are well worth defending.
Except for the belcher.
[I] Unless it were a Klingon belcher!
Unnecessary.
This matters because it’s justification for marginalizing someone for not being part of this crowd? What about the voluntarists? Panarchists? Mutualists?
Where is the pluralistic respect for those within the (un)ranks of the legion(s)?
Opinion #1
Opinion #2…
…and this would be correctly defined as troll-baiting, since there is nothing remotely trollish about the OP, unless you want to defend offending a person who wants to include other so-called" undefendables" in Block’s “Defending the Undefendable”.
What is truly ‘undefendable’ is the irony in this thread, but irony is as irony does, I guess.
But far be it from others to socially dispel posts by temporarily self-appointed representatives of “most of the anarchist crowd at LvMI Forums” who seem to have forgotten forum manners & the difference between “arguments” & "trolling.
I don’t know if I’m allowed to say anything… but he is in the process of writing a Defending the Undefendable 2. [:)]
You should probably shoot off a short email to him.
I’d like to try my hand at this one. It should be understood, of course, that defending an act does not necessarily condone it.
The Peepor in this case is a man looking into his neighbor’s window across the street using binoculars. The Peepee is a woman undressing in her bedroom. Does this constitute the initiation of aggression? I say no, to wit:
The Peepor is gathering free-floating (abandoned) light waves using property legitimately owned by himself (i.e., his binoculars and eyes). The Peepee’s property is not being violated in any way. It should also be noted that images only exist inside the brains of people. The Peepee does not own the Peepor’s brain. It follows that she cannot own the product of the Peepor’s brain, i.e., she does not own the image of herself in his brain, and therefore, cannot claim the Peepor has violated her property.
I’m just telling him the responses he’s likely to get. Most people new to the forums don’'t expect to find anarchists here.
Grammar, punctuation. I wasn’t the only one who thought so. Someone before me (deleted?) said troll…
My interpretation of the OP was that he was concerned about those issues, not that he wanted to add them to block’s list of undefendables.
Why would he defend a nationalist?
People who swear? People who belch? Seriously? You’re probably trolling, but assuming you’re not, there’s a lot more useful things that a man like Block could do than write a book defending completely irrelevant issues. Not to mention indoubtably such an absurd topic would outshadow all other Austrian work in the public eye, leaving us having to deal with “lol don’t u austrians just talk about people who burp?” with every person we talk to.
Block likes taking on extreme issues: even at times ones most would indeed consider irrelevant. For example, in DtU, he spent considerable space defending the rights of people who get a masochist thrill from the fear of dying in a fire.
Your an idiot if you think somebody on the mises forum is trolling. I am trying to ask weather or not to defend the non trespassing peeping tom because it is a serious issue with regards to freedom of movement. What if somebody wants to look at the inside of somebody’s house with binoculars on the street(government property of course) but can’t do it. Seriously, with this nonsense, it establishes a precedent that the state has control over your eye movement and brain which equals that of slavery. Also, if people wanted to prevent strangers from knowing what the interior of their home looks like, why don’t they just put blinds up so nobody can see them.
It is just basic common sense.
you are absolutely right except why don’t you try to tell that to a woman who would look at you like either you are a sexist masochist, or somebody who is a dangerous spy.
A binocular can not help one see through the curtain. So if the person undressing can be seen with binoculars the curtains are not drawn, which means the observer can assume that the person undressing does not care whether it is seen or not.
On the other hand using some futuristic device which would enable one to see through the curtains or even the walls would be a clearcut form of trespassing in my mind, no different from physically jumping the fence.
The belcher, the flag burner, the curser and the protester are really only made an issue by the virtue of there being public property. Where all land is privately held you can with permission of the owner do what you want.
Insults (‘Your [sic] an idiot’) are trolling.
Please read the forum rules before posting further.
Why are you making his point? Only she can control what is in her head. Like you said all she has to do is take control of the light waves she is so concerned with by closing the curtain. Voila!
I agree with you. Closing the curtains (that block all light waves) or moving yourself behind a wall so that you take control of the light waves emitted by your body is analogous to building a fence around a parcel of previously un-owned land. It is an example of initial appropriation over a scarce resource. In this case the scarce resource is light waves. Using a futuristic device to supersede the curtains or walls is in fact tantamount to jumping over a fence, like you said.
It is a fascinating problem really. Because the person undressing may had intended to, but then forgot to draw the curtains. And the person observing may very well be perfectly aware of this being the case. So in this case this actually constitutes a form of trespassing in the moralistic sense, but not in the legalistic sense so the courts would be powerless.
I would liken it with a racial minority guy who has for a neighbor a declared and open racist. The racist neighbor holds an annual barbecue to which he invites everyone of a certain color of skin, the fact which he advertises with a giant sign on his lawn days before the barbecue, reading something like "all people of X color invited to picnic this friday’. Then one year, the racist neighbor (he is not a very smart one) by mistake produces a sign that omits the skin color requirement. So if the racial minority guy were to make an appearance at the barbecue knowing that he is in fact not welcome he would be trespassing in the moralistic sense, but in the legalistic sense he could easily argue that until told otherwise he had sufficient reason to believe that he had been invited, even though in fact he had consciously chose to misinterpret the intentions of the racist neighbor.
Trying to determine intent definitely takes one into a gray area. In my opinion, it is better simply to ignore intent and instead deal with the facts of a case. In the cases you presented that would mean the participants would simply have to accept the court’s/arbiter’s judgment.
Why is that not satisfactory to you? I ask that sincerely.