Correction: certain kinds of libertarianiasm (the ‘Rothbardian’ one) are based (only) on property rights over material things.
Property rights as such are never ‘material’; they are rights, i.e. areas within a human being can justifiable act.
You don’t think: “I will kill you/lock you up if you do drugs” isn’t a violation of rights?
For the sake of shortcuts, I already know that Sage is working from a Rothbardian framework.
Same question to you. What right is being violated? It’s an honest question. If you’re going to claim there is a rights violation, identify the right. If you can’t (and I at this moment cannot) then it may not be a rights violation.
So?
Oke.
I would say that there is no reason to abandon the traditional legal view:
The ‘rightsviolation’ is the violation not to be agressed against your property. Someone who will shoot you (or lock you up) if you do drugs is no different than someone who takes your wallet while pointing a gun at you. The property right is the property right over the drugs and your body to use them as you wish.
I would argue that the concept of ‘objective rights’ is dubious and requires further clarification what one means by this concept.
Does pointing a gun and saying ‘give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you’ constitutes agression or not?
havent pages of the universal self ownership of external (what ever that means) resources been put forth at mises sites?
was something left out of those discussions concerning property rights?
i expect if i try to take tasty berries from knots farm someone would try to stop me?
the berries woulndt be jointly owned.
or a direct threat of physical violence;
sometimes these things are subtle.
You’re making the same error Sage makes. You’re confusing intent with action. I can say I will kill you and not intend to kill you or even attempt it. Action and intent are not the same thing.
Someone who plans a bank robbery and doesn’t go through with it, is not a bank robber. Likewise someone who talks about violence but doesn’t commit it, isn’t committing aggression.
So I can point a gun at you and say ‘give me your wallet or I’ll shoot’? What if you give me your wallet; did I stole this wallet from you or did you voluntary gave it to me? As long as I don’t shoot anyone; I’m not a criminal?
Indeed, but that is the framework we are discussing.
Are they joking? Will they really shoot? What will they do if I say no? We can’t know intent. All we can know is that they are acting like they “may” aggress against us. So the question becomes, when does acting coercively without actually aggressing become aggression?
There is no universal standard based on whether LS feels fear that he is being aggressed against. That is a positive standard which I do not think passes the test of universability.
You’re making the same error Sage makes.
i dont see an error. if protecting oneself if a right, and if information arises that would reduce ones own protection then taking steps to see if the information is true seems rightful.
So if Iraq is developing WMDs, it is ok to attack it? Or likewise, if your neighbor buys a tank and parks it on his lawn with the barrel pointed at your house, you are justified in shooting at him in so-called self-defense?
What if you point a gun at me and say nothing? What if you point a gun at me and say, “Sing happy birthday!” What if you point a gun at me and say, “Pow, you’re dead!”
What if you don’t point a gun at me, and you say “Give me your wallet”? What if you shake a baseball bat at me, and say “give me your wallet or I wil shoot”?
I’d argue that I voluntarily gave it to you.
As long as you don’t commit aggression. Coercion is not always aggression.
Can you define/explain this framework?
And that doesn’t need to pass the test of universability? Why are you so hammered on that it should? It’s one thing to think natural law through on a rational basis - which we ought to do - but it’s another thing to apply this in practise. Don’t confuse philosophy of law with jurisprudence; philosophy of law tells us we can’t agress against property. Jurisprudence - the interpretation/application of these theoretical concepts - has to tell us when there is such a thing as agression or not. There is no such thing as ‘objective’ law in this sense, nor can there be.
If I pass you in the supermarkt and I bump in to you, did I agress against you? Most people probably would say 'no(. What if I shoot a bullet through your brain? Most people probably would say ‘yes’.
Certain kinds of behavior are identified as being agressive - that is why these kinds of behavior are used by people who want to threat other people. I can imagine that in some cultures given someone a kiss or a pat on the back could mean ‘I’m going to kill you’ (I’m not sure if this really true; just making a fictious example). But nobody in our culture would comprehend these actions as to be life threatening and will respond totally different. The legal system of a society must be different accordingly.
One must keep in mind the distinction between natural law - which can be identified by the use of logic and reason (like Rothbard, Hoppe en Van Dun tried) and the application/interpretation of this in a legal system. Property is fine; but what constitutes property?
Maybe, maybe not. This is beyong theoretical inquiry because of the impossibility of constituting all the relevant facts that should be considered. But the general idea is: if you have reasons to believe that someone else is about to kill you, then yes: you are allowed to defend yourself.
What if someone comes running towards you with a knife saying ‘I’m going to kill you!’ Are you justified in shooting him, because you can’t know wether or not he’s going to kill you? The logical conclusion of the position you are defending is that nobody can act in self-defense - unless when someone is beating the crap out of him or something. But self defense in cases where it’s ‘the guy who strikes first wins’; self-defense is, in effect, a concept that is impossible. But according to this theory - as you make it clear to me - you can’t shoot the guy in the situation described above, because you can’t know wether he’s going to agress against you?
No but coercion at bare minimum does require the threat of using aggression. So coercion must be classified as violence. Do you agree?
The man pointing a gun and demanding your wallet is, therefore,committing violence against you.
My framework allows me to say: it depends. Again: I see human (inter)action not as something static in which you can lay down the rules in all situation. What you can do, is to have a rational inquiry behind certain principles. My best friend who loves guns singing happy birthday while shooting in the air doesn’t constitute a threat in any reasonable circumstance. A person I don’t know might scare me while doing the same. The threat of agression is something that always depends on the circumstance and has, indeed, a subjective aspect to it. That doesn’t make it irrelevant though.
I’d argue that this is indeed what your answer should be, given the framework you have created. I’d say this framework is wrong for reasons I tried to explain.
What’s the difference?
Not all violence is aggression. Violence can be consensual. Violence can be self-defense.
True. Let me rephrase that. Coercion must be classified as initiated violence committed by one party against another not in self-defense. Do you agree?
Because if yes, it is hard to see how coercion does not always fit the criterion of aggression.
Which is it, beyond the relevant facts or not? If you defend yourself by using force, and the person you thought was a threat really was not, have you not been the one to commit aggression? If I think you are a threat to me, am I justified in attacking you in “self-defense”?
What if they arrive at you, and don’t kill you?
Not at all. I am challenging sloppy assumptions. We’re all here to learn. We don’t learn unless we challenge premises. Thus far, no one has answered with much strength the challenges I have made. Seems we have a lot of work (discussion and further inquiry) to do on these topics because the conception of justice held by different folks here seems to me to be inconsistent at best.
The guy who strikes first is by definition aggressing. It is the initiation of force.
I’ll throw a bone out there. If someone runs at you with a knife saying “I will kill you” , then self-defense might mean adopting a defensive posture. Preparing to block a blow. Running away. Requesting assistance. It does not necessitate killing the individual you believe may attack you.
Again, either intervention is justified or not. So if I can attack one guy because I alone perceive him to be a threat, regardless of his intentions, actions or capacity to carry out the threat I imagine, then we’re in a positivistic world where there is no consistent concept of what constitutes aggression, because everything I perceive to be aggressive is aggression, whether that is supported by anything or not.
No. You miss the fact that the initiation of coercion is not the initiation of aggresion. I can coerce someone without using any force whatsoever.
We’re way offtopic. I want to split this to a new thread, because I can spend all day challenging weak libertarian premises, and the original topic about external property is important.