Topic: Freedom is ... - page 12. (Read 14409 times)

Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

History says yes. See communist revolutions, religion, colonialism.

Do you honestly believe that people could not agree upon "Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone"?

Even when that principle is "I know what's best for me, you know what's best for you, I don't necessarily know what's best for you, and you don't necessarily know what's best for me, so let's just decide for ourselves, and not for each other"?

i would base it on principles the actual participants could agree upon. as long as you found ancap nation only with volunteers in a completely seperate new nation, that might not be much of a problem at first. but in every existing society, you will always have different views on what is fair and reasonable. as long as you start out with "i know whats right for all of us" you are bound to fuck up, no matter how awesome your principles are.

And what would you counter self-ownership with? I claim that everyone owns 100% of themselves, and 0% of anyone else. That is fair and equitable, because it applies to everyone equally. What principle would you base your "fair and equitable" system on?

the idea that objective principles exist is the very core of all fundamentalism. as long as you base your set of rights on "objective" principles you always risk not listening to your fellow citizens who might have entirely different ideas about what rights are necessary and what ground rules are fair and equitable.

No....

If there are no other people, then I have a de facto right to my property, because there's no one to violate it. When there are other people around, then those people have to agree on some ground rules. We call these ground rules "rights," and so that these ground rules will be fair and equitable, we base them on objective principles such as self-ownership.

Unlike most libertarians, most left-anarchists do make a difference between ownership (the right to use something) and property (the kind that can be only protected by a strong authority or state).

Agreeing to not take a crap in each other's living room is one thing. Having a paper that says you own an island far away is another. Either this claim is backed by a strong authority that can apply (military) force, or it's just as significant as these shady sites on the internet today where you can buy a plot of land on the moon or a star.

I agree with this, I agree with is so much in fact that I just avoid the "rights" (and also the "morality") framework completely. Instead I focus on goals that can be objectively evaluated like the goal to live in a society that is free to maximize it's potential an objective requirements of which is everyone to be free to own and be in absolute control over their property..

If you share my goal then you must obey that requirements if you ever want to reach it. And if you don't then I don't really care about you or your goals.

Ha! Yeah, that's probably the best response to this. He knows he's already beat, so he's refusing to engage. Pretty much par for the course with him.

Since he's admitted defeat by refusing to engage, I'll go ahead and run the conversation without him:
Me:
Would you take offense if I crapped in your living room?
Him:
Yes, of course I would.
Me:
So you would like me to respect your property.
Him:
Of course.
Me:
In return, do you agree to respect my property?
Him:
Sure, why not.
Me:
Great, we've just established a property right. All rights are reciprocal agreements like this.
Him:
...

Freedom is not wearing underwear.

Now THAT is disgusting!

No, I would not clean it up afterwards.

Ah, but you're not really playing along. If you want to, just answer the very simple yes or no question: Is it OK if I crap on your carpet?

If you really want to play along, add in why or why not.

Well. This, I have to admit was an unexpected angle. So, you have no home, then? Where do you keep your things? Where are you accessing the internet from?

Would you take offense if I defecated in your living room?

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, huh?

Well, I disagree with you about objectivity, but as you say, that's not really this discussion. This bit, however, is an excellent point.

I don't like to claim that we can be objective.  We can agree to enough aspects of word definitions to make the subjectivity insignificant (that's what we do in math), but true objectivity is ... well, void, in my view.  But that's probably a bit too philosophical a discussion to have here.

To answer the question of how we should interpret one person's claim that some guy is being coerced, trust, but verify: I would ask the victim: "Do you feel a threat to violate your rights?"  Whether or not the victim holds my definition of coercion, an honest answer will provide me with the understanding I desire.  From there, I can judge those doing the threatening and interact or avoid them, defend or abandon the victim, and explain whatever choices I make according to my voluntaryist disposition.  I might have to ask what the threatened rights are first.  But that's the rub - if I agree that the victim has those rights, then I agree that it's coercion.  If not, I and the victim will have to agree to disagree - not because of the facts of the situation, but because we don't agree on what rights the victim holds - about whether he's being coerced.

"Threaten" and "harm" and "damage" and "violate" are simpler than "coerce" because "coerce" requires a certain psychological state in the victim - essentially his belief that he would be better off without the person doing the threatening.  To use "coerce" as I use it requires that you believe something about the victim's beliefs.  I suppose I'm narrowing the definition from how most people use it - people who wouldn't be puzzled by "He coerces the horse" because "threaten" and "coerce" mean the same thing to them.  I think that requiring the victim to perceive that he has some rights that are under attack makes "coerce" more useful - and I think when people use it - honest people, not politicians - there is at least a tincture of that requirement.

I brought up the horse because I've been using the difference between horse whispering and horse breaking for years to explain what's wrong with government authority and everything it touches, and also in discussions about raising children.

Belief doesn't enter into it. You can objectively determine who is using coercion in any conflict where coercion is being used by determining who initiated the conflict. The other party, who did not initiate the conflict, is defending themselves.