Re: Do you agree or disagree with the non-aggression principle?
*Anarcissie*
> If you agree, would you also agree that escalating conflict is morally
> wrong?
The questions seem very abstract. In practice, violence has already
been initiated throughout human society, and people's definitions of
what constitutes "violence" and "escalation" differ widely anyway.
Alex Russell
I would say it wrong to initiate violence, but once someone attacks you
the force required to protect yourself can be hard to modulate.
Too much escalation would be wrong, but it is a grey area. While it
might be wrong for me to shoot dead a man that punches me, it might be
ok for a small person who fears for their life.
Alex
noe...@gmail.com
black and white ie.. you're either being coerced or you aren't?
Alex Russell
> Do you think that there are varying levels of coercion or that it's
> black and white ie.. you're either being coerced or you aren't?
>
ranging from hints from the wife, to a gun to the head.
I would say any coercion involving the threat of violence is wrong.
I know it is common to among some anarchists to refer to "wage slaves":
people coerced to work for a living, but I think that is an unfair term
as people living in any of the wealthier western countries really do
have many choices about employment.
Alex R
aden
Okay, then would you agree that theft of property or trespassing on
property (if you agree with the concept) is a lesser degree of
coercion than bodily assault?
Alex Russell
Trespass isn't coercion at all. You have to be trying to get someone to
do something they don't want to do for it to be coercion. Give me your
wallet or I'll walk on your grass isn't really coercion. If you are
asking if trespassing is ok, again it depends. I don't want strangers
walking through my living room, but I'm not going to be so concerned
with someone taking a short-cut through the back forty.
Threatening to steal something would be wrong, and any kind of assault
is wrong.
violence against people is a much greater crime than any theft.
Alex
Winston Zardo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Would the threat of job loss be considered coercion?
Alex Russell
If you are doing an adequate or better job, and being threatened with
losing your job unless you do something unrelated to the job, then it
would be coercion. Take this pay cut of I'll fire you, work free OT or
I'll fire you, take your clothes off or I'll fire you are all coercion.
Business is down, and everyone is getting a pay cut is not coercion.
This job only pays $X per hour that you are thinking of taking is not
coercion. You are doing a poor job, shape up or get fired is not coercion.
Alex
Winston Zardo
Do you consider any act which compels another by force, intimidation
or authority, to do something they do not desire to do, a coercive
act?
Zardo.
aden
Certainly forceful restraint or subjugation is coercive by most
people's definition. Intimidation is kind of a gray area, but as I
said, coercion is not an absolute. It exists in varying degree. And
I think it's this ambiguity that needs to be ironed out along with the
non-aggression principle in order for us to logically talk about
anarchy.
*Anarcissie*
> On Dec 4, 4:20 pm, aden <noe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 4, 3:19 am, patmpow...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 10:11 am, noe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > If you agree, would you also agree that escalating conflict is morally
> > > > wrong?
>
> > > economy, leading to peace and prosperity.
>
> > Interesting take. Care to explain?
>
> Conflict is stimulating to people. People are the basis of the
> economy. So conflict stimulates the economy. This leads to
> properity, and this in turn leads to peace. Just think how much
> conflict boosts the GDP. If conflict were eliminated, instant bigtime
> Depression.
And if it isn't, you get peace, which causes depression also.
No wonder everyone's depressed, and taking drugs.
In my youth people asked me what kind of therapist I
had. Now they ask me what drugs I take. And what
are _you_ on?
*Anarcissie*
> meant prosperity.
>
> In a sense, I can agree with you. You could in fact say that all of
> nature is conflict ie.. the dialectic. Species and markets evolve
> through competition and natural selection. But let's examine
> conflict. It is the result of two opposing forces. As time
> progresses a force will either meet its opposition or come into
> contact with it's compliment; that is to say a force that pulls when
> it pushes and vice versa. I think it is the goal of anarchism to
> facilitate this. And what I mean by that is to examine society and
> conflict and find a means of resolving it. How can we take this
> energy and put it to good use? We can pair it up with other energies
> or add it to a chain of energy that benefits all. I think of the non-
> aggression principle not as a way to reduce aggressive impulses but a
> means to use them to the best possible effect.
>
> A market is a good example of that. Here, instead of using energy to
> steal or conquer, people use it to exchange its product. This is why
> I'm not opposed to markets in principle. However; I also think a
> market is only as good as the fluidity in which it operates meaning
> how easily energy and products find their way to their most productive
> areas. I think property as it's commonly understood hinders this by
> creating unnecessary blockages in the system.
I wonder if one could connect this with the fact that
the definition of property is fundamentally forceful
(for most definitions).
Winston Zardo
Zardo
*Anarcissie*
> How is "property", by definition, coercive?
One's property are the things the possession of which one
has a right to defend by force.
("Force" could include invocation of state power; "right"
could refer to legal right, or some sort of natural law.)
aden
Yes and this was the conclusion of my syllogism. If you accept the
notion of enforceable property then you must reject the non-aggression
principle.
Alex Russell
But defending your property is not initiating violence, the people
invading are initiating the violence.
This assumes you gained your property morally, and your society believes
in property rights.
Alex
James A. Donald
and this was the conclusion of my syllogism. If you accept the
> notion of enforceable property then you must reject the non-aggression
> principle.
I see. So when a burglar kicks down my door, *I* am aggressing.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
*Anarcissie*
You mean, "your society believes in the _same_ property rights."
A classic case of differing concepts of property rights occurred
with New York City real estate in 1626, when the Dutch purchased
Manhattan Island from some Indians for, supposedly, $24 worth
of beads and ribbons. What the Indians had sold was not land,
however, but hunting rights, which they didn't own anyway. In
the case of New York, it was just one more shady real estate
deal, but elsewhere these conceptual differences often led to
wars and massacres.
Alex Russell
That is a good example, but it involves two distinct societies
interacting at a very early stage of contact which often leads to conflict.
Assuming I do live in a society that respects property rights then in
many cases a trespasser is the aggressor.
Alex
James A. Donald
> A classic case of differing concepts of property rights occurred
> with New York City real estate in 1626, when the Dutch purchased
> Manhattan Island from some Indians for, supposedly, $24 worth
> of beads and ribbons. What the Indians had sold was not land,
> however, but hunting rights, which they didn't own anyway.
You are thinking of the fictional speech by Chief Seattle.
The indians had a perfectly straight forward comprehension of land
ownership and land sales, though in most tribes land could only be
owned by groups.
*Anarcissie*
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:33:02 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > You mean, "your society believes in the _same_ property rights."
> > A classic case of differing concepts of property rights occurred
> > with New York City real estate in 1626, when the Dutch purchased
> > Manhattan Island from some Indians for, supposedly, $24 worth
> > of beads and ribbons. What the Indians had sold was not land,
> > however, but hunting rights, which they didn't own anyway.
>
> You are thinking of the fictional speech by Chief Seattle.
>
> The indians had a perfectly straight forward comprehension of land
> ownership and land sales, though in most tribes land could only be
> owned by groups.
The Indians certainly fooled the Dutch, then.
There were about 300 Indian tribes or nations -- culturally
separate societies -- in North America, and they had widely
differing practices and beliefs about property. Or so they
tell me.
aden
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:00:19 -0800 (PST), aden <noe...@gmail.com> > Yes
> and this was the conclusion of my syllogism. If you accept the
>
> > notion of enforceable property then you must reject the non-aggression
> > principle.
>
> I see. So when a burglar kicks down my door, *I* am aggressing.
I think a special case could be made for one's specific dwelling or
perhaps anywhere someone is at a given moment that is subject to
violent invasion. This assumes that the intruder wants to do harm to
the occupants. But acting in an aggressive manner outside of this
context would be disproportionately coercive.
>
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/
Maybe so. We're territorial by nature but when a person's assumed/
legal territory stretches beyond reasonable limits, it starts to
become one person's will enforced on another. When someone hires
agents to guard a stretch of land and shoot all trespassers, that to
me, seems like initiating aggression. If territory goes to whomever
is the strongest and/or most connected then there's really no point in
attempting to uphold any kind of 'true law' or even morality. We
might as well just be law-of-the-jungle anarchists.
*Anarcissie*
> On Dec 6, 10:44 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:00:19 -0800 (PST), aden <noe...@gmail.com> > Yes
> > and this was the conclusion of my syllogism. If you accept the
> > > notion of enforceable property then you must reject the non-aggression
> > > principle.
>
> > I see. So when a burglar kicks down my door, *I* am aggressing.
>
> I think a special case could be made for one's specific dwelling or
> perhaps anywhere someone is at a given moment that is subject to
> violent invasion. This assumes that the intruder wants to do harm to
> the occupants. But acting in an aggressive manner outside of this
> context would be disproportionately coercive.
Special cases usually mean your theory is incomplete.
> > ----------------------
> > We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> > of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> > right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> >http://www.jim.com/
>
> Maybe so. We're territorial by nature but when a person's assumed/
> legal territory stretches beyond reasonable limits, it starts to
> become one person's will enforced on another. When someone hires
> agents to guard a stretch of land and shoot all trespassers, that to
> me, seems like initiating aggression. If territory goes to whomever
> is the strongest and/or most connected then there's really no point in
> attempting to uphold any kind of 'true law' or even morality. We
> might as well just be law-of-the-jungle anarchists.
The laws of the jungle aren't so bad. "Stay out of the
way." "Take what you need, and leave the rest." "Take
care to get along with your neighbors, even if they're
ugly." "Don't shit where you eat." Sometimes they
are a big improvement on civilized laws.
James A. Donald
> > I see. So when a burglar kicks down my door, *I* am
> > aggressing.
aden
> I think a special case could be made for one's
> specific dwelling or perhaps anywhere someone is at a
> given moment that is subject to violent invasion.
> This assumes that the intruder wants to do harm to the
> occupants. But acting in an aggressive manner outside
> of this context would be disproportionately coercive.
<sarcasm>Fine. Please give me the location of your car
and computer, and I promise to take them without
actually killing you in the process - unless, of course,
you resist, whereupon I will regrettably need to employ
potentially lethal violence in order to defend myself
against your aggression.</sarcasm>
aden
I would have no problem with you non-violently taking either my
computer or car (if I owned one) or anything else I wasn't using if it
were possible for me to do the same.
patmp...@gmail.com
Someone I met once said, "They say civilization is a jungle. I've
been in the jungle. It isn't so bad."
James A. Donald
> I would have no problem with you non-violently taking
> either my computer or car (if I owned one) or anything
> else I wasn't using if it were possible for me to do
> the same.
But in a world where people could steal stuff, there
would not be any stuff, so you could never do the same.
As soon as your stuff was stolen, it would be ruined,
and you could never steal it back. And similarly for
everyone else who had stuff - if they let people steal
it, they would not have any, so you would not be able to
steal from them to replace your stuff.
And since you know this, you would fight to defend your
stuff, fight and kill, no matter what everyone else was
doing with their stuff.
aden
> aden:
>
> > I would have no problem with you non-violently taking
> > either my computer or car (if I owned one) or anything
> > else I wasn't using if it were possible for me to do
> > the same.
>
> But in a world where people could steal stuff, there
> would not be any stuff, so you could never do the same.
> As soon as your stuff was stolen, it would be ruined,
> and you could never steal it back. And similarly for
> everyone else who had stuff - if they let people steal
> it, they would not have any, so you would not be able to
> steal from them to replace your stuff.
This assumes that there isn't enough stuff to go around and/or not
enough people producing stuff. But, before we launch into the
incentives debate, let's backtrack a little to see where our opinions
begin to diverge. Earlier in this thread, you said that it was
sometimes necessary to escalate violence or coercion. So, let me ask
you this. Are you an anarchist and do you agree with the non-
aggression principle?
James A. Donald
> > But in a world where people could steal stuff, there
> > would not be any stuff, so you could never do the
> > same. As soon as your stuff was stolen, it would be
> > ruined, and you could never steal it back. And
> > similarly for everyone else who had stuff - if they
> > let people steal it, they would not have any, so you
> > would not be able to steal from them to replace your
> > stuff.
aden
> This assumes that there isn't enough stuff to go
> around
If anyone can steal stuff, who is going to make stuff?
People who make stuff will defend it, and if they are
not willing and able to defend it, will not make it.
aden
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > But in a world where people could steal stuff, there
> > > would not be any stuff, so you could never do the
> > > same. As soon as your stuff was stolen, it would be
> > > ruined, and you could never steal it back. And
> > > similarly for everyone else who had stuff - if they
> > > let people steal it, they would not have any, so you
> > > would not be able to steal from them to replace your
> > > stuff.
>
> aden
>
> > This assumes that there isn't enough stuff to go
> > around
>
> If anyone can steal stuff, who is going to make stuff?
>
> People who make stuff will defend it, and if they are
> not willing and able to defend it, will not make it.
Why does a mother bake cookies for her kids, knowing they'll just be
taken with nothing given in return? Why do artists pursue creative
endeavors that make them very little if any money?
You still haven't answered my earlier questions. Are you an
anarchist? Do you support the non-aggression principle?
Winston Zardo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do humans have an inalienable right to life?
If they do, then the ancillary rights of liberty, health and property
would be included, would it not?
Zardo
aden
Can these rights be ranked in order of significance? And if so, can
one person's right to property supersede another's right to life?
Alex Russell
If you take my property, you take my life.
I often see people confuse rights and entitlements. Rights are things
you can do and expect others to not interfere. Entitlements are things
and services provided to you by other people.
Universal health care is an entitlement, not a right.
Freedom of speech is a right. Freedom of movement is a right (ie you can
move to a different city, province or country, not into my house).
Freedom to associate is a right.
All rights are limited by everyones right to not be directly harmed by
you or anyone else. You can talk all you want, but you must keep it down
after 23:00 so I can get some sleep. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded
theatre if there is no fire. You can't yell out lies about me.
Access to free food, water, and shelter are entitlements. To get these
someone has to work for them. Entitlements are charity enforced by the
government.
Different people have different ideas about what reasonable entitlements
are. Most of the "western world" has decided everyone should have:
education, health care (except the usa), a minimum income, old age
pensions, and some job training. There are also various things like fire
departments and courts that are not normally thought of as entitlements.
So how would I rank rights? Actually, I would have only one:
You can do anything that does not directly harm another person.
Now we have to define harm, and a quick ranking would be:
life (murder very bad)
freedom (kidnapping very bad)
person (assault, rape, robbery, etc... very bad)
possessions (theft, fraud - I worked to get them, not you)
property (some trespass, fraud)
peace and tranquility (disturbing the peace, harassment)
You don't have a right to any of the fruits of my labour. But being a
good guy I'm happy to donate (ok, get taxed mainly) to support
entitlements like health-care, education, welfare programs, police,
fire, and courts.
But I only want welfare programs to provide enough to keep body and soul
together. You want more, and you are able bodied - get a job.
Yes, I know there are great swaths of planet where even the most basic
human rights are not observed, and it is almost impossible for good,
honest people, to get ahead by working. If you want to help people, help
these people, not under-achievers from our rich western society.
But to answer your question, "And if so, can one person's right to
property supersede another's right to life?"
I don't believe that ones right to life entitles them to anything
material from other people. Your right to life means I may not do
anything to take your life. I'm not obligated to support you.
That said, charity is a good thing, but it is charity, not a right.
Alex R
aden
> >> Do humans have an inalienable right to life?
> >> If they do, then the ancillary rights of liberty, health and property
> >> would be included, would it not?
> >> Zardo
>
> > Can these rights be ranked in order of significance? And if so, can
> > one person's right to property supersede another's right to life?
>
> If you take my property, you take my life.
I'm going to assume here that by life you mean livelihood. If that's
the case then we're in agreement.
>
> I often see people confuse rights and entitlements. Rights are things
> you can do and expect others to not interfere. Entitlements are things
> and services provided to you by other people.
Make no mistake, I'm only arguing in favor of negative rights, not
positive obligations, entitlements or the like.
>
> Universal health care is an entitlement, not a right.
>
> Freedom of speech is a right. Freedom of movement is a right (ie you can
> move to a different city, province or country, not into my house).
> Freedom to associate is a right.
Agreed on all points but let me further point out (perhaps to the
chagrin of some) that I do not think of the idea of rights as being
handed down from some creator or as inherent or even inalienable
qualities within people although it may be argued that they are
emergent within a society. They are simply abstract notions that have
to be defended if they are to remain in existence.
>
> All rights are limited by everyones right to not be directly harmed by
> you or anyone else. You can talk all you want, but you must keep it down
> after 23:00 so I can get some sleep. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded
> theatre if there is no fire. You can't yell out lies about me.
The non-aggression principle simply stated: "Do not initiate force
against another"; seems to cover this. But there are gray areas where
we have to carefully define what is or is not aggressive and whether
or not there is justification in meeting aggression with greater
aggression. I'm glad you phrased your response this way because you
bring up some of these gray areas.
"You can talk all you want, but you must keep it down
after 23:00 so I can get some sleep."
Violating this is would be coercive because you lose sleep and can't
function as well the next day. Okay, assuming you've warned the
individuals in question and they continue, what is an ethical
response? Should you equal the coercion and talk while they sleep,
find a better place to sleep, or is an escalation called for such as a
physical assault?
"You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded
theatre if there is no fire."
" You can't yell out lies about me."
These are more interesting to me because they deal with the indirect
results of one's actions. The central question here is how much
responsibility individuals have in acting on information given to them
that may or may not be true and how much rests with the liars
themselves. I think the answer depends on how freely a person is able
to act on that information. If I tell Bob that you're the devil
incarnate and he finds and kills you, then your death is Bob's fault,
right? If on the other hand you're trampled to death in a mad rush
out of the theater, then I am to blame for causing the alarm as the
best response in that situation is to err on the side of caution. But
then, there may be other things to consider such as whether or not
fire or smoke is detectable which may place some responsibility on the
crowd.
Ultimately, there are two extremes you can take this to. In his
Republic, Plato spoke of censoring and banning all art that may
corrupt the youth (ironically) of his perfect society. We see a
similar argument today from people who would like certain words or
images banned from the media. Although it is possible to see a
negative impact on society at large from a deluge of destructive
behavior depicted on television, does this place the responsibility of
future crime on the producers of trash tv or on the people who are
influenced by it? On one end you could say that people who commit
violent acts are the sole bearers of that responsibility acting on
their own free will. On the other end, you could say that people have
no free will and are entirely influenced by what they read, see, or
hear and therefore, all ideas which are deemed destructive to society
and their propagators must be dealt with. Of course, there are all
kinds of nuances to this argument as well.
My main goal in this thread is to answer these questions.
1. Is it possible to define and measure aggression?
2. What is the ethical response to aggression in violation of the
NAP?
I think that if we do this, then every other issue such as those that
you brought up should be comparatively simple to deal with.
>
> Access to free food, water, and shelter are entitlements. To get these
> someone has to work for them.
I could be a smart ass and say that caves are a shelter you don't have
to work for but I'll take the high road :-)
Hypothetical question: 20 people are on an oasis in the desert and
very thirsty. One of them owns the only source of water there. If
you agree that it is coercive for one of the non-owners to take a
drink without, or maybe even against, the owner's will, what is the
most aggressive justifiable action the owner can take in retaliation?
>Entitlements are charity enforced by the
> government.
Agreed.
>
> Different people have different ideas about what reasonable entitlements
> are. Most of the "western world" has decided everyone should have:
> education, health care (except the usa), a minimum income, old age
> pensions, and some job training. There are also various things like fire
> departments and courts that are not normally thought of as entitlements.
Do you think there are reasonable entitlements and, before I forget,
let me pose to you the same two questions I posed to Mr. Donald who
has yet to answer. Are you an anarchist and do you agree with the non-
aggression principle?
>
> So how would I rank rights? Actually, I would have only one:
> You can do anything that does not directly harm another person.
This seems to contradict your earlier statement that people should not
be allowed to libel or slander. Please define what you mean by
"directly harm".
>
> Now we have to define harm, and a quick ranking would be:
> life (murder very bad)
> freedom (kidnapping very bad)
> person (assault, rape, robbery, etc... very bad)
> possessions (theft, fraud - I worked to get them, not you)
> property (some trespass, fraud)
> peace and tranquility (disturbing the peace, harassment)
That seems like a reasonable list, although I'd probably combine some
of them such as freedom and person. Do you think each of the
corresponding freedoms of each individual are worth equal
consideration? In other words, person A's freedom is equal to person
B's?
>
> You don't have a right to any of the fruits of my labour. But being a
> good guy I'm happy to donate (ok, get taxed mainly) to support
> entitlements like health-care, education, welfare programs, police,
> fire, and courts.
>
> But I only want welfare programs to provide enough to keep body and soul
> together. You want more, and you are able bodied - get a job.
So then you're not an anarchist?
>
> Yes, I know there are great swaths of planet where even the most basic
> human rights are not observed, and it is almost impossible for good,
> honest people, to get ahead by working. If you want to help people, help
> these people, not under-achievers from our rich western society.
Kind of a broad generalization there. Sure, there are parasitic
individuals who would rather live off the labor of others (usually
they go by the name - politicians) but often times, the locking out of
individuals from land and resources that they'd otherwise be able to
make use of ensures their enslavement to an owning class.
>
> But to answer your question, "And if so, can one person's right to
> property supersede another's right to life?"
>
> I don't believe that ones right to life entitles them to anything
> material from other people. Your right to life means I may not do
> anything to take your life. I'm not obligated to support you.
Okay at the risk of sounding redundant, let's switch that around and
look at it from another perspective. Does your right to property
entitle you to take the lives of those who would attempt to make use
of it?
>
> That said, charity is a good thing, but it is charity, not a right.
agreed
*Anarcissie*
> > >> Do humans have an inalienable right to life?
> > >> If they do, then the ancillary rights of liberty, health and property
> > >> would be included, would it not?
> > >> Zardo
>
> > > Can these rights be ranked in order of significance? And if so, can
> > > one person's right to property supersede another's right to life?
>
> > If you take my property, you take my life.
>
> I'm going to assume here that by life you mean livelihood. If that's
> the case then we're in agreement.
That would bring wide areas of property, like real estate,
into question. For example (and this is an example which
has occurred in plenty of places and times in the past) if a
small number of people own all the arable land, and the
only source of livelihood for most people is agriculture,
then the few owners can pretty much command obedience
from everyone else, or even put them to death by denying
them access to land. Property is safe only if it defeats any
right to life or livelihood: otherwise someone may say they
need some of your property to live.
Alex Russell
I agree. There are no "natural rights". If they were natural an armed
mob wouldn't be able to take them from me.
>
>> All rights are limited by everyones right to not be directly harmed by
>> you or anyone else. You can talk all you want, but you must keep it down
>> after 23:00 so I can get some sleep. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded
>> theatre if there is no fire. You can't yell out lies about me.
>
> The non-aggression principle simply stated: "Do not initiate force
> against another"; seems to cover this. But there are gray areas where
> we have to carefully define what is or is not aggressive and whether
> or not there is justification in meeting aggression with greater
> aggression. I'm glad you phrased your response this way because you
> bring up some of these gray areas.
>
> "You can talk all you want, but you must keep it down
> after 23:00 so I can get some sleep."
>
> Violating this is would be coercive because you lose sleep and can't
> function as well the next day. Okay, assuming you've warned the
> individuals in question and they continue, what is an ethical
> response? Should you equal the coercion and talk while they sleep,
> find a better place to sleep, or is an escalation called for such as a
> physical assault?
Trying to get all the neighbors to shun them if they don't respond to a
polite request. If I really lost it I might consider breaking their
stereo, but that would likely lead to an unwanted escalation. Most
people are reasonable when outnumbered.
A physical assault isn't warranted when my physical being is not in danger.
>
> "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded
> theatre if there is no fire."
>
> " You can't yell out lies about me."
>
> These are more interesting to me because they deal with the indirect
> results of one's actions. The central question here is how much
> responsibility individuals have in acting on information given to them
> that may or may not be true and how much rests with the liars
> themselves. I think the answer depends on how freely a person is able
> to act on that information. If I tell Bob that you're the devil
> incarnate and he finds and kills you, then your death is Bob's fault,
> right? If on the other hand you're trampled to death in a mad rush
> out of the theater, then I am to blame for causing the alarm as the
> best response in that situation is to err on the side of caution. But
> then, there may be other things to consider such as whether or not
> fire or smoke is detectable which may place some responsibility on the
> crowd.
>
Only a deranged person would believe your devil story, while the "fire"
scenario demands immediate action from reasonable people.
> Ultimately, there are two extremes you can take this to. In his
> Republic, Plato spoke of censoring and banning all art that may
> corrupt the youth (ironically) of his perfect society. We see a
> similar argument today from people who would like certain words or
> images banned from the media. Although it is possible to see a
> negative impact on society at large from a deluge of destructive
> behavior depicted on television, does this place the responsibility of
> future crime on the producers of trash tv or on the people who are
> influenced by it? On one end you could say that people who commit
> violent acts are the sole bearers of that responsibility acting on
> their own free will. On the other end, you could say that people have
> no free will and are entirely influenced by what they read, see, or
> hear and therefore, all ideas which are deemed destructive to society
> and their propagators must be dealt with. Of course, there are all
> kinds of nuances to this argument as well.
I agree. I can't believe showing a nipple for a few seconds caused such
a furor, but hundreds of depictions of violent crime are a-ok on usa TV.
I think free speech should only be limited to not allowing blanant lies
about people or to advocate violence against people - and even this is a
grey area to me.
>
> My main goal in this thread is to answer these questions.
>
> 1. Is it possible to define and measure aggression?
> 2. What is the ethical response to aggression in violation of the
> NAP?
It is hard to measure, but in general you should use the minimal force
required to protect your rights. I politely knock and ask my neighbor to
turn down the music at midnight - I don't burn down his house.
>
> I think that if we do this, then every other issue such as those that
> you brought up should be comparatively simple to deal with.
>
>> Access to free food, water, and shelter are entitlements. To get these
>> someone has to work for them.
>
> I could be a smart ass and say that caves are a shelter you don't have
> to work for but I'll take the high road :-)
>
> Hypothetical question: 20 people are on an oasis in the desert and
> very thirsty. One of them owns the only source of water there. If
> you agree that it is coercive for one of the non-owners to take a
> drink without, or maybe even against, the owner's will, what is the
> most aggressive justifiable action the owner can take in retaliation?
Depends on what you mean by "own the water". If he had to dig a well to
get at the water then he would have the right to be paid for the use of
his well that happens to give access to water.
If it is just a surface pool while it still might be his if he built a
fence and did something to protect the water from animals or something
(I'm reaching here) his claim would be a lot weaker, and if all did was
stand by the pool and say it is mine I would ignore him.
Fortunately, these life and death scenarios rarely happen in our rich
society. They happen everyday in poor ones.
>
>> Entitlements are charity enforced by the
>> government.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Different people have different ideas about what reasonable entitlements
>> are. Most of the "western world" has decided everyone should have:
>> education, health care (except the usa), a minimum income, old age
>> pensions, and some job training. There are also various things like fire
>> departments and courts that are not normally thought of as entitlements.
>
> Do you think there are reasonable entitlements and, before I forget,
> let me pose to you the same two questions I posed to Mr. Donald who
> has yet to answer. Are you an anarchist and do you agree with the non-
> aggression principle?
I agree that one should never initiate violence or aggression, but I
think you may use force to defend your self, but should limit that force
to the minimum required for your defense.
I'm not an active anarchist, but I agree with many anarchist principles.
>
>> So how would I rank rights? Actually, I would have only one:
>> You can do anything that does not directly harm another person.
>
> This seems to contradict your earlier statement that people should not
> be allowed to libel or slander. Please define what you mean by
> "directly harm".
If two people are in a store looking at three apples and one choses an
apple the second fellow now can only buy one of the apples left. The
second fellow has just been indirectly harmed by having a choice taken
from him.
If I take his apple from his hand I have directly harmed him.
>
>> Now we have to define harm, and a quick ranking would be:
>> life (murder very bad)
>> freedom (kidnapping very bad)
>> person (assault, rape, robbery, etc... very bad)
>> possessions (theft, fraud - I worked to get them, not you)
>> property (some trespass, fraud)
>> peace and tranquility (disturbing the peace, harassment)
>
> That seems like a reasonable list, although I'd probably combine some
> of them such as freedom and person. Do you think each of the
> corresponding freedoms of each individual are worth equal
> consideration? In other words, person A's freedom is equal to person
> B's?
All people should be considered equal in rights and opportunity, but not
outcomes.
>
>> You don't have a right to any of the fruits of my labour. But being a
>> good guy I'm happy to donate (ok, get taxed mainly) to support
>> entitlements like health-care, education, welfare programs, police,
>> fire, and courts.
>
>> But I only want welfare programs to provide enough to keep body and soul
>> together. You want more, and you are able bodied - get a job.
>
> So then you're not an anarchist?
I'm not a socialist. How do you get me to give up my labour without
forcing me if I don't want to? That sort of force is what governments are.
An anarchist wants no government. I assume an anarchist society would
have more than one type of economic system, depending on where you live,
it might even change from neighborhood to neighbor hood in a single city.
I would live with like minded people who want people to work for
luxuries. Sounds like you would prefer to live in what I would consider
a commune. And I'd be happy to have you as a neighbor and trade with
you, or respect your wish to not trade with the evil capitalist pig.
>
>> Yes, I know there are great swaths of planet where even the most basic
>> human rights are not observed, and it is almost impossible for good,
>> honest people, to get ahead by working. If you want to help people, help
>> these people, not under-achievers from our rich western society.
>
> Kind of a broad generalization there. Sure, there are parasitic
> individuals who would rather live off the labor of others (usually
> they go by the name - politicians) but often times, the locking out of
> individuals from land and resources that they'd otherwise be able to
> make use of ensures their enslavement to an owning class.
Very broad. but in our society no one is locked out.
>
>> But to answer your question, "And if so, can one person's right to
>> property supersede another's right to life?"
>>
>> I don't believe that ones right to life entitles them to anything
>> material from other people. Your right to life means I may not do
>> anything to take your life. I'm not obligated to support you.
>
> Okay at the risk of sounding redundant, let's switch that around and
> look at it from another perspective. Does your right to property
> entitle you to take the lives of those who would attempt to make use
> of it?
Only if they threaten my life when they try to take it. If I catch an
unarmed thief raiding my kitchen I have every right to chase him out,
but I would be wrong to pull out a gun and shoot him. My life is not in
danger.
If a gang, unarmed, but too many for me to chase out takes over my home,
I'm not sure what I would do, but in principal, I would be right to use
force to remove them.
No matter how badly off they are they have no right to the fruits of my
labour. They can ask for charity.
>
>> That said, charity is a good thing, but it is charity, not a right.
>
> agreed
>
Alex
PS
I can hardly believe I'm having an intelligent conversation on news.
It's been a while.
aden
> > "You can talk all you want, but you must keep it down
> > after 23:00 so I can get some sleep."
>
> > Violating this is would be coercive because you lose sleep and can't
> > function as well the next day. Okay, assuming you've warned the
> > individuals in question and they continue, what is an ethical
> > response? Should you equal the coercion and talk while they sleep,
> > find a better place to sleep, or is an escalation called for such as a
> > physical assault?
>
> Trying to get all the neighbors to shun them if they don't respond to a
> polite request. If I really lost it I might consider breaking their
> stereo, but that would likely lead to an unwanted escalation. Most
> people are reasonable when outnumbered.
Ostracism can be an effective reproach, especially if you have a large
group to back you. But I wonder what your response would be if you
didn't have the support of the community or if you and the individual
in question lived where there were few or no other people.
>
> A physical assault isn't warranted when my physical being is not in danger.
And that, admittedly, isn't always easy to determine. But, given that
a trespass on one's property or even a theft of something they have
that isn't in use does not constitute a physical threat, do you think
that a physical response is justified?
>
>
> > "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded
> > theatre if there is no fire."
>
> > " You can't yell out lies about me."
>
> > These are more interesting to me because they deal with the indirect
> > results of one's actions. The central question here is how much
> > responsibility individuals have in acting on information given to them
> > that may or may not be true and how much rests with the liars
> > themselves. I think the answer depends on how freely a person is able
> > to act on that information. If I tell Bob that you're the devil
> > incarnate and he finds and kills you, then your death is Bob's fault,
> > right? If on the other hand you're trampled to death in a mad rush
> > out of the theater, then I am to blame for causing the alarm as the
> > best response in that situation is to err on the side of caution. But
> > then, there may be other things to consider such as whether or not
> > fire or smoke is detectable which may place some responsibility on the
> > crowd.
>
> Only a deranged person would believe your devil story, while the "fire"
> scenario demands immediate action from reasonable people.
Your opinion is that there should be no control over another person's
speech unless it leads to immediate danger. What about inciting a
mob? Is action against the speaker justified or is it the
responsibility of the members of the mob not to follow through with
the speaker's demands?
> I think free speech should only be limited to not allowing blanant lies
> about people or to advocate violence against people - and even this is a
> grey area to me.
So it is with me. But again, I have to ask the obvious question. Is
it the responsibility of the hearer of lies not to act on them or the
propagandist not to disseminate them?
>
>
>
> > My main goal in this thread is to answer these questions.
>
> > 1. Is it possible to define and measure aggression?
> > 2. What is the ethical response to aggression in violation of the
> > NAP?
>
> It is hard to measure, but in general you should use the minimal force
> required to protect your rights. I politely knock and ask my neighbor to
> turn down the music at midnight - I don't burn down his house.
So then it would seem a minimum-aggression principle is called for.
>
> > Hypothetical question: 20 people are on an oasis in the desert and
> > very thirsty. One of them owns the only source of water there. If
> > you agree that it is coercive for one of the non-owners to take a
> > drink without, or maybe even against, the owner's will, what is the
> > most aggressive justifiable action the owner can take in retaliation?
>
> Depends on what you mean by "own the water". If he had to dig a well to
> get at the water then he would have the right to be paid for the use of
> his well that happens to give access to water.
>
> If it is just a surface pool while it still might be his if he built a
> fence and did something to protect the water from animals or something
> (I'm reaching here) his claim would be a lot weaker, and if all did was
> stand by the pool and say it is mine I would ignore him.
>
> Fortunately, these life and death scenarios rarely happen in our rich
> society. They happen everyday in poor ones.
You're right; scenarios like this don't often come up in our daily
lives. The reason I proposed it was so that we could see the issue in
starker terms. The point I was trying to make was that once human
need reaches the level of sheer survival instinct, ideas like property
will be tossed aside. To put it in a more familiar sense take the
phenomenon of squatting or seeking shelter in buildings which are
technically owned by someone else but left unused. This is illegal
under our current system. The state backs up the "right" of the
owner, not to allow occupants in his building. If we're going to
adhere to the NAP or MAP and, since you already agree that an
individual's right over their person takes precedence over another
individuals right to their property, then we have to conclude that the
arrest and/or detention of squatters is not justifiable.
> >> Different people have different ideas about what reasonable entitlements
> >> are. Most of the "western world" has decided everyone should have:
> >> education, health care (except the usa), a minimum income, old age
> >> pensions, and some job training. There are also various things like fire
> >> departments and courts that are not normally thought of as entitlements.
>
> > Do you think there are reasonable entitlements and, before I forget,
> > let me pose to you the same two questions I posed to Mr. Donald who
> > has yet to answer. Are you an anarchist and do you agree with the non-
> > aggression principle?
>
> I agree that one should never initiate violence or aggression, but I
> think you may use force to defend your self, but should limit that force
> to the minimum required for your defense.
>
> I'm not an active anarchist, but I agree with many anarchist principles.
You agree with a minimum aggression principle.
>
>
>
> >> So how would I rank rights? Actually, I would have only one:
> >> You can do anything that does not directly harm another person.
>
> > This seems to contradict your earlier statement that people should not
> > be allowed to libel or slander. Please define what you mean by
> > "directly harm".
>
> If two people are in a store looking at three apples and one choses an
> apple the second fellow now can only buy one of the apples left. The
> second fellow has just been indirectly harmed by having a choice taken
> from him.
>
> If I take his apple from his hand I have directly harmed him.
Then would a slanderous accusation be considered indirect harm?
>
>
>
> >> Now we have to define harm, and a quick ranking would be:
> >> life (murder very bad)
> >> freedom (kidnapping very bad)
> >> person (assault, rape, robbery, etc... very bad)
> >> possessions (theft, fraud - I worked to get them, not you)
> >> property (some trespass, fraud)
> >> peace and tranquility (disturbing the peace, harassment)
>
> > That seems like a reasonable list, although I'd probably combine some
> > of them such as freedom and person. Do you think each of the
> > corresponding freedoms of each individual are worth equal
> > consideration? In other words, person A's freedom is equal to person
> > B's?
>
> All people should be considered equal in rights and opportunity, but not
> outcomes.
That's an interesting phrase. How do you separately define
opportunity and outcome? You could say that money is both an
opportunity and an outcome.
>
>
>
> >> You don't have a right to any of the fruits of my labour. But being a
> >> good guy I'm happy to donate (ok, get taxed mainly) to support
> >> entitlements like health-care, education, welfare programs, police,
> >> fire, and courts.
>
> >> But I only want welfare programs to provide enough to keep body and soul
> >> together. You want more, and you are able bodied - get a job.
>
> > So then you're not an anarchist?
>
> I'm not a socialist. How do you get me to give up my labour without
> forcing me if I don't want to? That sort of force is what governments are.
>
> An anarchist ...
>
> read more »
I'm not a socialist either. In fact, I'm probably less socialist than
you in that I disagree with having a state.
Alex Russell
Inciting violence falls in the causing immediate danger category. But
the context is important, is the mob going to lynch some innocent, or is
the mob going to be righting some wrong? Generally mobs get out of hand
and don't follow due process.
>
>> I think free speech should only be limited to not allowing blanant lies
>> about people or to advocate violence against people - and even this is a
>> grey area to me.
>
> So it is with me. But again, I have to ask the obvious question. Is
> it the responsibility of the hearer of lies not to act on them or the
> propagandist not to disseminate them?
>
Both.
It is legal where I live. The local power company will actually hook up
the power if you pay the bill.
>The state backs up the "right" of the
> owner, not to allow occupants in his building. If we're going to
> adhere to the NAP or MAP and, since you already agree that an
> individual's right over their person takes precedence over another
> individuals right to their property, then we have to conclude that the
> arrest and/or detention of squatters is not justifiable.
>
But they have to leave when the owner decides to actually use the
property. I would like to see long abandoned property be free to be
taken by anyone that would put it to good use.
>
>>>> Different people have different ideas about what reasonable entitlements
>>>> are. Most of the "western world" has decided everyone should have:
>>>> education, health care (except the usa), a minimum income, old age
>>>> pensions, and some job training. There are also various things like fire
>>>> departments and courts that are not normally thought of as entitlements.
>>> Do you think there are reasonable entitlements and, before I forget,
>>> let me pose to you the same two questions I posed to Mr. Donald who
>>> has yet to answer. Are you an anarchist and do you agree with the non-
>>> aggression principle?
>> I agree that one should never initiate violence or aggression, but I
>> think you may use force to defend your self, but should limit that force
>> to the minimum required for your defense.
>>
>> I'm not an active anarchist, but I agree with many anarchist principles.
>
> You agree with a minimum aggression principle.
Yes.
>>
>>
>>>> So how would I rank rights? Actually, I would have only one:
>>>> You can do anything that does not directly harm another person.
>>> This seems to contradict your earlier statement that people should not
>>> be allowed to libel or slander. Please define what you mean by
>>> "directly harm".
>> If two people are in a store looking at three apples and one choses an
>> apple the second fellow now can only buy one of the apples left. The
>> second fellow has just been indirectly harmed by having a choice taken
>> from him.
>>
>> If I take his apple from his hand I have directly harmed him.
>
> Then would a slanderous accusation be considered indirect harm?
Direct - as it directly changes other's opinion of him which could harm
his dealings in the community.
>>
>>
>>>> Now we have to define harm, and a quick ranking would be:
>>>> life (murder very bad)
>>>> freedom (kidnapping very bad)
>>>> person (assault, rape, robbery, etc... very bad)
>>>> possessions (theft, fraud - I worked to get them, not you)
>>>> property (some trespass, fraud)
>>>> peace and tranquility (disturbing the peace, harassment)
>>> That seems like a reasonable list, although I'd probably combine some
>>> of them such as freedom and person. Do you think each of the
>>> corresponding freedoms of each individual are worth equal
>>> consideration? In other words, person A's freedom is equal to person
>>> B's?
>> All people should be considered equal in rights and opportunity, but not
>> outcomes.
>
> That's an interesting phrase. How do you separately define
> opportunity and outcome? You could say that money is both an
> opportunity and an outcome.
Money is always an outcome.
You should not be denied admittance to a school because of your skin
tone. You should not be denied a job due to your religious beliefs. You
should be free to open a shop, and you are free to fail at running the shop.
>
>>
>>
>>>> You don't have a right to any of the fruits of my labour. But being a
>>>> good guy I'm happy to donate (ok, get taxed mainly) to support
>>>> entitlements like health-care, education, welfare programs, police,
>>>> fire, and courts.
>>>> But I only want welfare programs to provide enough to keep body and soul
>>>> together. You want more, and you are able bodied - get a job.
>>> So then you're not an anarchist?
>> I'm not a socialist. How do you get me to give up my labour without
>> forcing me if I don't want to? That sort of force is what governments are.
>>
>> An anarchist ...
>>
>> read more »
>
> I'm not a socialist either. In fact, I'm probably less socialist than
> you in that I disagree with having a state.
Having a state is the lazy way to protect your rights in the short term.
Alex
aden
> > Your opinion is that there should be no control over another person's
> > speech unless it leads to immediate danger. What about inciting a
> > mob? Is action against the speaker justified or is it the
> > responsibility of the members of the mob not to follow through with
> > the speaker's demands?
>
> Inciting violence falls in the causing immediate danger category. But
> the context is important, is the mob going to lynch some innocent, or is
> the mob going to be righting some wrong? Generally mobs get out of hand
> and don't follow due process.
And you think that the one who incites the mob shares equal blame for
any wrongs committed, correct?
>
>
>
> >> I think free speech should only be limited to not allowing blanant lies
> >> about people or to advocate violence against people - and even this is a
> >> grey area to me.
>
> > So it is with me. But again, I have to ask the obvious question. Is
> > it the responsibility of the hearer of lies not to act on them or the
> > propagandist not to disseminate them?
>
> Both.
So if one person tells another person to kill a third person, then
retaliation should be sought against both the first and second
equally?
So you think property should be defined by use.
> >>>> So how would I rank rights? Actually, I would have only one:
> >>>> You can do anything that does not directly harm another person.
> >>> This seems to contradict your earlier statement that people should not
> >>> be allowed to libel or slander. Please define what you mean by
> >>> "directly harm".
> >> If two people are in a store looking at three apples and one choses an
> >> apple the second fellow now can only buy one of the apples left. The
> >> second fellow has just been indirectly harmed by having a choice taken
> >> from him.
>
> >> If I take his apple from his hand I have directly harmed him.
>
> > Then would a slanderous accusation be considered indirect harm?
>
> Direct - as it directly changes other's opinion of him which could harm
> his dealings in the community.
So what, in your opinion, would be a just response to slander?
> >>>> Now we have to define harm, and a quick ranking would be:
> >>>> life (murder very bad)
> >>>> freedom (kidnapping very bad)
> >>>> person (assault, rape, robbery, etc... very bad)
> >>>> possessions (theft, fraud - I worked to get them, not you)
> >>>> property (some trespass, fraud)
> >>>> peace and tranquility (disturbing the peace, harassment)
> >>> That seems like a reasonable list, although I'd probably combine some
> >>> of them such as freedom and person. Do you think each of the
> >>> corresponding freedoms of each individual are worth equal
> >>> consideration? In other words, person A's freedom is equal to person
> >>> B's?
> >> All people should be considered equal in rights and opportunity, but not
> >> outcomes.
>
> > That's an interesting phrase. How do you separately define
> > opportunity and outcome? You could say that money is both an
> > opportunity and an outcome.
>
> Money is always an outcome.
>
> You should not be denied admittance to a school because of your skin
> tone. You should not be denied a job due to your religious beliefs. You
> should be free to open a shop, and you are free to fail at running the shop.
You don't think that someone with a larger bank account has more of an
opportunity to succeed?
Alex Russell
> On Dec 15, 9:04 pm, Alex Russell <alexander.russ...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>> Your opinion is that there should be no control over another person's
>>> speech unless it leads to immediate danger. What about inciting a
>>> mob? Is action against the speaker justified or is it the
>>> responsibility of the members of the mob not to follow through with
>>> the speaker's demands?
>> Inciting violence falls in the causing immediate danger category. But
>> the context is important, is the mob going to lynch some innocent, or is
>> the mob going to be righting some wrong? Generally mobs get out of hand
>> and don't follow due process.
>
> And you think that the one who incites the mob shares equal blame for
> any wrongs committed, correct?
Yes. Everyone is responsible for any reasonably foreseen outcome of
their actions. If you incite violence, and violence ensues you are
partially responsible.
>
>>
>>
>>>> I think free speech should only be limited to not allowing blanant lies
>>>> about people or to advocate violence against people - and even this is a
>>>> grey area to me.
>>> So it is with me. But again, I have to ask the obvious question. Is
>>> it the responsibility of the hearer of lies not to act on them or the
>>> propagandist not to disseminate them?
>> Both.
>
> So if one person tells another person to kill a third person, then
> retaliation should be sought against both the first and second
> equally?
Depends. If the person seeking the murder was dead serious and there was
no mistake as to their desire then yes. If they were joking, and someone
took them too serious, then only partially.
Too bad the real world is rarely black and white.
Use is not the only quality of owning property. But I do think that a
completely abandoned property should revert to the public domain after a
certain, fairly long, period.
There are examples of shuttered factories being taken over by workers. I
don't see a problem with this. On the other hand I don't want my hone
taken over if I go on an extended holiday.
>
>>>>>> So how would I rank rights? Actually, I would have only one:
>>>>>> You can do anything that does not directly harm another person.
>>>>> This seems to contradict your earlier statement that people should not
>>>>> be allowed to libel or slander. Please define what you mean by
>>>>> "directly harm".
>>>> If two people are in a store looking at three apples and one choses an
>>>> apple the second fellow now can only buy one of the apples left. The
>>>> second fellow has just been indirectly harmed by having a choice taken
>>>> from him.
>>>> If I take his apple from his hand I have directly harmed him.
>>> Then would a slanderous accusation be considered indirect harm?
>> Direct - as it directly changes other's opinion of him which could harm
>> his dealings in the community.
>
> So what, in your opinion, would be a just response to slander?
>
Depends on the actual harm done. Anything from a simple apology, to
monetary damages.
>
>>>>>> Now we have to define harm, and a quick ranking would be:
>>>>>> life (murder very bad)
>>>>>> freedom (kidnapping very bad)
>>>>>> person (assault, rape, robbery, etc... very bad)
>>>>>> possessions (theft, fraud - I worked to get them, not you)
>>>>>> property (some trespass, fraud)
>>>>>> peace and tranquility (disturbing the peace, harassment)
>>>>> That seems like a reasonable list, although I'd probably combine some
>>>>> of them such as freedom and person. Do you think each of the
>>>>> corresponding freedoms of each individual are worth equal
>>>>> consideration? In other words, person A's freedom is equal to person
>>>>> B's?
>>>> All people should be considered equal in rights and opportunity, but not
>>>> outcomes.
>>> That's an interesting phrase. How do you separately define
>>> opportunity and outcome? You could say that money is both an
>>> opportunity and an outcome.
>> Money is always an outcome.
>>
>> You should not be denied admittance to a school because of your skin
>> tone. You should not be denied a job due to your religious beliefs. You
>> should be free to open a shop, and you are free to fail at running the shop.
>
> You don't think that someone with a larger bank account has more of an
> opportunity to succeed?
>
Yes, they do as they can afford to fail more often and buy more
training. By equal oppourtunity I mean you are not stopped from using
any of the resources that you do have.
But my having more money doesn't directly harm anyone, or stop anyone
from using what resources they do have in any way they want that is
ethical. If Bill Gates buys another Porsche, it doesn't stop me from
buying a Ford.
It is wrong to force people to give up what is theirs even for a "good"
cause. Of course we actually do this all the time when we pay taxes, but
in this case we have made a kind of social compact that is ratified at
regular periods with elections.
Not exactly anarchy.
Alex
>
>
aden
> > So what, in your opinion, would be a just response to slander?
>
> Depends on the actual harm done. Anything from a simple apology, to
> monetary damages.
If you don't mind, I'd like to boil down this thread to basic ideas.
The most basic being what is outlined by the snippet of dialog above.
We've already defined a spectrum of coercion from slander to murder.
And you've said that a retaliation against any type of coercion should
be the minimum required to arrest it. So let's see where this idea
leads. We'll start with the above.
You say the range of retaliation for slander should be from an apology
to monetary damages, but what is the justified response if the person
in question refuses to do either?
James A. Donald
> Yes. Everyone is responsible for any reasonably
> foreseen outcome of their actions. If you incite
> violence, and violence ensues you are partially
> responsible.
So if someone in Italy speaks unkindly of Mohammed, and
Muslims protest by murdering some random Christians in
Egypt, he is partially responsible?
Not so.
But if someone says, "death to those that insult Islam",
and someone responds murdering some random Christians in
Egypt, *THEN* he is partially responsible.
Alex Russell
> Alex Russell
>> Yes. Everyone is responsible for any reasonably
>> foreseen outcome of their actions. If you incite
>> violence, and violence ensues you are partially
>> responsible.
>
> So if someone in Italy speaks unkindly of Mohammed, and
> Muslims protest by murdering some random Christians in
> Egypt, he is partially responsible?
>
> Not so.
Of course not, i said REASONABLE.
>
> But if someone says, "death to those that insult Islam",
> and someone responds murdering some random Christians in
> Egypt, *THEN* he is partially responsible.
>
I would agree.
Alex Russell
You can't force an apology, but if the society you live in agrees (eg
courts in our case) they can be forced to pay up.
Alex
aden
Which amounts to being forced at the point of a gun. Do you think it
is ethical to threaten someone's life over slander?
Alex Russell
life.
Alex
aden
How?
david....@gmail.com
> > >> noe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> Do you think that there are varying levels of coercion or that it's
> > >>> black and white ie.. you're either being coerced or you aren't?
> > >> Again that is a tough question. There are different levels of coercion,
> > >> ranging from hints from the wife, to a gun to the head.
>
> > >> I would say any coercion involving the threat of violence is wrong.
>
> > >> I know it is common to among some anarchists to refer to "wage slaves":
> > >> people coerced to work for a living, but I think that is an unfair term
> > >> as people living in any of the wealthier western countries really do
> > >> have many choices about employment.
>
> > >> Alex R
>
> > > Okay, then would you agree that theft of property or trespassing on
> > > property (if you agree with the concept) is a lesser degree of
> > > coercion than bodily assault?
>
> > Trespass isn't coercion at all. You have to be trying to get someone to
> > do something they don't want to do for it to be coercion. Give me your
> > wallet or I'll walk on your grass isn't really coercion. If you are
> > asking if trespassing is ok, again it depends. I don't want strangers
> > walking through my living room, but I'm not going to be so concerned
> > with someone taking a short-cut through the back forty.
>
> > Threatening to steal something would be wrong, and any kind of assault
> > is wrong.
>
> > violence against people is a much greater crime than any theft.
>
> > Alex- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
No, employment is a contractual agreement freely entered in by two
parties. Coercion is the threat of force (or outright force) in order
to get what you want.
A good question to demonstrate that the threat of job loss is not
coercion is to reverse it: Is the threat of walking off a job
coercion?
Dave
*Anarcissie*
It has certainly been treated as such, when practiced
by unions, from time to time.
Alex Russell
transfer it when you get the court order in a more "advanced" society.
It would not be fair to take so much that they would not be able to get
food and shelter.
Alex
aden
So their freedom of person is forfeit if they say the wrong things.
Let me ask you this, assuming you said nothing slanderous and have
done nothing else to harm another, if someone attempted to arbitrarily
hold or detain you, do you think lethal force would be called for and
if not what kind of retaliation?
> transfer it when you get the court order in a more "advanced" society.
And if they don't keep their wealth in a bank you resort to the
"primitive" method, correct?
Alex Russell
Only if what they said led to some actual harm, eg they lied about you
so no one would deal with your business anymore, or someone decided to
beat you up due to their lies.
aden
Then let's take the most extreme example you cited. Getting beat up
over a lie. First, does your solution depend on whether or not the
liar knows that what he is saying is untrue? Secondly, what if the
individual hates the person he's referring to. We've all been caught
up in a moment of rage at some point and said venomous things of other
people. Would what you propose have the effect of forcing people to
keep their opinions to themselves? Lastly, how believable does the
lie have to be?
I guess the point I'm trying to make is in how subjective a lot of
these criteria are and how easy it would be for some third party to
arbitrarily make a decision based on their own opinion rather than
some observable fact.
Spencer Spindrift
> On Dec 8, 6:51 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > James A. Donald:
>
> > > > I see. So when a burglar kicks down my door, *I* am
> > > > aggressing.
>
> > aden
>
> > > I think a special case could be made for one's
> > > specific dwelling or perhaps anywhere someone is at a
> > > given moment that is subject to violent invasion.
> > > This assumes that the intruder wants to do harm to the
> > > occupants. But acting in an aggressive manner outside
> > > of this context would be disproportionately coercive.
>
> > <sarcasm>Fine. Please give me the location of your car
> > and computer, and I promise to take them without
> > actually killing you in the process - unless, of course,
> > you resist, whereupon I will regrettably need to employ
> > potentially lethal violence in order to defend myself
> > against your aggression.</sarcasm>
>
> > ----------------------
> > We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> > of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> > right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> >http://www.jim.com/
>
> computer or car (if I owned one) or anything else I wasn't using if it
> were possible for me to do the same.
Self defence is no offence,; the State is the agressor
Spindrift