Should protesters respect private property?

[Caleb]

And I can buy mothballs, oil anything in my house, install security and sleep with a gun.  I understand that life is transient, and for that very reason I want to hold on to everything I've got. 

You can try. But if the bully is bigger than you, stronger than you, or is quicker on the draw, you will have no choice but to sit and gnash your teeth while the bully imposes his will on you. And it's all part of the system that you accept. Because you are trusting in that little gun to protect the rights that you value. You think that your might can be the enforcer of your rights. But that same might can be used to take your rights away. So you legitimize the system where things are ultimately decided, not by what is right, but by who has the most power.

When I make peace with the world and my inevitable death then maybe we can talk about love being the guiding principle for man, until then, I'm gonna hope like hell that I can get on immortality's ladder.

Well, if you find the fountain of youth let me know. But we're still going to have to find a solution to this heat death problem that the universe is going to run into.

We must be able to appeal to universal human emotions when discussing this sort of thing. And there exists only one universal emotion, greed.  Not necessarily love of money, but self interest.  Self love if you will.  Every breath you take, every bite you eat, every drink you take, is out of self interest.  Even people who commit suicide are being greedy, only thinking of themselves.

Greed is certainly *a* universal human emotion. I'm not quite sure how you get that it is the only universal human emotion. I think there are plenty of universal human emotions. I'm not sure we want to base our society (or more importantly, I don't think that I personally want to base my own life) on the basest of human emotions. A little self-love is important. I don't think a person can truly love others if they can't love themselves. But self-obsession is another matter entirely, and if a person never extends that same love of themselves outward to others, I think they've pretty much wasted their life.

[Raineyrocks]

Stewie!  I love your avatar Caleb!

[sandm000]

Greed is certainly *a* universal human emotion. I'm not quite sure how you get that it is the only universal human emotion.

Name an emotion that everyone, who is currently alive, on earth has.  We will see if we can set up a logical system of interaction based on that emotion.

Well, if you find the fountain of youth let me know. But we're still going to have to find a solution to this heat death problem that the universe is going to run into.

We'll see how things go, but pocket universes may become all the rage.  Also I suspect I will get bored and a)kill myself, b) engage in really risky behavior (super-high high diving, no light spelunking, tiniest parachute sky diving) or c) retire my physical body to exist in an electronic environment. (or D) be a robot)

You can try. But if the bully is bigger than you, stronger than you, or is quicker on the draw, you will have no choice but to sit and gnash your teeth while the bully imposes his will on you. And it's all part of the system that you accept. Because you are trusting in that little gun to protect the rights that you value. You think that your might can be the enforcer of your rights. But that same might can be used to take your rights away. So you legitimize the system where things are ultimately decided, not by what is right, but by who has the most power.

If we were discussing only a short term transition from our current situation to a state approaching anarchy, I would agree.  However, after the first couple of weeks of a "tough guy" accumulating wealth in this fashion, he would then be in my place, defending himself against other "tough guys".  Sort of like gunslingers in the old west, who challenged guys to make a name for themselves, until one day, someone challenged them. 
And I would accept the system, because after the first two weeks the number of "tough guys" is cut in half.  (Two tough guys enter a territory, one challenges another, only one comes out.) After enough time the number of "tough guys" would approach zero (I understand that it would never reach it).  Leaving, after every iteration, more people who believe like me, that force can only be used in defense of self.  Think through the following scenarios:  Tough:Tough, Tough:Defender, Defender:Defender.  And you'll see that Defenders always leave more in the next generation that Toughs do, thereby slowly but surely (Years, decades, even centuries in the future) winning the majority.  However, human interactions are rarely if ever completed in a vacuum. So that if the Tough came to my door and shot me because he was quicker, he'd have to contend with my wife, and then my children on the way down, and I don't imagine that after I was shot that he would have the chance to fight 1:1 with all these people.  And by his very nature, he can't have a partner, if he took a partner, what would stop the partner from killing him to take what was his?

Also I argued earlier that nothing can take a right away, only the ability to excersize that right. and I don't think that the gun will protect or defend my rights, I will do that, the gun is just there to assist.

[MaineShark]

Blackie: I can only suggest that you do more research.

You're having trouble with squares and rectangles.  I know my limitations, and I don't think I can explain these concepts to you, if you can't even get something basic like that sorted out.

If we were discussing only a short term transition from our current situation to a state approaching anarchy, I would agree.  However, after the first couple of weeks of a "tough guy" accumulating wealth in this fashion, he would then be in my place, defending himself against other "tough guys".  Sort of like gunslingers in the old west, who challenged guys to make a name for themselves, until one day, someone challenged them. 
And I would accept the system, because after the first two weeks the number of "tough guys" is cut in half.  (Two tough guys enter a territory, one challenges another, only one comes out.) After enough time the number of "tough guys" would approach zero (I understand that it would never reach it).  Leaving, after every iteration, more people who believe like me, that force can only be used in defense of self.  Think through the following scenarios:  Tough:Tough, Tough:Defender, Defender:Defender.  And you'll see that Defenders always leave more in the next generation that Toughs do, thereby slowly but surely (Years, decades, even centuries in the future) winning the majority.  However, human interactions are rarely if ever completed in a vacuum. So that if the Tough came to my door and shot me because he was quicker, he'd have to contend with my wife, and then my children on the way down, and I don't imagine that after I was shot that he would have the chance to fight 1:1 with all these people.  And by his very nature, he can't have a partner, if he took a partner, what would stop the partner from killing him to take what was his?

Also I argued earlier that nothing can take a right away, only the ability to excersize that right. and I don't think that the gun will protect or defend my rights, I will do that, the gun is just there to assist.

Exactly.

Games theory demonstrates the efficiency of self-defense as a means of eliminating evil.

Of course, when you stick in a large fraction who will not defend themselves (under all or even just certain circumstances), it changes the outcome dramatically.  Convince enough individuals that evil should not be resisted, and evil will triumph.

And folks wonder why there is antagonism towards pacifists...

Personally, I only feel antagonism towards those who try and insist that others become pacifists, since I don't believe that anyone is obligated to defend himself.  But every individual that refuses to defend himself does increase the ability of evil to flourish, and some find that enough reason to feel hatred towards all pacifists.

In Caleb's pacific world, where he imagines that violence will be forgotten, there will still be those born who are neurologically defective and inclined to attack others.  In a pacific world, they will be utterly and completely unopposed in any meaningful way, and will take over.  Dictatorship if the clinically-sociopathic does not strike me as a peaceful and nice place to live.

Joe

[dalebert]

most versions of the golden rule seem deal with what you are not to do to other, not what to do.

Yes, and a lot of those are pre-Jesus, chronologically speaking. I like those better as they seem more like the NAP.

[John Edward Mercier]

I think its more of the translation to English, as the sentiment is to be the same.

[J’raxis 270145]

More importantly, it's a kind of moral relativism. A socialist has a screwed up notion of the types of violence against themselves that they consider perfectly acceptable as long as it's exacted against everyone else as well because it's for the "greater good". I don't want a socialist to treat me as they would be treated. I agree with you about justifications though. I think it's in our nature to have empathy for our fellow man. The greatest threat to that is our elaborate justifications that we use to ease our conscience, like the socialist and the greater good.

Well, let me say this: If a person genuinely, truly, treated another person the way he wanted to be treated and it was unwelcome on the other person's part, then I think in that situation you would have what we call a misunderstanding. And if the person truly loves the other person, once he sees that the misunderstanding has occurred, he would take steps to rectify the wrong.

Alice tries to force Bob to do something "for his own good." Bob resists, and Alice rationalizes forcing it upon him by convincing herself, "if I were in his position, I'd want someone to help me like this. I'd thank him afterward." This is an all too common scenario.

I've a feeling even you have done the above, what with your notions of suicide prevention.

[J’raxis 270145]

Rights only exist on paper and in thoughts. Does anything have rights?  My answer is no. Not unless it is given by some type of authority...god and government come to mind.

Negative rights—the right to speak freely, to believe as one wishes, to do to oneself as one wishes, &c.—exist without the need for any entity to grant them. People simply need to leave one another alone, and these rights exist.

Positive rights of course do require a grantor.

[Caleb]

Alice tries to force Bob to do something "for his own good." Bob resists, and Alice rationalizes forcing it upon him by convincing herself, "if I were in his position, I'd want someone to help me like this. I'd thank him afterward." This is an all too common scenario.

I've a feeling even you have done the above, what with your notions of suicide prevention.

yes. I have been thanked afterward. 

[Caleb]

Stewie!  I love your avatar Caleb!

Thank you, thank you! I was taking a lot of grief for Mr. Mackey, so I thought I'd change it up a little. I just recently got into Family Guy. 

[Raineyrocks]

Stewie!  I love your avatar Caleb!

Thank you, thank you! I was taking a lot of grief for Mr. Mackey, so I thought I'd change it up a little. I just recently got into Family Guy. 

I love Brian, the dog, and Stewie of course!  My favorite is still Courage the Cowardly dog.

[Caleb]

Name an emotion that everyone, who is currently alive, on earth has.  We will see if we can set up a logical system of interaction based on that emotion.

I could name dozens. Maybe hundreds. We are all human, we all share a common emotional makeup. I'm not so sure that it is wise to try to set up a "logical system of interaction" based on a single emotion. See below.

We'll see how things go, but pocket universes may become all the rage.  Also I suspect I will get bored and a)kill myself, b) engage in really risky behavior (super-high high diving, no light spelunking, tiniest parachute sky diving) or c) retire my physical body to exist in an electronic environment. (or D) be a robot)

"Yes, a tiny net is a death sentence, it's a net and it's tiny!"   

And you'll see that Defenders always leave more in the next generation that Toughs do, thereby slowly but surely (Years, decades, even centuries in the future) winning the majority.

In your theory, anyway. But how's that working out for you? I don't see any indication in real life that Defenders of Rights slowly but surely start to outnumber Perpetrators. I think that, if anything, all experience hath shewn quite the opposite, that tyranny and oppression tends to multiply on itself. As your friend Ayn Rand might say, "check your premises."

Is it time to maybe start considering Jung? Jung believed that in addition to the external world that we perceive with our senses (things like trees, rocks, other people, water, etc, etc, etc) there also exists an external world that impinges on our psyche. I stress that these are external influences. In other words, they do not originate from within us, but come from without, just as truly as a tree or a rock is an external influence. Just as we interact with the so-called "physical" world, both shaping it and being shaped by it, so too we are both influenced by these external archetypes, as well as influencing them ourselves. And these archetypes are shared with the rest of the world, (the most famous example being the "collective unconscious"). So that we can be influenced by the psyches of others, as well as influence them with our own. Almost all of this takes place on a completely subconscious level.

So what are you putting out into the world? What archetypes are you nourishing? Because that, to me, is a much better question than "on what single emotion can we base an entire logical system of interaction." The times when someone is attacking you, in this life, are so rare as to be almost non-existent. I think I've been hit once in my entire life, and truth be told I deserved it. So what are you doing with the other 99.999999999999999999999% of your time when you aren't defending yourself? Because what you are doing in that time is going to have a much larger impact on your psyche than what you do on the exceedingly rare occasions when you're attacked. And if you spend that time polishing your guns, practicing for your chance to make the big kill in your moment of defense, thinking about how important your rights are, etc., if that's what your life is, then what archetypes are you sending out into the world. Suspicion of others? Isolation? Fear? Mistrust? Superiority of self over others? The Life of others has value only as they cooperate with my interests? Superior power is the key to my victory? Are these the values you want others to nourish? Keep in mind, you may personally have a philosophy which enables you to respect others rights, but that doesn't mean everyone you influence will. You're not going to get to enlighten and teach everyone who is influenced by your archetypes. You might not even meet them. If our world is violent, hateful, and cruel, what must the unseen thoughts be which are directing that world? And do I want to let that influence me, or do I want to try to change the tide?

Caleb

[Caleb]

Stewie!  I love your avatar Caleb!

Thank you, thank you! I was taking a lot of grief for Mr. Mackey, so I thought I'd change it up a little. I just recently got into Family Guy. 

I love Brian, the dog, and Stewie of course!  My favorite is still Courage the Cowardly dog.

Yeah, I like the relationship between Stewie and Brian. If I get down, a couple episodes of Family Guy will be all it takes to perk me right up again.

[Eli]

How that freedom coming? Hmmm?  That...that nice free society your working on?  Got rid of the tyrants?  Free from oppression?  Everybody living in peace, eh?

[MaineShark]

Name an emotion that everyone, who is currently alive, on earth has.  We will see if we can set up a logical system of interaction based on that emotion.

I could name dozens. Maybe hundreds. We are all human, we all share a common emotional makeup. I'm not so sure that it is wise to try to set up a "logical system of interaction" based on a single emotion. See below.

You could name dozens that all humans have?  Really?  Why don't you, then?

And you'll see that Defenders always leave more in the next generation that Toughs do, thereby slowly but surely (Years, decades, even centuries in the future) winning the majority.

In your theory, anyway. But how's that working out for you? I don't see any indication in real life that Defenders of Rights slowly but surely start to outnumber Perpetrators. I think that, if anything, all experience hath shewn quite the opposite, that tyranny and oppression tends to multiply on itself. As your friend Ayn Rand might say, "check your premises."

It's very simple: the theory only works when people actually defend themselves.  When you punks tell others that they shouldn't, it gives the evil ones an advantage.

So what are you putting out into the world? What archetypes are you nourishing? Because that, to me, is a much better question than "on what single emotion can we base an entire logical system of interaction." The times when someone is attacking you, in this life, are so rare as to be almost non-existent. I think I've been hit once in my entire life, and truth be told I deserved it. So what are you doing with the other 99.999999999999999999999% of your time when you aren't defending yourself? Because what you are doing in that time is going to have a much larger impact on your psyche than what you do on the exceedingly rare occasions when you're attacked.

I'm attacked every day by you commie bastards.  I have to live under constant threat of imminent violence if I don't toe your line.  Ask Russell what happens if you just don't pay the taxes that you commies force upon us.

And if you spend that time polishing your guns, practicing for your chance to make the big kill in your moment of defense, thinking about how important your rights are, etc., if that's what your life is, then what archetypes are you sending out into the world. Suspicion of others? Isolation? Fear? Mistrust? Superiority of self over others? The Life of others has value only as they cooperate with my interests? Superior power is the key to my victory?

Trust of good people.  Respect for others.  Love of those who I would seek to protect.  Superiority of reason over brute force.  Value for the majority of good people over the minority of evil folks.

Are these the values you want others to nourish?

Absolutely.  I will always seek to nourish the noblest of human values so that they may defeat the base ones that you and your ilk try to force on others.

If our world is violent, hateful, and cruel, what must the unseen thoughts be which are directing that world? And do I want to let that influence me, or do I want to try to change the tide?

Your world is violent, hateful, and cruel, Caleb.  Mine is peaceful, loving, and kind.  I am only forced to use violence when your world attacks mine.

Joe