Should protesters respect private property?

[MaineShark]

Those who actually live by ethical standards tend to be very disinterested in friendly banter with hypocrites who demand that others obey the rules they claim to live by, while violating those rules themselves.

reminds me of freestaters

Really?  Which ones?

Joe

[Caleb]

How can you even consider it the same situation, when the first premise (a belief that we ought to defend ourselves) isn't held by anyone who says "The police will defend me and my rights".

Well, perhaps a more precise way of saying it would be "they believe that their rights should be defended" with the obvious difference between you and most of them being *who* they think should do that defending. But if you think about it, the viewpoint that there should be a group of people who defend rights is a natural evolution from the viewpoint that everyone should do his own dirty work. And not just among statists. That's why you have libertarian/anarchist types who dream up "private defense insurance companies" and other things of this sort, because the simple fact is that there are a lot of people who want to be protected, but don't want to actually have to do it themselves. Kinda like killing animals (which mercier mentioned earlier.) There's a whole shitload of people who want to eat meat, but they don't actually want to butcher the animal. So they hire people to do it for them. And defense is the same way: most people want it for themselves, but don't want to do it for themselves. And a big strong government is the next logical evolution because if you want to hire someone to protect you, you want them to be pretty badass. You don't want your protection team to be running scared. You want them to be tough, right? But here's the catch, once they are tougher than you, they rule you. And that's pretty much what we have now, no? But both of you are starting with the same central premises (i'll modify them to make it easier to understand what I was trying to say):  1) Rights (particularly MY rights) are the sort of thing that need defended and protected  2) I ought to act in my own rational self-interest (other people be damned if they get in the way.)  Given these two beliefs as the major ideology of the people, the current system is inevitable.

If I can't see it or experience it in any readily meaningful way, how can I even begin to bring what goes on in the spirit world into my rational decision making processes?
Should I eat that toast or will the spirit of the toast be angry isn't a meaningful question, nor is "is some other malevolent spirit trying to get me to eat that toast."
It looks like you are trying to dodge responsibility for your actions by claiming "da debil made me do it" when you claim that things in an unseen dimension are influencing your actions.

I didn't say you couldn't "experience it in any meaningful way", I said it isn't sensory, and that I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we limit experience to the senses. That was Aristotle's big error, and we have been repeating it ever since.

I am not trying to dodge responsibility for my actions by acknowledging the existence of other entities that influence our psyches. Quite the contrary, I think that understanding what we face is the first step towards empowering ourselves.

[David]

I've found his posts in this thread to be interesting and provocative, and his tone rather calm.  In this context, what does "total intolerance" even mean?  How do you suggest he behave toward ideas he disagrees with?

I take it you missed the "libertarians are monsters" rant?

Sorry Joe.  I disagree with Caleb on almost every point but I wouldn't say he was behaving in an unchristlike manner.  Christ was a disagreeable pacifist with no respect for the state or for property.  Caleb is doing just fine based on that list.  I think Christ (if not apocryphal) and Caleb (if not a teatotaler) could easily sit down and have a friendly beer, granting the existed in a similar time and space.

I'll flat-out guarantee the opposite.  Those who actually live by ethical standards tend to be very disinterested in friendly banter with hypocrites who demand that others obey the rules they claim to live by, while violating those rules themselves.

I also doubt you would find Jesus going on about what wonderful people Hitler and Stalin were...

Joe

That is not fair.  Caleb advocates some things that I could never agree with, but he is very good about not forcing his view on others, beyond the occasional debate.  He will not run for political office, so he is not a danger to you or me. 

Quote<And defense is the same way: most people want it for themselves, but don't want to do it for themselves. And a big strong government is the next logical evolution because if you want to hire someone to protect you, you want them to be pretty badass. You don't want your protection team to be running scared. You want them to be tough, right? But here's the catch, once they are tougher than you, they rule you. And that's pretty much what we have now, no?>

Agreed.  Every politician promises security, and safety.  They sell the drug war as though some guy smoking pot is a danger to others.   Every minarchist believes that defense and security is the most important purpose of gov't.
Of course these things have to be paid for.  Once our protectors can get people to believe they must pay taxes, then they can finance any thing they want.  And then it is largely too late to decide you aren't interested in paying taxes.   

[John Edward Mercier]

Caleb did a very nice job.
But Dave, I have to digress slightly. It would be disingenuous of me to say that the US military and its control of ICBMs has not in some way protected me from domination of other governments. As for the current one...

[MaineShark]

Well, perhaps a more precise way of saying it would be "they believe that their rights should be defended" with the obvious difference between you and most of them being *who* they think should do that defending. But if you think about it, the viewpoint that there should be a group of people who defend rights is a natural evolution from the viewpoint that everyone should do his own dirty work. And not just among statists. That's why you have libertarian/anarchist types who dream up "private defense insurance companies" and other things of this sort, because the simple fact is that there are a lot of people who want to be protected, but don't want to actually have to do it themselves.

This is disingenuous, at best.  Saying, "I'll hire someone to protect me when I'm sleeping" is not the same as saying, "I don't want to protect myself, ever."

Self-defense is a bodily function, like breathing.  It cannot be delegated.

That is not fair.  Caleb advocates some things that I could never agree with, but he is very good about not forcing his view on others, beyond the occasional debate.  He will not run for political office, so he is not a danger to you or me.

Unless he decides that he knows what's best for me, in which case his view is that he has every right to use force to make me do as he wants.

This is what he's stated right in this thread: if he decides what's best for you, he has the right to initiate force against you to make you comply with that.  That's his view.

That makes him more violent than I am.  And I'm pretty unapologetic about my violence.  But I limit it strictly to self-defense.  There's not a power in the universe which could make me aggress against another.  Caleb, however, will do it just to make his own life easier.

For example, according what he's said here, the fact that I carry a gun is causing me some sort of psychic damage.  Also according to what he's said here, he is allowed to use force to prevent people from harming themselves.  Therefore, he is a danger to me, because he would have no difficulty siccing the government on my in an attempt to disarm me.  That would be "right" in his twisted world.

Joe

[Jacobus]

Even in a framework of property rights, I don't see how one can object to interceding to prevent suicide, so long as the individual after the fact approves of what you did. 

The situation is similar to the following: an apartment building goes up in flames and you have a neighbor who is not aware of it.  You have seconds to act, and you break into her apartment and hoist her onto your shoulders.  She is hitting you and resisting you, but you are too out of breath and there is not enough time to explain the situation.  You carry her out of the building, and as she understands the full situation she is much thankful for your acts.

Certainly you initiated force on her.  But were you acting violently toward her?  Did you infringe upon her rights? 

[MaineShark]

Even in a framework of property rights, I don't see how one can object to interceding to prevent suicide, so long as the individual after the fact approves of what you did.

All rights begin by your ownership of your own body.  Which includes your right to dispose of it as you please.

You cannot open that door, without creating the same system we have now (or one much worse).  Most everything the government does, they claim to be doing to you "for your own good."

If someone is smoking, can I break his jaw so that he stops?  It's for his own good, right?  He'll thank me later.

Joe

[MaineShark]

The situation is similar to the following: an apartment building goes up in flames and you have a neighbor who is not aware of it.  You have seconds to act, and you break into her apartment and hoist her onto your shoulders.  She is hitting you and resisting you, but you are too out of breath and there is not enough time to explain the situation.  You carry her out of the building, and as she understands the full situation she is much thankful for your acts.

Certainly you initiated force on her.  But were you acting violently toward her?  Did you infringe upon her rights?

Yes, and yes.

You might still do it, and accept that she could rightfully demand reparations from you.  I believe many probably would take that risk.

But you certainly couldn't claim to be a pacifist.

And that's not similar to a suicide, anyway, because a suicide is a deliberate act, not something that is happening without the knowledge of the individual being "rescued."

Joe

[Jacobus]

And that's not similar to a suicide, anyway, because a suicide is a deliberate act, not something that is happening without the knowledge of the individual being "rescued."

They are similar because in both situations, you are "agressing" against them by violating their property rights, and in both, the individual thanks you later for it. 

You cannot open that door, without creating the same system we have now (or one much worse).  Most everything the government does, they claim to be doing to you "for your own good."

No.  What leads to the system we have now is this idea you have (and most others have) that there are objective laws of proper human interaction that may be justifiably enforced.  Once you believe that, you would necessarily allow (and likely encourage) a government that enforces those laws.  You don't oppose the state, you only oppose its means of funding and some of the particular laws it enforces.

[sandm000]

Well, perhaps a more precise way of saying it would be "they believe that their rights should be defended" with the obvious difference between you and most of them being *who* they think should do that defending. But if you think about it, the viewpoint that there should be a group of people who defend rights is a natural evolution from the viewpoint that everyone should do his own dirty work. And not just among statists. That's why you have libertarian/anarchist types who dream up "private defense insurance companies" and other things of this sort, because the simple fact is that there are a lot of people who want to be protected, but don't want to actually have to do it themselves. Kinda like killing animals (which mercier mentioned earlier.) There's a whole shitload of people who want to eat meat, but they don't actually want to butcher the animal. So they hire people to do it for them. And defense is the same way: most people want it for themselves, but don't want to do it for themselves. And a big strong government is the next logical evolution because if you want to hire someone to protect you, you want them to be pretty badass. You don't want your protection team to be running scared. You want them to be tough, right? But here's the catch, once they are tougher than you, they rule you. And that's pretty much what we have now, no? But both of you are starting with the same central premises (i'll modify them to make it easier to understand what I was trying to say):  1) Rights (particularly MY rights) are the sort of thing that need defended and protected  2) I ought to act in my own rational self-interest (other people be damned if they get in the way.)  Given these two beliefs as the major ideology of the people, the current system is inevitable.

I think your premises have led you to believe that government is a necessary entitiy arising out of a certain level of complexity within human society.  If you delegate your self defense to another entity which then tries to control you, they have reverted control of your defensse back to you, they have nullified the contract.  They don't automatically own you, you have to stop defending yourself for that to happen.

I didn't say you couldn't "experience it in any meaningful way", I said it isn't sensory, and that I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we limit experience to the senses. That was Aristotle's big error, and we have been repeating it ever since.

I am not trying to dodge responsibility for my actions by acknowledging the existence of other entities that influence our psyches. Quite the contrary, I think that understanding what we face is the first step towards empowering ourselves.

What experiences can I have that are not interpreted directly through my senses?  Are they only in the mind?  Then they are the subjects of rumination, reason, logic, and deliberation. All internal processes, hell I'll even accept chemical imbalance and irrationality, impulsiveness, and desire.  But any other being impinging upon you mentally is going to be difficult for you to explain, and difficult for most of us to accept.


[/quote]

[Caleb]

I think your premises have led you to believe that government is a necessary entitiy arising out of a certain level of complexity within human society.  If you delegate your self defense to another entity which then tries to control you, they have reverted control of your defensse back to you, they have nullified the contract.  They don't automatically own you, you have to stop defending yourself for that to happen.

I don't think government is a necessary entity; I think government is a tragic state that arises from human (mental) disease. But since ideas cause people to act upon them (since people tend to act in harmony with their beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance) then I do believe that, given a set of poisonous beliefs, the disease of government is inevitable. And two significant contributors to the disease of government are a) your "rational self-interest" principle and b) the thought that a person's rights are the sort of things that ought to be defended. These certainly aren't the only poisonous ideas that lead to government, but they are significant, and I think a government (of some sort) is guaranteed in any society that believes those two.

I am not concerned with whether or not the "contract" has been voided. In the mass that is society, statistics become important. And as long as the contractor pleases a good portion of his customers, they will let him trample *your* rights. Rational self-interest, remember? Why should they hop off the winning team (guvmint) and join your cause, bringing the wrath of government on themselves? Oh, you might be able to come up with reasons why they should. Sure. But most people aren't going to think that deeply about it. They're just going to do what is easy.

What experiences can I have that are not interpreted directly through my senses?

What reason do you have to trust your senses? I don't agree with everything that Kant said, certainly, but I think he did make a valid point that our senses are limited by the forms that we are capable of understanding. Keep in mind that your brain filters your sensory data and only brings to your consciousness that which it has decided is relevant. Whitehead saw sensory data as being a function of what he called "prehension", which includes all our ways of prehending the world, and in Whitehead's view, our senses weren't even our primary means of acquiring information about the outside world. I could discuss this with you further, if you wish. I'd have to dig out my old process books (which are buried in the back of my suburu) but it might make for an interesting discussion.

Are they only in the mind?  Then they are the subjects of rumination, reason, logic, and deliberation. All internal processes, hell I'll even accept chemical imbalance and irrationality, impulsiveness, and desire.  But any other being impinging upon you mentally is going to be difficult for you to explain, and difficult for most of us to accept.

That's just it: EVERYTHING IS "ONLY IN THE MIND". You have nothing that isn't an internal mental event. Nothing. Think about that. Everything is your mind's interpretation of what is outside of it.

[Caleb]

I think your premises have led you to believe that government is a necessary entitiy arising out of a certain level of complexity within human society.

I think the premises of "rights" and "ownership" lead to government.

I'm astounded to find that I agree with you.

[Caleb]

By the way, sandman, just as an aside, you were talking a little bit back about Rand, and how you perceive her as being more "readable" to the lay person than Kant or Jung. I think you're probably right about Kant, who is almost undecipherable to me, but I am finding Jung to be highly readable. I was reading today, and came across this gem, which I think speaks to our discussion, because essentially, there is a clash of worldviews here, and Jung made an interesting commentary on the sort of thinking that says that we ought to live our live with survival in view:

"In practical terms this means that the existence of human beings will never be satisfactorily explained in terms of isolated instincts or purposive mechanism such as hunger, power, sex, survival, perpetuation of the species, and so on. That is, man's main purpose is not to eat, drink, etc., but to be human." [italics his]

[MaineShark]

And that's not similar to a suicide, anyway, because a suicide is a deliberate act, not something that is happening without the knowledge of the individual being "rescued."

They are similar because in both situations, you are "agressing" against them by violating their property rights, and in both, the individual thanks you later for it.

If I ever have reason to commit suicide, you can be guaranteed that I will not thank you afterward.

I think someone thanking another for preventing him from killing himself is a pretty rare thing.

You cannot open that door, without creating the same system we have now (or one much worse).  Most everything the government does, they claim to be doing to you "for your own good."

No.  What leads to the system we have now is this idea you have (and most others have) that there are objective laws of proper human interaction that may be justifiably enforced.  Once you believe that, you would necessarily allow (and likely encourage) a government that enforces those laws.  You don't oppose the state, you only oppose its means of funding and some of the particular laws it enforces.

No, I oppose the State.  I don't want any Statist nonsense.

There is one objective law of human interaction.  The zero-aggression principle.  And the supposed-existence of a State is a violation of that law, so there is no conceivable way that belief in that law could ever lead to Statism.

Joe

[sandm000]

I don't think government is a necessary entity; I think government is a tragic state that arises from human (mental) disease. But since ideas cause people to act upon them (since people tend to act in harmony with their beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance) then I do believe that, given a set of poisonous beliefs, the disease of government is inevitable. And two significant contributors to the disease of government are a) your "rational self-interest" principle and b) the thought that a person's rights are the sort of things that ought to be defended. These certainly aren't the only poisonous ideas that lead to government, but they are significant, and I think a government (of some sort) is guaranteed in any society that believes those two.

I am not concerned with whether or not the "contract" has been voided. In the mass that is society, statistics become important. And as long as the contractor pleases a good portion of his customers, they will let him trample *your* rights. Rational self-interest, remember? Why should they hop off the winning team (guvmint) and join your cause, bringing the wrath of government on themselves? Oh, you might be able to come up with reasons why they should. Sure. But most people aren't going to think that deeply about it. They're just going to do what is easy.

So then you agree in principle that I am right, but you are saying in practice no one will back me up?  Cause I'm willing to be that some people, even, if you will consider for a moment, yourself, an avowed pacifist has stood up for the rights of others.  Because they saw it was in their own best interests to fight for liberty, even the liberty of others.
Lazy =/= greedy. That is to say that Sloth and inaction are not the equivalent of rational self-interest.

What reason do you have to trust your senses? I don't agree with everything that Kant said, certainly, but I think he did make a valid point that our senses are limited by the forms that we are capable of understanding. Keep in mind that your brain filters your sensory data and only brings to your consciousness that which it has decided is relevant. Whitehead saw sensory data as being a function of what he called "prehension", which includes all our ways of prehending the world, and in Whitehead's view, our senses weren't even our primary means of acquiring information about the outside world. I could discuss this with you further, if you wish. I'd have to dig out my old process books (which are buried in the back of my suburu) but it might make for an interesting discussion.

That's just it: EVERYTHING IS "ONLY IN THE MIND". You have nothing that isn't an internal mental event. Nothing. Think about that. Everything is your mind's interpretation of what is outside of it.

Then where do the extermal objects in your earlier statement come from?  They can only be manifestations of a delusional mind, as all minds must be delusional, if there is no outside world.

Our minds are our houses and the senses are the windows through which we can view the world outside.  Each of our sensory organs are wired directly into the brain. Olfactory Bulb, Spinal Cord, Aural Canal, Optic Nerve.  If they don't interact with the world as subsets of our brain, I don't understand how the world works at all.  Are you the type to claim that all of this is only an illusion, we are only brains existing independant of our bodies?  Our bodies are an extension of our brain, and on the other side the brain is completely dependant on the body for nourishment and life.  We could not live without the two halves of our selves.