Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys  (Read 75784 times)

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2008, 02:45:13 pm »

Just to clarify, I said threats of force are aggressive and that many property rights are threats of force.

Threats of force are neither aggressive nor non-aggressive.  No action has moral standing out of context.

When I read these posts I frequently see blanket phrases like "violation of my rights", "property rights", and "moral rights". These phrases alone mean almost nothing, and I see people frequently using them to internally justify nearly about any behavior they wish. For example:

One such property right, quiet enjoyment, is the right to be free from other people unreasonably interfering with your use of your real property (e.g. your neighbor llikes to play his stereo at 140 dB at 3:30 am). Tired of listening to Dethmetal at ungodly early hourse, you march over to his house, shoot him, and he dies. Perhaps this is not the best way to go about solving this dispute. But if you have a moral right, to do so, well, it's certainly a way to do it. 'Course, to do this you had to break into his house. Where, from his spouse's point of view, you're now "violating her rights", and she shoots you.

You do not have a property right to "quiet," so you would be an aggressor and would be 100% wrong in that case.  His spouse would be 100% right to shoot you dead.

Or if I were to give a waitress a $20 bill, but she mistakenly believes it's a ten; and she only brings back change for the ten. If I think she's attempting to steal, perhaps she deserves to lose a few fingers.

A mistake is not a violation of your rights.

Or imagine some settlers in the desert, where one makes a fairly large property claim to the one natural river feeding water into the area: "Everyone 'round here. This is my river and all the water in it belongs to me. If you take any water from it, I'll hafta shoot you. I'm not threatening you, and I'm not being aggressive. But if you touch my river, I'll kill you."

Sounds like, if that river was so important to them, maybe they should have claimed it, themselves.  If they left it unclaimed, clearly it was of no real importance.

I cannot imagine the reasoning such an ambiguous "moral right" springs from that would allow a reasonable person to instantly and unilaterally escalate aggression to any level he "deems appropriate" if he even merely perceives the slightest of violations to his collection of property rights. While you may have the power to do these things, you would have no such "moral right" or "moral obligation".

All rights stem from self-ownership.

Any violation of my rights is a violation of my person.

And there would be no aggression in responding to an attack, regardless of how the response compares to the attack.  The attack is the initiation of force.  Any response is just that: a response.

As for the candy bar, unless you're made of candy bars and the child plucked one off of your arm, the child has not attacked you. He's only taken something that you claim is yours.

I used my labor to obtain that candy bar.  Taking it from me is no different from forcibly enslaving me for the amount of my life that I needed to expend to obtain that candy bar.

The candy bar is mine because I used my life to obtain it.  Taking it is aggression against me, and I have every moral right to respond with defensive force, if I so choose.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2008, 07:37:22 pm »

You do not have a property right to "quiet," so you would be an aggressor and would be 100% wrong in that case.  His spouse would be 100% right to shoot you dead.

There is a right of quiet enjoyment of your property. It is a property right that has been recognized for many hundreds of years.

A mistake is not a violation of your rights.

That was my point. If someone violates your rights, you may defend your rights. As stated previously, one might respond with any degree of force he desires to use. But who is to decide at what point these rights are violated? Upon mere belief? In the real world, we operate with incomplete information. And you may have the ability act as you desire, but karma still applies. You do not have the right to act however you please whenever you think someone is infringing upon one of your rights.

Sounds like, if that river was so important to them, maybe they should have claimed it, themselves.  If they left it unclaimed, clearly it was of no real importance.

I didn't say it wasn't already claimed or wasn't be used (nor is it clear to me how one would conclude a single source of water in a desert would be of no real importance). Just that some person has claimed all the water by threatening to hurt anyone who tries to interfere with his claim.

Any violation of my rights is a violation of my person.

I'm not sure why you believe this to be so. It may personally offend you that your rights to certain pieces of property are not being respected. But this is not a violation of any intrinsic rights to your person.

And there would be no aggression in responding to an attack, regardless of how the response compares to the attack.  The attack is the initiation of force.  Any response is just that: a response.

That's preposterous. A response can be as aggressive and vicious as any initiation of force. Above, I believe it was admitted that the wife would be correct in shooting you dead. Which means the original response would have been aggressive. Suppose a little kid strays from the sidewalk and on to Neighbor's private property for a few steps to avoid some people walking in the other direction. The owner sees this. Solution: start shooting at the kid.

A mere technical violation of some right does not allow one to let slip the dogs of war, allowing an outlet for whatever sadistic demons one wishes to explore. Someone else's failure to respect your rights does not abdicate you of your own responsibilities. Proportional force necessary to preserve your rights is proper.

I used my labor to obtain that candy bar.  Taking it from me is no different from forcibly enslaving me for the amount of my life that I needed to expend to obtain that candy bar.

The candy bar is mine because I used my life to obtain it. Taking it is aggression against me, and I have every moral right to respond with defensive force, if I so choose.

The candy bar is a thing. It is not you. Interfering with the right to possess the candy bar is not aggression against you (though it could be depending on the facts involved): it's interfering with your right to possess the candy bar. But it may or may not be aggression against you as a person. You may personally believe the candy bar is so integral to your being that taking the candy bar is a personal affront. Certainly, stealing a candy bar isn't a nice thing to do--but I see no reason to equate interference of possession with enslavement. That's an enormous, illogical leap.

I'm not sure what these "moral rights" being talked about are. I am only familiar with that phrase in one context, which doesn't even fit in this situation. Unless we're talking about philosophical moral rights, in which case the term is being seriously misused. As I commented before, I often see the phrase being carelessly tossed around to justify various behaviors.

Blah, I need a beer!  ;) I think we've really moved off topic here. We could continue this on a different thread. Did you guys notice how many views this thread has had?
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2008, 08:42:48 pm »

You do not have a property right to "quiet," so you would be an aggressor and would be 100% wrong in that case.  His spouse would be 100% right to shoot you dead.
There is a right of quiet enjoyment of your property. It is a property right that has been recognized for many hundreds of years.

No, there's a government-granted privilege that exists in certain societies.  That is not the same as a right.

A mistake is not a violation of your rights.
That was my point. If someone violates your rights, you may defend your rights. As stated previously, one might respond with any degree of force he desires to use. But who is to decide at what point these rights are violated? Upon mere belief? In the real world, we operate with incomplete information. And you may have the ability act as you desire, but karma still applies. You do not have the right to act however you please whenever you think someone is infringing upon one of your rights.

You are responsible for obtaining correct information prior to action.  That does not put any limitation on your sphere of choices, if you do obtain correct information.

Sounds like, if that river was so important to them, maybe they should have claimed it, themselves.  If they left it unclaimed, clearly it was of no real importance.
I didn't say it wasn't already claimed or wasn't be used (nor is it clear to me how one would conclude a single source of water in a desert would be of no real importance). Just that some person has claimed all the water by threatening to hurt anyone who tries to interfere with his claim.

If it was already claimed, then he cannot homestead it.  He is an aggressor, and they have every moral right to defend their property from his theft.

Any violation of my rights is a violation of my person.
I'm not sure why you believe this to be so. It may personally offend you that your rights to certain pieces of property are not being respected. But this is not a violation of any intrinsic rights to your person.

The derivation was already discussed, so your inability to recognize it is rather comical.

Let's repeat it again... I used my labor to obtain my property.  Ergo, taking it is an act of aggression against my person.

And there would be no aggression in responding to an attack, regardless of how the response compares to the attack.  The attack is the initiation of force.  Any response is just that: a response.
That's preposterous. A response can be as aggressive and vicious as any initiation of force.

No, the technical definition of aggression (and the primary dictionary definitions) means only an initiation of hostilities, not a responsive or defensive act.  If you are going to attempt to get involved in a philosophical discussion, I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the language, first.  Buying a dictionary would be a good idea.

Above, I believe it was admitted that the wife would be correct in shooting you dead. Which means the original response would have been aggressive.

The original act was not a response.  It was an attack.  Noise is not a violation of your rights, so killing your neighbor was an attack, and her killing of you was defensive.

Suppose a little kid strays from the sidewalk and on to Neighbor's private property for a few steps to avoid some people walking in the other direction. The owner sees this. Solution: start shooting at the kid.

Theoretically allowable.  Just because one may do something, does not mean one should do that thing.  I expect that someone acting in such a manner would find that he was shunned by all others, which would make (for example) buying food quite difficult, if no one will do business with him.  In any case, maintaining control of the child so that it does not trespass on others' property is the responsibility of the child's parents.

A mere technical violation of some right does not allow one to let slip the dogs of war, allowing an outlet for whatever sadistic demons one wishes to explore. Someone else's failure to respect your rights does not abdicate you of your own responsibilities. Proportional force necessary to preserve your rights is proper.

Prove it.  Provide a logical proof of your claim that force must be proportional.

I'll dis-prove it before you even start: a woman who is attacked by a man who declares his intent to rape her would be morally (and legally, by the way) justified in using deadly force in self-defense, despite the fact that he does not intend to kill her.  Her response does not need to be proportional to his level of force.

The candy bar is a thing. It is not you. Interfering with the right to possess the candy bar is not aggression against you (though it could be depending on the facts involved): it's interfering with your right to possess the candy bar. But it may or may not be aggression against you as a person. You may personally believe the candy bar is so integral to your being that taking the candy bar is a personal affront. Certainly, stealing a candy bar isn't a nice thing to do--but I see no reason to equate interference of possession with enslavement. That's an enormous, illogical leap.

Your body is a thing.  It is not you.  I'm just going to borrow it for a while.  Maybe dangle it off a bridge into traffic.  Tie it up and leave it out in the winter cold for a few hours.  Drip some burning gasoline on it.  I'll even be a sport and give it back, when I'm done.  Interfering with your possession of your body is not a violation of your self, right?

I'm not sure what these "moral rights" being talked about are. I am only familiar with that phrase in one context, which doesn't even fit in this situation. Unless we're talking about philosophical moral rights, in which case the term is being seriously misused. As I commented before, I often see the phrase being carelessly tossed around to justify various behaviors.

You have no conception of what morality or rights are?  Why are you attempting to argue about the subject, then?

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2008, 10:23:27 pm »

You do not have a property right to "quiet," so you would be an aggressor and would be 100% wrong in that case.  His spouse would be 100% right to shoot you dead.

There is a right of quiet enjoyment of your property. It is a property right that has been recognized for many hundreds of years.

That's impossible. The owner of the property next door has a right to make noise on his property. If you demand quiet, buy enough land so that you can't hear your neighbor regardless of the noise he makes. There is property in the AZ desert for $350 per acre. Lots of quiet for the taking. To purchase a quarter acre next to six other families and expect quiet is just nuts.

And you may have the ability act as you desire, but karma still applies.

Seriously? Not in this lifetime it doesn't.

It may personally offend you that your rights to certain pieces of property are not being respected. But this is not a violation of any intrinsic rights to your person....

The candy bar is a thing. It is not you. Interfering with the right to possess the candy bar is not aggression against you (though it could be depending on the facts involved): it's interfering with your right to possess the candy bar. But it may or may not be aggression against you as a person. You may personally believe the candy bar is so integral to your being that taking the candy bar is a personal affront. Certainly, stealing a candy bar isn't a nice thing to do--but I see no reason to equate interference of possession with enslavement. That's an enormous, illogical leap.

Life, liberty and property are the same thing. The only thing that has any value is time. Without time, nothing can exist. When you're out of time, you're dead.

There is no difference between enslaving someone for six months, letting them work wherever they want for those same six months but then taking the fruits of their labor or just kidnapping someone and locking them in a room for six months. In either event, what was actually stolen was six months. If it took me six months to earn enough money to buy a car and you steal my car, what have you taken? Hint: The correct answer is six months of my life.

To steal is to take someones past. To kidnap or enslave is to take their present. To murder is to take their future. The same principle applies to smaller segments of time including the 1 minute of my life that it took to earn enough money to purchase a candy bar. If you have the right to one minute of my time, you have the right to all of it. A man is either free or he's not, there's no such thing as a little bit pregnant. The progression is perfectly logical. Here's a visual aid.

http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #34 on: May 19, 2008, 01:03:30 am »

No, there's a government-granted privilege that exists in certain societies.  That is not the same as a right.

It's a right. There is not one single definition of a right. To summarize the essence of the various definitions, a right, generally, is a justifiable claim or legal entitlement from another. At least in reality, a government-granted privilege may be a right, by those very sames definitions of a right.

Quiet enjoyment encompasses more than freedom from nuisance sound (it is not a right to quiet, as has been stated). But it seemed like an appropriate example, as 140 dB aimed at your property can permanently injure your hearing. You have a right to use your property. You don't have a right to use your property to hurt other people.

If it was already claimed, then he cannot homestead it.  He is an aggressor, and they have every moral right to defend their property
from his theft.

Claimed? Where is the evidence of any such claims, nor how would anyone know? There is no such universal clearinghouse of property claims. We were talking about some wild claim to a large swath of river, now suppose 50 miles of it, in a sparsely populated area. Homesteading is inapplicable. I believe we were originally talking about how property claims can be aggressive. I'm not sure where you'd like to take this.

The derivation was already discussed, so your inability to recognize it is rather comical.

Let's repeat it again... I used my labor to obtain my property.  Ergo, taking it is an act of aggression against my person.

I'm not sure of the "derivation" you're speaking of. If you mean the implicit assumption that a property right is somehow intrinsically and imaginarily attached to your person or personhood, I would reject that assumption out-of-hand. Personally, I disagree with Marxian theories of labor and capital.

No, the technical definition of aggression (and the primary dictionary definitions) means only an initiation of hostilities, not a responsive or defensive act.  If you are going to attempt to get involved in a philosophical discussion, I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the language, first.  Buying a dictionary would be a good idea.

There's really no need for that. You can disagree while being civil.

I'm not sure where this technical definition is purported to come from. Nor has the source been stated. Consulting various sources, you will immediately note there are many definitions of the word with various shades of meaning. A completely disproportionate defensive act can be aggressive under many of these definitions.

Theoretically allowable.  Just because one may do something, does not mean one should do that thing.  I expect that someone acting in such a manner would find that he was shunned by all others, which would make (for example) buying food quite difficult, if no one will do business with him.  In any case, maintaining control of the child so that it does not trespass on others' property is the responsibility of the child's parents.

Theoretically? In what theory? As stated many times now, people have the power to do many things. But some things they should not do. I'm glad we agree on this! This is really the essence of this whole discussion.

If someone infringes upon your rights in some technical and minor way, should you react disproportionately to the amount of aggression against you? You probably should not.

Prove it.  Provide a logical proof of your claim that force must be proportional.

I'll dis-prove it before you even start: a woman who is attacked by a man who declares his intent to rape her would be morally (and legally, by the way) justified in using deadly force in self-defense, despite the fact that he does not intend to kill her.  Her response does not need to be proportional to his level of force.

I think that would be futile. And I could do this, but no more than you could provide a logical proof that any level of force is acceptable. This is not a mathematical or logically rigorous problem, nor have we established necessary propositions to proceed from. In all likelihood, I don't think we would agree on many things. As in the paragraph about, we're making normative statements about how people should act. I don't think I ever said force must be proportional--clearly, I cannot force anyone to do that. I am stating that one should use the proportionate amount of force necessary to preserve his rights.

I'm not sure what your example tries to disprove. If there is an actual attempt of a rape, use of deadly force is probably proportional to the threat of grave bodily injury. However, I think you only said a threat of rape. Are these verbal statements? An assault? It's absolutely incorrect that this would instantly legally justify someone to use deadly force. *shrug*

Your body is a thing.  It is not you.

Your body is a thing. And you, in the wholest sense, are that thing. Odds are, we simply disagree on this point.

You have no conception of what morality or rights are?  Why are you attempting to argue about the subject, then?

You've mis-stating what I wrote.

I said that I didn't understand the way the amorphous phrase "moral rights" was used, because people have been flinging it around rather carelessly.

As I've said a few times now, the phrase is not being used in a legally correct way, rights and moral rights being different things. In the legal sense, it's being completely misused. If its the Kantian meaning, it's being applied incorrectly. If it's being used interchangably with "natural right", it's not really a strict "right" at all.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #35 on: May 19, 2008, 01:26:58 am »

That's impossible. The owner of the property next door has a right to make noise on his property. If you demand quiet, buy enough land so that you can't hear your neighbor regardless of the noise he makes. There is property in the AZ desert for $350 per acre. Lots of quiet for the taking. To purchase a quarter acre next to six other families and expect quiet is just nuts.

The right is called "quiet enjoyment"; I didn't name the thing. It's been around for a long time. And it exists in New Hampshire. Though, I am not licensed to speak on the intricacies of NH law. But generally, the same principles apply if I were to put incredibly bright stadium lighting on my property to annoy my neighbors.

Seriously? Not in this lifetime it doesn't.

Huh? May or may not encompass reincarnation. That wasn't intended in any religious sense. What's your point?

Life, liberty and property are the same thing. The only thing that has any value is time. Without time, nothing can exist. When you're out of time, you're dead.

There is no difference between enslaving someone for six months, letting them work wherever they want for those same six months but then taking the fruits of their labor or just kidnapping someone and locking them in a room for six months. In either event, what was actually stolen was six months. If it took me six months to earn enough money to buy a car and you steal my car, what have you taken? Hint: The correct answer is six months of my life.

To steal is to take someones past. To kidnap or enslave is to take their present. To murder is to take their future. The same principle applies to smaller segments of time including the 1 minute of my life that it took to earn enough money to purchase a candy bar. If you have the right to one minute of my time, you have the right to all of it. A man is either free or he's not, there's no such thing as a little bit pregnant. The progression is perfectly logical. Here's a visual aid.

http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Yeah, I saw that flash animation a while ago. It's clever, I think :) You can steal the fruits of someone's labor. But you can't
"steal" someone's time in the literal sense. And it's hardly comparable to slavery--which encompasses a much broader range of violations than a mere deprivation of the possession of chattel property--which might be temporary. It's a little bit nonsense, imho, but the animation is still pretty neat.

If you have the right to one minute of my time, you have the right to all of it. A man is either free or he's not, there's no such thing as a little bit pregnant. The progression is perfectly logical.

Perhaps we're all using different definitions of "logical" this weekend :-\
Logged

NJLiberty

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #36 on: May 19, 2008, 07:36:33 am »

A government granted privilege is never a right. It is a privilege, if for no other reason than the fact that it can be withdrawn on a whim. Government cannot grant rights to people, nor can one party grant rights to another party. An individual possesses his rights by birth, not by government, and not by contract.

You do not have the right to "quiet enjoyment" on your property. That is a privilege granted by government, regardless of how many centuries that law may have been in effect. The government has only granted you the privilege of not having to hear loud noises, as they arbitrarily define them, and in some cases only during certain times of the day, which again they arbitrarily define.

Now, if that noise actually caused you physical harm, then at that point I would agree that they have violated your rights, but not because they simply annoyed you by playing their music too loudly.

If indeed "quiet enjoyment" is a right, how far should your "right" be carried? Should we all have to ask our neighbors each time we have a party to see exactly what volume of music they find acceptable for their quiet enjoyment? Do I have the right to demand the airlines move their flight paths, and demand the interstate be moved, because the din they generate interferes with my "quiet enjoyment?" Do I have the right to demand that all the local municipalities and homes turn off their lights at night because the light pollution is so bad here in NJ that I have never seen the Milky Way and can only see the brightest stars? How offended do I have to be by my neighbors actions before I have the right to prevent them from enjoying their property? And why should my being offended supersede their right to enjoy their property?

I guess that is what it boils down to for me, if their actions are not actually causing me any harm, why are my rights to enjoy my property more important than their right to enjoy theirs?

George


 
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #37 on: May 19, 2008, 07:45:50 am »

No, there's a government-granted privilege that exists in certain societies.  That is not the same as a right.
It's a right. There is not one single definition of a right. To summarize the essence of the various definitions, a right, generally, is a justifiable claim or legal entitlement from another. At least in reality, a government-granted privilege may be a right, by those very sames definitions of a right.

Again, I would suggest buying a dictionary.

Rights don't just spring from no-where.  If you cannot provide some moral basis for the claim that this is a right, then it is not one.

Quiet enjoyment encompasses more than freedom from nuisance sound (it is not a right to quiet, as has been stated). But it seemed like an appropriate example, as 140 dB aimed at your property can permanently injure your hearing. You have a right to use your property. You don't have a right to use your property to hurt other people.

If you want to be free from nuisance sound, I would suggest that you contract with your neighbors such that they agree not to make sounds which annoy you.

Attempting to force them to obey your whims, in the absence of any such agreement, is an initiation of force.

If it was already claimed, then he cannot homestead it.  He is an aggressor, and they have every moral right to defend their property
from his theft.
Claimed? Where is the evidence of any such claims, nor how would anyone know? There is no such universal clearinghouse of property claims. We were talking about some wild claim to a large swath of river, now suppose 50 miles of it, in a sparsely populated area. Homesteading is inapplicable. I believe we were originally talking about how property claims can be aggressive. I'm not sure where you'd like to take this.

I believe you need to actually choose an example and stick to it.  The thing is either claimed or it is not.  If they haven't claimed it, then the newcomer can claim it.  If they have claimed it, then the newcomer cannot.  It cannot be "sort of claimed" or anything like that.

As to how the newcomer would know that it was claimed, my personal suggestion would be signs of some sort.  But informing others that you have claimed something is your responsibility, not mine.

The derivation was already discussed, so your inability to recognize it is rather comical.

Let's repeat it again... I used my labor to obtain my property.  Ergo, taking it is an act of aggression against my person.
I'm not sure of the "derivation" you're speaking of.

While you're out buying a dictionary, why don't you buy a book on reading comprehension, as well, eh?  Given that you just quoted the derivation and then claim not to know what we're talking about, it would seem to be necessary.

No, the technical definition of aggression (and the primary dictionary definitions) means only an initiation of hostilities, not a responsive or defensive act.  If you are going to attempt to get involved in a philosophical discussion, I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the language, first.  Buying a dictionary would be a good idea.
There's really no need for that. You can disagree while being civil.

I suppose I can, but I have no desire to be "civil" towards uncivil individuals who claim that no one has rights except, apparently, whatever privileges the government grants them...

I'm not sure where this technical definition is purported to come from. Nor has the source been stated. Consulting various sources, you will immediately note there are many definitions of the word with various shades of meaning. A completely disproportionate defensive act can be aggressive under many of these definitions.

The technical definition of aggression is the initiation of force.  Buy that book on reading comprehension.  It will help you greatly.  And the dictionary, while you're at it.  Seriously.

Theoretically? In what theory?

The theory we've been discussing.  Seriously, a text on the English language, or three.

As stated many times now, people have the power to do many things. But some things they should not do. I'm glad we agree on this! This is really the essence of this whole discussion.

No, the essence of the discussion is that you've claimed that no one has rights, and you may act on any whim you like.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #38 on: May 19, 2008, 07:46:11 am »

If someone infringes upon your rights in some technical and minor way, should you react disproportionately to the amount of aggression against you? You probably should not.

That's an aesthetic judgment.  One which I happen to agree with in most cases.  But it is not a moral statement.

Prove it.  Provide a logical proof of your claim that force must be proportional.

I'll dis-prove it before you even start: a woman who is attacked by a man who declares his intent to rape her would be morally (and legally, by the way) justified in using deadly force in self-defense, despite the fact that he does not intend to kill her.  Her response does not need to be proportional to his level of force.
I think that would be futile. And I could do this, but no more than you could provide a logical proof that any level of force is acceptable. This is not a mathematical or logically rigorous problem, nor have we established necessary propositions to proceed from.

Actually, it is a logically-rigorous problem.  While you're out buying the other books, buy a few philosophy texts.

In all likelihood, I don't think we would agree on many things. As in the paragraph about, we're making normative statements about how people should act. I don't think I ever said force must be proportional--clearly, I cannot force anyone to do that. I am stating that one should use the proportionate amount of force necessary to preserve his rights.

I would suggest going back and re-reading the paragraph that I quoted...

I'm not sure what your example tries to disprove. If there is an actual attempt of a rape, use of deadly force is probably proportional to the threat of grave bodily injury. However, I think you only said a threat of rape. Are these verbal statements? An assault? It's absolutely incorrect that this would instantly legally justify someone to use deadly force. *shrug*

Legality is irrelevant.  We're discussing morality.  If someone makes a credible threat, then force is justified in response to the threat.  The choice in the amount of force is up to the victim of the attack, not the attacker or you or anyone else.

Your body is a thing.  It is not you.
Your body is a thing. And you, in the wholest sense, are that thing. Odds are, we simply disagree on this point.

If you are anything related to your body, it would be some small part of your brain.  If I cut off your arm, does your identity change?  Are you suddenly someone different?  Even if you suffer rather severe brain injuries, you would still be "you."  So very little of your body actually houses "you-ness."  Clearly, since the rest is simply your property, not fundamentally part of your self, I may damage or steal it as I wish, and you would have no recourse to defend your body violently, because it is simply property and property cannot be defended with violence, right?

You have no conception of what morality or rights are?  Why are you attempting to argue about the subject, then?
You've mis-stating what I wrote.

I said that I didn't understand the way the amorphous phrase "moral rights" was used, because people have been flinging it around rather carelessly.

Actually, no, it's been used very carefully.  You're the one who has been trying to conflate it with other things, like legality.

As I've said a few times now, the phrase is not being used in a legally correct way, rights and moral rights being different things. In the legal sense, it's being completely misused.

Legality is irrelevant.  There are no such things as rights under the legal system.  No government can "give" you a right that you already have.  And the fact that governments refuse to recognize other rights which you also already have simply means that they are violating your rights, not that your rights magically disappear.

"Legally," Jews had no rights under the Nazis.  That doesn't make the actions of Hitler and his cronies any less despicable, just because they were not "illegal."

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #39 on: May 19, 2008, 09:59:17 am »


some looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries are so dense...

repel and destroy...

go figure...

enjoy!

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #40 on: May 19, 2008, 02:30:50 pm »

As I have stated again and again--maybe you're choosing to skip over it--I wrote that I did not understand what was being meant by "moral rights" (among other phrases, e.g. the blanket term "property rights") because it was being using in various contexts and inconsistently at that.

You responded by attributing to me that I had no concept of rights or morals.

And I tried to correct you on that. That I was speaking about the phrase "moral rights".
But you persist in misrepresenting the content of our exchange.

Either you are being dishonest or careless. Now, I don't know you well, so I cannot say which applies. But I would ask, that you at least be honest, both to me and everyone else out there who might be reading this.

I have asked you to be civil, to which you responded:

Quote
I suppose I can, but I have no desire to be "civil" towards uncivil individuals who claim that no one has rights except, apparently, whatever privileges the government grants them...

I've never claimed this. Ever.

In the entirety of our conversation--and I implore to reread everything I've written--I have never, ever said such a thing. You would have no reason to assume it. Nor is it true in fact. I cannot imagine why you would invent such a claim and then attribute it to me.

You have unfoundedly chastised me for a "lack of reading comprehension". Please consider the innumerable benefits of heeding your own advice. If you wish to discuss these issues seriously, you should--at a minimum--at least read what the other person has written so that you may competently respond. Nor should you just fabricate claims merely to be contentious.

Comparatively, I feel I've been fair and civil in sticking to the issues--rather than passive-aggressively calling you uneducated (e.g. "get a dictionary", "get a philosophy book", ad nauseum). There's really no need for this sort of thing. But if your actual intent was to kindly suggest a particular book, do feel free.

Moving on to the real issues, your rhetoric has been severely deficient in substance--relying on bold assertions of fact, circular arguments, general absurdity, and ad hominem attacks targeted at my intelligence--to cover up your attempts to skirt the actual discussion and play loosely with words (that centuries of philosophy, ethics, economics, and law have been unable to pin down to an exact meaning). Particularly, my favorite line of argumentative nonsense:

Quote
Quote
Theoretically? In what theory?
The theory we've been discussing.  Seriously, a text on the English language, or three.

We really can't move further along because, I sense, you're implicitly trying to define a "right" to an exceptionally strict subset of things--which you continually choose to leave undefined--pretending as if the whole world understands what you mean without further explanation. It doesn't. That's what this whole discussion was about. I have offered a definition, and it has not been controverted, so I'll assume the definition, for the most part, is adequate.

The only substantive attempt you've made in attempting to define this, is that, "If you cannot provide some moral basis for the claim that this is a right, then it is not one." Which is not so much a definition, as it is circular reasoning. And also generally inconsistent with your previous claims concerning the relationship between rights and aggression.

I have a feeling, but you haven't explicitly stated so, that you're trying to use a very narrow definition of right. So narrow that it abandons the realm of rights altogether. Instead, it appears you're actually speaking of natural powers and not rights at all. Yet, I have no way of knowing, because you've continually glossed over these necessary points. But I'm not going to construct your argument for you so that I can debate myself. I have a business to run after all.

Regardless of whatever attention-misdirecting response you may have, my original comment regarding moral rights (and other phrases), was that people easily or unknowingly equivocate upon the phrase "moral right" and "violation of property rights", and do not distinguish what they're actually talking about. In doing so, their statements become weaker. That's just basic argumentation and rhetoric.

Again, the very fact we're still "discussing" this, as you dance around the original contention--and we've moved no further in elucidating the manner in which the phrase is being used--really demonstrates my entire point.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #41 on: May 19, 2008, 03:08:34 pm »

As I have stated again and again--maybe you're choosing to skip over it--I wrote that I did not understand what was being meant by "moral rights" (among other phrases, e.g. the blanket term "property rights") because it was being using in various contexts and inconsistently at that.

You responded by attributing to me that I had no concept of rights or morals.

"Rights" is a well-defined term, and has been used consistently and correctly by all but yourself, here.

I have asked you to be civil, to which you responded:
Quote
I suppose I can, but I have no desire to be "civil" towards uncivil individuals who claim that no one has rights except, apparently, whatever privileges the government grants them...
I've never claimed this. Ever.

In the entirety of our conversation--and I implore to reread everything I've written--I have never, ever said such a thing. You would have no reason to assume it. Nor is it true in fact. I cannot imagine why you would invent such a claim and then attribute it to me.

Actually, you have.  At all turns, you reflexively fall back to "legality" and governmental precedents, which have nothing to do with morality, other than generally being immoral.

Comparatively, I feel I've been fair and civil in sticking to the issues--rather than passive-aggressively calling you uneducated (e.g. "get a dictionary", "get a philosophy book", ad nauseum). There's really no need for this sort of thing. But if your actual intent was to kindly suggest a particular book, do feel free.

Um, that's not passive-aggressive.  It's just sarcasm.

Moving on to the real issues, your rhetoric has been severely deficient in substance--relying on bold assertions of fact, circular arguments, general absurdity, and ad hominem attacks targeted at my intelligence--to cover up your attempts to skirt the actual discussion and play loosely with words (that centuries of philosophy, ethics, economics, and law have been unable to pin down to an exact meaning).

I think you're looking in a mirror, there.

Particularly, my favorite line of argumentative nonsense:
Quote
Quote
Theoretically? In what theory?
The theory we've been discussing.  Seriously, a text on the English language, or three.

We really can't move further along because, I sense, you're implicitly trying to define a "right" to an exceptionally strict subset of things--which you continually choose to leave undefined--pretending as if the whole world understands what you mean without further explanation. It doesn't. That's what this whole discussion was about.

You "sense?"  What, with a Ouija board?

Again, buy a dictionary.  These are not esoteric, undefined terms.

I have offered a definition, and it has not been controverted, so I'll assume the definition, for the most part, is adequate.

Oh, and what definition is that?

The only substantive attempt you've made in attempting to define this, is that, "If you cannot provide some moral basis for the claim that this is a right, then it is not one." Which is not so much a definition, as it is circular reasoning.

Um, that's not circular in the least.

You made a claim, apparently ex cathedra.  Back it up.  Or don't.  If you cannot, then clearly you are just inventing things as you go.

And also generally inconsistent with your previous claims concerning the relationship between rights and aggression.

Um, no, it's not.  But please do attempt to "enlighten" us with your reasoning on that.  I could use a laugh.

I have a feeling, but you haven't explicitly stated so, that you're trying to use a very narrow definition of right. So narrow that it abandons the realm of rights altogether. Instead, it appears you're actually speaking of natural powers and not rights at all. Yet, I have no way of knowing, because you've continually glossed over these necessary points. But I'm not going to construct your argument for you so that I can debate myself. I have a business to run after all.

And, again, there are many fine dictionaries out there.  I would suggest buying one, and maybe even opening it and looking up the meanings of words.

Regardless of whatever attention-misdirecting response you may have, my original comment regarding moral rights (and other phrases), was that people easily or unknowingly equivocate upon the phrase "moral right" and "violation of property rights", and do not distinguish what they're actually talking about. In doing so, their statements become weaker. That's just basic argumentation and rhetoric.

You, as already stated, are attempting to draw a blatantly-false distinction between "moral rights" and "property rights."  All actual rights are property rights, stemming from the fundamental property right of self-ownership.  There are no rights which are not property rights.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #42 on: May 19, 2008, 03:16:51 pm »

That's impossible. The owner of the property next door has a right to make noise on his property. If you demand quiet, buy enough land so that you can't hear your neighbor regardless of the noise he makes. There is property in the AZ desert for $350 per acre. Lots of quiet for the taking. To purchase a quarter acre next to six other families and expect quiet is just nuts.

The right is called "quiet enjoyment"; I didn't name the thing. It's been around for a long time. And it exists in New Hampshire. Though, I am not licensed to speak on the intricacies of NH law. But generally, the same principles apply if I were to put incredibly bright stadium lighting on my property to annoy my neighbors.

I'm sure it is a law in NH as in most places, I just disagree that it's right. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral just as making something illegal doesn't make it immoral. For example; Kicking in someones door, kidnapping them and locking them in a cage is immoral. Growing a plant in your back yard (regardless of the genus) is not. Our laws have it bass ackwards.

Seriously? Not in this lifetime it doesn't.

Huh? May or may not encompass reincarnation. That wasn't intended in any religious sense. What's your point?

My point is that Karma doesn't exist. It's nice idea (unlike god) espoused by people who just can't get past the fact that life isn't fair.

"The rain falls upon the just and upon the unjust and the sun shines on the evil and the good." (Matthew 5:45)

Murderers, liars and thieves prosper. Hardworking, honest people are abused and enslaved. Don't think so? Just look around. There probably isn't a next life and they won't pay in this life unless you collect. No mystical unseen force called Karma or God is going to magically make things right. It's up to us. We have one life to live, make the most of it.


Life, liberty and property are the same thing. The only thing that has any value is time. Without time, nothing can exist. When you're out of time, you're dead.

There is no difference between enslaving someone for six months, letting them work wherever they want for those same six months but then taking the fruits of their labor or just kidnapping someone and locking them in a room for six months. In either event, what was actually stolen was six months. If it took me six months to earn enough money to buy a car and you steal my car, what have you taken? Hint: The correct answer is six months of my life.

To steal is to take someones past. To kidnap or enslave is to take their present. To murder is to take their future. The same principle applies to smaller segments of time including the 1 minute of my life that it took to earn enough money to purchase a candy bar. If you have the right to one minute of my time, you have the right to all of it. A man is either free or he's not, there's no such thing as a little bit pregnant. The progression is perfectly logical. Here's a visual aid.

http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Yeah, I saw that flash animation a while ago. It's clever, I think :) You can steal the fruits of someone's labor. But you can't
"steal" someone's time in the literal sense. And it's hardly comparable to slavery--which encompasses a much broader range of violations than a mere deprivation of the possession of chattel property--which might be temporary. It's a little bit nonsense, imho, but the animation is still pretty neat.

If you have the right to one minute of my time, you have the right to all of it. A man is either free or he's not, there's no such thing as a little bit pregnant. The progression is perfectly logical.

Perhaps we're all using different definitions of "logical" this weekend :-\

It's not the worst thing that could happen. For instance, we could spend all of our time focusing on our differences and accomplish nothing instead of getting active reducing the size and scope of government. Maybe someday the state will be so small that we'll have to debate how much smaller we want it. What a happy day that will be!  :)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 03:19:56 pm by Keyser Soce »
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #43 on: May 19, 2008, 03:33:22 pm »

My point is that Karma doesn't exist. It's nice idea (unlike god) espoused by people who just can't get past the fact that life isn't fair.

"The rain falls upon the just and upon the unjust and the sun shines on the evil and the good." (Matthew 5:45)

Murderers, liars and thieves prosper. Hardworking, honest people are abused and enslaved. Don't think so? Just look around. There probably isn't a next life and they won't pay in this life unless you collect. No mystical unseen force called Karma or God is going to magically make things right. It's up to us. We have one life to live, make the most of it.

At least we're on the same page, sort of :) The best I ever heard karma summed up, is cause-and-effect, and not a mystical force (but it depends on whether you're asking a religious person or not). Even a tyrant's behavior sows the seeds of his downfall. Nothing more, nothing less. :)

Life, liberty and property are the same thing. The only thing that has any value is time. Without time, nothing can exist. When you're out of time, you're dead.

There is no difference between enslaving someone for six months, letting them work wherever they want for those same six months but then taking the fruits of their labor or just kidnapping someone and locking them in a room for six months. In either event, what was actually stolen was six months. If it took me six months to earn enough money to buy a car and you steal my car, what have you taken? Hint: The correct answer is six months of my life.

To steal is to take someones past. To kidnap or enslave is to take their present. To murder is to take their future. The same principle applies to smaller segments of time including the 1 minute of my life that it took to earn enough money to purchase a candy bar. If you have the right to one minute of my time, you have the right to all of it. A man is either free or he's not, there's no such thing as a little bit pregnant. The progression is perfectly logical. Here's a visual aid.

http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

It's not the worst thing that could happen. For instance, we could spend all of our time focusing on our differences and accomplish nothing instead of getting active reducing the size and scope of government. Maybe someday the state will be so small that we'll have to debate how much smaller we want it. What a happy day that will be!  :)

Actually, I literally meant I didn't understand the logical progression. Later, I just assumed the "little bit pregnant" thing in the same sentence as men being free. Later, I just assume it was just some kind of analogy about all-or-nothingess. It was confusing at the time. Though I was really, really tempted to talk about fuzzy logic... :D Not that it matters!

You hit on the more important thing there: some day... some day...
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #44 on: May 19, 2008, 03:35:01 pm »

As I have stated again and again--maybe you're choosing to skip over it--I wrote that I did not understand what was being meant by "moral rights" (among other phrases, e.g. the blanket term "property rights") because it was being using in various contexts and inconsistently at that.

You responded by attributing to me that I had no concept of rights or morals.

"Rights" is a well-defined term, and has been used consistently and correctly by all but yourself, here.

I have asked you to be civil, to which you responded:
Quote
I suppose I can, but I have no desire to be "civil" towards uncivil individuals who claim that no one has rights except, apparently, whatever privileges the government grants them...
I've never claimed this. Ever.

In the entirety of our conversation--and I implore to reread everything I've written--I have never, ever said such a thing. You would have no reason to assume it. Nor is it true in fact. I cannot imagine why you would invent such a claim and then attribute it to me.

Actually, you have.  At all turns, you reflexively fall back to "legality" and governmental precedents, which have nothing to do with morality, other than generally being immoral.

Comparatively, I feel I've been fair and civil in sticking to the issues--rather than passive-aggressively calling you uneducated (e.g. "get a dictionary", "get a philosophy book", ad nauseum). There's really no need for this sort of thing. But if your actual intent was to kindly suggest a particular book, do feel free.

Um, that's not passive-aggressive.  It's just sarcasm.

Moving on to the real issues, your rhetoric has been severely deficient in substance--relying on bold assertions of fact, circular arguments, general absurdity, and ad hominem attacks targeted at my intelligence--to cover up your attempts to skirt the actual discussion and play loosely with words (that centuries of philosophy, ethics, economics, and law have been unable to pin down to an exact meaning).

I think you're looking in a mirror, there.

Particularly, my favorite line of argumentative nonsense:
Quote
Quote
Theoretically? In what theory?
The theory we've been discussing.  Seriously, a text on the English language, or three.

We really can't move further along because, I sense, you're implicitly trying to define a "right" to an exceptionally strict subset of things--which you continually choose to leave undefined--pretending as if the whole world understands what you mean without further explanation. It doesn't. That's what this whole discussion was about.

You "sense?"  What, with a Ouija board?

Again, buy a dictionary.  These are not esoteric, undefined terms.

I have offered a definition, and it has not been controverted, so I'll assume the definition, for the most part, is adequate.

Oh, and what definition is that?

The only substantive attempt you've made in attempting to define this, is that, "If you cannot provide some moral basis for the claim that this is a right, then it is not one." Which is not so much a definition, as it is circular reasoning.

Um, that's not circular in the least.

You made a claim, apparently ex cathedra.  Back it up.  Or don't.  If you cannot, then clearly you are just inventing things as you go.

And also generally inconsistent with your previous claims concerning the relationship between rights and aggression.

Um, no, it's not.  But please do attempt to "enlighten" us with your reasoning on that.  I could use a laugh.

I have a feeling, but you haven't explicitly stated so, that you're trying to use a very narrow definition of right. So narrow that it abandons the realm of rights altogether. Instead, it appears you're actually speaking of natural powers and not rights at all. Yet, I have no way of knowing, because you've continually glossed over these necessary points. But I'm not going to construct your argument for you so that I can debate myself. I have a business to run after all.

And, again, there are many fine dictionaries out there.  I would suggest buying one, and maybe even opening it and looking up the meanings of words.

Regardless of whatever attention-misdirecting response you may have, my original comment regarding moral rights (and other phrases), was that people easily or unknowingly equivocate upon the phrase "moral right" and "violation of property rights", and do not distinguish what they're actually talking about. In doing so, their statements become weaker. That's just basic argumentation and rhetoric.

You, as already stated, are attempting to draw a blatantly-false distinction between "moral rights" and "property rights."  All actual rights are property rights, stemming from the fundamental property right of self-ownership.  There are no rights which are not property rights.

Joe

Still avoiding getting those definitions out there...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up