RE: Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism
January 18, 2017 at 10:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2017 at 10:29 pm by log.)
(January 18, 2017 at 10:22 pm)chimp3 Wrote: The argument for private property requires that we respect private property including that of others. Especially when we argue that our bodies are private property. Your slippery slope argument is fallacious and requires much more support than you are flaccidly offering.
I'm not seeing that as an argument for private property, but rather a restatement of it. In reality what drives your "respect" for others' property is your cost-benefit analysis of whether the price for not respecting it is too high, however you valuate that, to pay to challenge their claims.
My slippery slope, as you call it, falls out from first principles. If I own something, then I control it and set the terms you must and shall abide by to access it. Of course I'm going to maximize my security - that is, put conditions upon you whereby you cannot break my security, and enhance my own security thereby, and I'm going to back that up by force. Just like this forum reserves the right to pretty much ban anyone for any reason or for no reason. If you must have what I have, and determine the cost I'm imposing is higher than what you might risk by force - however you valuate that - you will apply force to change control of the resource from me to you. And so on.
(January 18, 2017 at 10:24 pm)Jesster Wrote: Public property is an option for atheists. I've seen it with my own eyes. I don't have to prove it, though. You have to provide the opposition.
What is your definition of public property, and how does that form a foundation for societal order? If you would, please. I'd like to see if it can be reducible to issuing threats against someone in order to control their behavior. If it can be, then what you're proposing is not different than private property.
