(January 18, 2017 at 9:54 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 9:46 pm)log Wrote: Precisely.  And you can back that up with force - and, without the implicit threat of force, the sign would be meaningless.

Without the notion of private property ( including your own body) is there an argument for self defence? An argument against rape? Is there an argument for "Thou shall not steal"?

There is not a good argument for self-defense, but there is one for defense of (some) others, and there is one against rape, and there is one for "thou shalt not steal."

However, that takes a detour through ontology and epistemology and theology.  My point in this thread is there is a necessary, forseeable problem with a social order predicated upon resource monopolization through issuance of threats against others to control their behavior.

(January 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm)log Wrote: I have never seen atheists appeal to any other foundation for a social order other than private property.
When I ask for a counterexample, I am rebuffed.
The inference to the best explanation is that there is no other foundation that atheists can appeal to.

This is the same kind of argument as:
All the swans I have ever seen have been white.
Nobody has claimed to have seen a non-white swan.
The inference to the best explanation is that all swans are white.

As this is an inference to the best explanation based on the evidence I have before me, it is necessarily tentative and it can be overturned by a counterexample.

So because you've never seen it, it doesn't exist? Shoot, you even brought up the swan argument that defeats your own faulty logic. I didn't even have to point that out to you, and yet you still seem lost about it in thinking it actually supports your argument.

Yeah, I'm done here.

(January 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 9:54 pm)log Wrote: Christians have an alternative - which they don't like.  Atheists, however, don't look to me like they have an alternative.  I'm open to any counterexamples of a social foundation that atheists appeal to which cannot be reduced, in the end, to resource monopolization based on threats of force.

And what is the christian alternative that is not available to atheists?

A propertyless system whereby men have all things in common and none withholds nor threatens.  For such a system to work, human nature must be transformed, and that goes into religious claims.

---

(January 18, 2017 at 10:02 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm)log Wrote: I have never seen atheists appeal to any other foundation for a social order other than private property.
When I ask for a counterexample, I am rebuffed.
The inference to the best explanation is that there is no other foundation that atheists can appeal to.

This is the same kind of argument as:
All the swans I have ever seen have been white.
Nobody has claimed to have seen a non-white swan.
The inference to the best explanation is that all swans are white.

As this is an inference to the best explanation based on the evidence I have before me, it is necessarily tentative and it can be overturned by a counterexample.

So because you've never seen it, it doesn't exist? Shoot, you even brought up the swan argument that defeats your own faulty logic. I didn't even have to point that out to you, and yet you still seem lost about it in thinking it actually supports your argument.

Yeah, I'm done here.

Because I've never seen it, and get rebuffed when I ask to see it, I infer it *probably* doesn't exist.  Unicorns, leprechauns, etc.

(January 18, 2017 at 10:03 pm)log Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: And what is the christian alternative that is not available to atheists?

A propertyless system whereby men have all things in common and none withholds nor threatens.  For such a system to work, human nature must be transformed, and that goes into religious claims.

What christen religious claims?

(January 18, 2017 at 9:59 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Lamb of God thing, surely you've heard the phrase.

It stems from the gospel of John where Christ is crucified on Thursday, the same day the lambs are slaughtered for the Passover feast which is the next day, Friday.

God was illustrating the sacrifice of His Son by invoking the lambs being ritually slaughtered on the day before Passover.

After all, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, sent by the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of Jewish Law.

Ah, thanks for explaining.

(January 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm)log Wrote:

Quote:The problem with any form of anarchism is that it assumes power vacuums can exist socially - they can't. Truth is, there will always be hierarchies in society, and people that want power will find a way to get it, no matter what the system is. In anarcho-capitalism we would simply have businessmen doing whatever they damn well pleased, without a government force to ever get in their way. The idea of a private police/court system is laughable, since the powerful would end up owning it. There are good arguments for limiting the powers of government, but they ain't in right-wing libertarianism -- they have utopian nonsolutions.

Hierarchy is the result of fear, which is both an emotional matrix, an ideology, and a rule of behavior.  We yield to the strong because it's better than dying, ultimately, and we oppress the weak so that we may negate the threat they represent to our security.  Another way to put it is that we are trying to impose our wills on the environment and others in order to attain security, and it doesn't work.  The libertarians are simply consistent and clear in their reasoning, which made them a ripe target for disproof.

Hierarchy is not the result of fear. I have no idea where you got that from. It's simply a reflection of status in society, which is reflected in business and government. Like it or not, people will always find a way to rule over the common man. Free market anarchy appeals to the former, while anarcho-socialism is a appeals to the latter. Both are utopian, and both are bullshit.

(January 18, 2017 at 10:04 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 10:03 pm)log Wrote: A propertyless system whereby men have all things in common and none withholds nor threatens.  For such a system to work, human nature must be transformed, and that goes into religious claims.

What christen religious claims?

That Jesus Christ can transform the nature of individual people such that they no more have fear, but love everyone.
Love is characterized by the behavioral rule "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them," building others up at your expense.
Fear is characterized by the behavioral rule of building yourself up at others' expense.

---

(January 18, 2017 at 10:06 pm)DarkerEnergy Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm)log Wrote: Hierarchy is the result of fear, which is both an emotional matrix, an ideology, and a rule of behavior.  We yield to the strong because it's better than dying, ultimately, and we oppress the weak so that we may negate the threat they represent to our security.  Another way to put it is that we are trying to impose our wills on the environment and others in order to attain security, and it doesn't work.  The libertarians are simply consistent and clear in their reasoning, which made them a ripe target for disproof.

Hierarchy is not the result of fear. I have no idea where you got that from. It's simply a reflection of status in society, which is reflected in business and government. Like it or not, people will always find a way to rule over the common man.  Free market anarchy appeals to the former, while anarcho-socialism is a appeals to the latter. Both are utopian, and both are bullshit.

I got the idea from observing people acting to preserve or increase their security in the face of pain and apparent scarcity of resources, resulting in hierarchy.  I noted that among those who love each other, there is no hierarchy.

(January 18, 2017 at 10:01 pm)log Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 9:54 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Without the notion of private property ( including your own body) is there an argument for self defence? An argument against rape? Is there an argument for "Thou shall not steal"?

There is not a good argument for self-defense, but there is one for defense of (some) others, and there is one against rape, and there is one for "thou shalt not steal."

However, that takes a detour through ontology and epistemology and theology.  My point in this thread is there is a necessary, forseeable problem with a social order predicated upon resource monopolization through issuance of threats against others to control their behavior.

How about arguing against rape and theft to control those behaviors. Private property is a valid argument against those behaviors. God should have asked Marys permission before he knocked her up. Jesus should have paid for that donkey before he rode off on it. It is good to teach children that their body belongs to them so they can protect themselves against pedophile priests and preachers.

(January 18, 2017 at 10:08 pm)log Wrote:

(January 18, 2017 at 10:04 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: What christen religious claims?

That Jesus Christ can transform the nature of individual people such that they no more have fear, but love everyone.
Love is characterized by the behavioral rule "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them," building others up at your expense.
Fear is characterized by the behavioral rule of building yourself up at others' expense.

And this has what to do with property?

You seem to be taking the high road here. Do you own property?

(January 18, 2017 at 10:03 pm)log Wrote: Because I've never seen it, and get rebuffed when I ask to see it, I infer it *probably* doesn't exist.  Unicorns, leprechauns, etc.

So you're going with the gnostic approach when you haven't seen something. Yeah, I can't follow that faulty logic. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist. "A god might exist, but until I have evidence to support that, I will act as if a god does not exist." I don't just run around claiming a god absolutely does not exist until someone can counter my claim, because that carries a burden of proof with it.

Of course, if you want me to use that kind of logic, I will. Then I can write off your god that much easier.