RE: Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism
January 18, 2017 at 10:11 pm
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2017 at 10:16 pm by log.)
(January 18, 2017 at 10:09 pm)chimp3 Wrote:(January 18, 2017 at 10:01 pm)log Wrote: 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."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.
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.
Even though your proposed solution, private property, must end in totalitarianism - lest anyone do what you think they oughtn't - and war - lest someone prevents you from doing what you wanna?
In this age of nuclear bombs, that can end us all.
(January 18, 2017 at 10:10 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:(January 18, 2017 at 10:08 pm)log Wrote: 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?
Do you withhold food from your child or your spouse until they pay you for it? Do you threaten your spouse or your children with violence if they should touch your stuff? I'm guessing no, because you love them. That's what love has to do with property.
According to the laws of the land, I own property - the laws of the land threaten force against any who might take my possessions. That's unavoidable in today's society.
However, as we both know, the argumentum ad hominem tu quoque is a fallacy. We're talking about the way things are and how they should be on first principles - I don't much care for personal attacks.
