Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism

[log]

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.

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.

---

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.

[chimp3]

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

[DarkerEnergy]

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.

---

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.

There are hierarchies everywhere: government, business, culture, industry, academia, media, and art. There are even hierarchies in religious circles -- look at the Pope. There is no such thing as a collective with no hierarchy, nor can there be a world with no leadership. Whether people love each other or not, there will always be others that will rise to higher levels of power for one reason or another.

[Jesster]

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.

[log]

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.

---

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.

[Jesster]

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.

No no no no no. That's not how this works. You have to provide evidence to counter my claim. Or do you suddenly dislike your own argument methods now?

[DarkerEnergy]

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.

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.

---

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.

We have legal rights precisely for the reason that we own ourselves and our property. If someone harms us or takes possession of our property, we have the right to pursue charges against that person, whether they be strangers or people we love. If someone steals from us we might make the choice to forgive them and not get the law involved, but that will be our choice in such a matter. If someone abuses us though and takes advantage of our love and goodwill, most of us have limits that can be crossed, where we would have them arrested/jailed for something unforgivable -- even if they are family or friends.

[log]

There are hierarchies everywhere: government, business, culture, industry, academia, media, and art. There are even hierarchies in religious circles -- look at the Pope. There is no such thing as a collective with no hierarchy, nor can there be a world with no leadership. Whether people love each other or not, there will always be others that will rise to higher levels of power for one reason or another.

That there are hierarchies everywhere is obviously true.  What is not obvious is that there must be.  I grant that when our goal is to enhance our security, insulate ourselves from threats from others both of greater and lesser power, hierarchy results - and if we don't have that goal, then whence hierarchy?

If we weren't competing, that some might be stronger or faster or smarter wouldn't result in hierarchy, for there'd be no point in exerting power; there'd be no need to secure ourselves from competitors.

---

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.

No no no no no. That's not how this works. You have to provide evidence to counter my claim. Or do you suddenly dislike your own argument methods now?

I'm not trying to win a debate.  I am looking to see if you have any truth that I may benefit from.  That's why I ask.

[Jesster]

I'm not trying to win a debate.  I am looking to see if you have any truth that I may benefit from.  That's why I ask.

And I'm not actually trying to make a claim to counter yours. That was a joke claim to make a point. Back up your actual non-joke claims or I will treat them with the same respect as a joke claim. It doesn't look like you have any truth that I may benefit from so far.

[chimp3]

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.

How does the threat of self defense naturally lead to winner takes all scenario? Why does "if you must have what I have" naturally flow from a respect for private property of other ( including bodies) ? Essentially , you are convincing me you are a pessimist. I think success requires optimism. Hasn't Jesus made your outlook more hopeful? You sure are a half empty kind of person