Anarchism And Property Rights

[MIKolbe]

EXACTLY!

[Amppax]

[quote name='Innocent' timestamp='1338614489' post='2439838']
In the matter of reading about ideas, I consider myself a disciple of Mortimer Adler.

I shall bookmark this and read it when I have time.
[/quote]

Mortimer Adler is razzle dazzle

[Winchester]

Statism is the belief that an entity may claim a monopoly on legalized violence within a given area. That's rather loose. I think with Statism also comes the belief that the State should control economic activities, and that this control will (or can) result in a better economy. There is also some belief in legal positivism (Well, we have to stop completely at this stop sign, because STOP SIGN! (yes, that's a rather vulgar example, but I wanted to take a dig at the people who obey traffic laws simply because they are there)). Statists often believe in the social contract, a document that we apparently all signed, and that governments possess in a locker. It gives them the right to raise money whenever they want by increasing taxes or decorating slips of paper which we are compelled by force to accept in exchange for real goods. Statism doesn't just make the assumption that this is the lesser evil, but that the State is actually justified in these actions. These actions are actually good. It is possible that such an entity is necessary in a fallen world. This necessity would not make the State good, just as lying to the Nazis about a Jew hiding in your house would not be "good".

Obviously, there are degrees of Statism. The Tea Party seems less Statist (in many ways) than Mayor Bloomberg, who wants to outlaw sodas of an arbitrarily chosen size (which seems an innocuous enough manifestation of the belief in total control of a special group of magical human beings who know best, and are empowered to force that best on others).

And then there are most Americans, who will describe their rights as "Granted by the Constitution". Yes, this formulation might not be well thought out. If pressed, they might accept that rights exist prior to the State and its laws. But I think this is an example of how deeply we are infected with Statism.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Winchester

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winney'] (Well, we have to stop completely at this stop sign, because STOP SIGN! (yes, that's a rather vulgar example, but I wanted to take a dig at the people who obey traffic laws simply because they are there)).[/quote] Please don't take this as a glib remark; I mean it in all sincerity.

What do you think is a better response to such a situation? How should a person respond to things like a stop sign?

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338732027' post='2440240']
Please don't take this as a glib remark; I mean it in all sincerity.

What do you think is a better response to such a situation? How should a person respond to things like a stop sign?
[/quote]
Use your judgment.

Or just stop. Stopping is just fine. I'm speaking of the reaction some people have to the violation of arbitrary decrees. We were once solemnly informed on PM that if the government declared a given drinking age, that it was a sin to violate that law. That's just flooping stupid.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1338735285' post='2440244']

Use your judgment.

Or just stop. Stopping is just fine. I'm speaking of the reaction some people have to the violation of arbitrary decrees. We were once solemnly informed on PM that if the government declared a given drinking age, that it was a sin to violate that law. That's just flooping stupid.
[/quote]I can see why someone might say that.

What really distinguishes an arbitrary law from a non arbitrary one? Laws against drinking while drunk don't seem arbitrary, but the cutoff point is. How do you distinguish between them? I can start a new thread if this derails the present topic too much.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338748434' post='2440270']
I can see why someone might say that.

What really distinguishes an arbitrary law from a non arbitrary one? Laws against drinking while drunk don't seem arbitrary, but the cutoff point is. How do you distinguish between them? I can start a new thread if this derails the present topic too much.
[/quote]
Is it immoral to drive impaired?

[qfnol31]

Justice would suggest that it is because you are endangering yourself and those around you.

[Amory]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338520838' post='2439109']
What about Space Exploration under Anarchism? No doubt this would fall to corporations, no?[/quote]

I'm not sure why space exploration by corporations would be such a bad idea. Leaving exploration and trade to corporations chartered by the government worked pretty well for the British and the Dutch. Of course, this was more mercantilist than capitalist, which makes me wonder if mercantilism wasn't equal if not superior to the capitalist system we have now (or, more accurately, mixed economy leaning toward capitalism).

Edited June 3, 2012 by Amory

[Amory]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1338731570' post='2440238']
And then there are most Americans, who will describe their rights as "Granted by the Constitution". Yes, this formulation might not be well thought out. If pressed, they might accept that rights exist prior to the State and its laws. But I think this is an example of how deeply we are infected with Statism.
[/quote]

Well, it makes more sense to speak of rights that are "granted by the Constitution" than to support John Locke's notion of "natural rights." Besides the fact that they are "nonsense upon stilts," they also don't fit very well into the Catholic theological system. Lockean natural rights were completely unknown to the Apostles and to the Fathers, and they are certainly no more than superficially similar to Thomas Aquinas' concept of [i]ius naturale. [/i]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1338735285' post='2440244']

Use your judgment.

Or just stop. Stopping is just fine. I'm speaking of the reaction some people have to the violation of arbitrary decrees. We were once solemnly informed on PM that if the government declared a given drinking age, that it was a sin to violate that law. That's just flooping stupid.
[/quote]But really, it's your opinion that judges others opinions that decide whether a certain set of rules based on conjecture are deemed arbitrary or reasonable. Rules and laws are derived from multiple reasons, purposes, intents, and guesses about result. Of course an overly shallow and simplistic analysis would make it appear to be arbitrary. Some people believe lightning strikes are arbitrary.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Anomaly

[Winchester]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1338751531' post='2440284']
I'm not sure why space exploration by corporations would be such a bad idea. Leaving exploration and trade to corporations chartered by the government worked pretty well for the British and the Dutch. Of course, this was more mercantilist than capitalist, which makes me wonder if mercantilism wasn't equal if not superior to the capitalist system we have now (or, more accurately, mixed economy leaning toward capitalism).
[/quote]
It worked well for those given patents, yes.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1338752913' post='2440292']
But really, it's your opinion that judges others opinions that decide whether a certain set of rules based on conjecture are deemed arbitrary or reasonable. Rules and laws are derived from multiple reasons, purposes, intents, and guesses about result. Of course an overly shallow and simplistic analysis would make it appear to be arbitrary. Some people believe lightning strikes are arbitrary.
[/quote]
Yes, it it my judgement. I didn't say it wasn't.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1338752619' post='2440291']
Well, it makes more sense to speak of rights that are "granted by the Constitution" than to support John Locke's notion of "natural rights." Besides the fact that they are "nonsense upon stilts," they also don't fit very well into the Catholic theological system. Lockean natural rights were completely unknown to the Apostles and to the Fathers, and they are certainly no more than superficially similar to Thomas Aquinas' concept of [i]ius naturale. [/i]
[/quote]
That natural rights don't fit well into the Catholic theological system would be news to the Popes who wrote of natural rights. But okay.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338750461' post='2440278']
Justice would suggest that it is because you are endangering yourself and those around you.
[/quote]
Is driving whilst extremely tired a similar danger?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1338755420' post='2440300']
Is driving whilst extremely tired a similar danger?
[/quote]I watch Mythbusters. It's on par, but if I remember correctly it's not quite equal.

Either way, yes, I think it's also a similar danger.