3 ms·

How sad that you have to be a libertarian to oppose throwing nonviolent people in prison. This should just be common sense, not libertarianism.

by aminok 10y ago

aninhumer 10y ago
So you don't support the enforcement of property rights? Since that involves throwing non-violent people in prison after all. (And to predict a common argument, I do not consider taking someone else's property without the use of force to be a violent act.)
- aminok 10y ago
  Violating someone else's property rights is violent. One's exclusive right to their body is a type of property rights. One's right over their body is based on exactly the same principle of appropriating unclaimed natural resources for one's own exclusive use as one's right over what we commonly refer to as property.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    That's an argument that violence is theft, not vice versa. But let's not get hung up on a semantic argument. I am drawing a distinction between what you are calling "theft of body" and theft of anything else. I can use whatever terms you like, as long as you accept the distinction. (I will use "violence" and "theft" for now.) Most people think violence is bad because it causes direct physical suffering. Theft alone causes no such direct suffering. It may cause suffering as an indirect outcome, but this depends on a lot of factors. To take an absurd example, if one person owns all the resources, and refuses to let others access them, theft will lead to better outcomes than letting everyone else starve to death. Now it gets murkier when the inequality is less pronounced, but many people would argue that taking some resources from the rich to help the poor leads to better outcomes in a similar way. If you want to argue against that, you need to talk about outcomes as well. Just asserting that something is a "human rights violation" is not going to be very convincing to people who don't believe the action has bad outcomes.
    - aminok 10y ago
      As you say, let's not get hung up on semantics. Whether you want to call it violence, or violating someone's rights, intruding on someone's property is aggressive deprival of someone's rights, and justifies the use of defensive/retaliatory force. This is unlike the force used against those who refuse to comply with income tax laws and hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade, which is morally unjustified. > Most people think violence is bad because it causes direct physical suffering. Theft alone causes no such direct suffering. It may cause suffering as an indirect outcome, but this depends on a lot of factors. That's an immature standard for morality. Theft is wrong. It's depriving someone of something that they are morally entitled to. You're not entitled to alleviate your suffering with someone else's resources. And theft does absolutely cause direct and immediate suffering for the victim. > To take an absurd example, if one person owns all the resources, and refuses to let others access them, stealing will lead to better outcomes than letting everyone else starve to death. There is absolutely no proof that violence backed theft against the rich leads to a higher standard of living in the long run. And even if there were, social outcomes cannot in any sane justice system justify violating someone's rights.
      - aninhumer 10y ago
        >There is absolutely no proof that violence backed theft against the rich leads to a higher standard of living in the long run. In the scenario I'm describing, it's a certainty. Without theft, everyone starves to death because they have no property which would enable them to acquire food. If they steal from him, they survive. Now obviously this is not a very realistic scenario, but my point is that strict enforcement of property rights can cause direct harm in certain situations. And I would argue that lesser inequality still exhibits the same kind of failure mode, where the poor become incapable of acquiring resources, because they have nothing the rich need. >That's an immature standard for morality. Theft is wrong. Moral absolutism seems a lot more immature to me. Almost any category of act can be good in the right circumstances. >And even if there were, social outcomes cannot in any sane justice system justify violating someone's rights. But now you're talking about a justice system. Enforcing rules at the expense of short term outcomes can be beneficial, but only if people respecting the rules causes better outcomes in the long term. Rights are only as valuable as the outcomes they lead to.

How sad that you have to be a libertarian to oppose throwing nonviolent people in prison. This should just be common sense, not libertarianism.

by aminok 10y ago

How sad that you have to be a libertarian to oppose throwing nonviolent people in prison. This should just be common sense, not libertarianism.

aninhumer 10y ago

So you don't support the enforcement of property rights? Since that involves throwing non-violent people in prison after all. (And to predict a common argument, I do not consider taking someone else's property without the use of force to be a violent act.)

aminok 10y ago
Violating someone else's property rights is violent. One's exclusive right to their body is a type of property rights. One's right over their body is based on exactly the same principle of appropriating unclaimed natural resources for one's own exclusive use as one's right over what we commonly refer to as property.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  That's an argument that violence is theft, not vice versa. But let's not get hung up on a semantic argument. I am drawing a distinction between what you are calling "theft of body" and theft of anything else. I can use whatever terms you like, as long as you accept the distinction. (I will use "violence" and "theft" for now.) Most people think violence is bad because it causes direct physical suffering. Theft alone causes no such direct suffering. It may cause suffering as an indirect outcome, but this depends on a lot of factors. To take an absurd example, if one person owns all the resources, and refuses to let others access them, theft will lead to better outcomes than letting everyone else starve to death. Now it gets murkier when the inequality is less pronounced, but many people would argue that taking some resources from the rich to help the poor leads to better outcomes in a similar way. If you want to argue against that, you need to talk about outcomes as well. Just asserting that something is a "human rights violation" is not going to be very convincing to people who don't believe the action has bad outcomes.
  - aminok 10y ago
    As you say, let's not get hung up on semantics. Whether you want to call it violence, or violating someone's rights, intruding on someone's property is aggressive deprival of someone's rights, and justifies the use of defensive/retaliatory force. This is unlike the force used against those who refuse to comply with income tax laws and hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade, which is morally unjustified. > Most people think violence is bad because it causes direct physical suffering. Theft alone causes no such direct suffering. It may cause suffering as an indirect outcome, but this depends on a lot of factors. That's an immature standard for morality. Theft is wrong. It's depriving someone of something that they are morally entitled to. You're not entitled to alleviate your suffering with someone else's resources. And theft does absolutely cause direct and immediate suffering for the victim. > To take an absurd example, if one person owns all the resources, and refuses to let others access them, stealing will lead to better outcomes than letting everyone else starve to death. There is absolutely no proof that violence backed theft against the rich leads to a higher standard of living in the long run. And even if there were, social outcomes cannot in any sane justice system justify violating someone's rights.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      >There is absolutely no proof that violence backed theft against the rich leads to a higher standard of living in the long run. In the scenario I'm describing, it's a certainty. Without theft, everyone starves to death because they have no property which would enable them to acquire food. If they steal from him, they survive. Now obviously this is not a very realistic scenario, but my point is that strict enforcement of property rights can cause direct harm in certain situations. And I would argue that lesser inequality still exhibits the same kind of failure mode, where the poor become incapable of acquiring resources, because they have nothing the rich need. >That's an immature standard for morality. Theft is wrong. Moral absolutism seems a lot more immature to me. Almost any category of act can be good in the right circumstances. >And even if there were, social outcomes cannot in any sane justice system justify violating someone's rights. But now you're talking about a justice system. Enforcing rules at the expense of short term outcomes can be beneficial, but only if people respecting the rules causes better outcomes in the long term. Rights are only as valuable as the outcomes they lead to.