3 ms·

> Because theft is bad. Says the holder of a stolen TV. > I didn't participate in any of the umpteen previous thefts. Except to buy the stolen goods, thus ma

by wnight 15y ago

> Because theft is bad. Says the holder of a stolen TV. > I didn't participate in any of the umpteen previous thefts. Except to buy the stolen goods, thus making the thefts profitable. And to legitimize the thieves. > I can't untangle them or reverse them, but I see no reason to add to the mess. Strange, I see the TV as a reason to "add to the mess". My TV to be. > If you want to transition to A', you're going to need force of arms sufficient to overcome those of us who'll shoot back in defense of A. Good luck with that. Ahhh yes, legitimize the situation with force. That'll convince me of your rights. > You mean everyone you didn't kill with force of arms when trying to transition to A', right? I see. I'd be a dirty thief for trying to get me a piece of that stolen loot and you'd be heroic for defending it against me. You'd shoot B and C too if they showed up and wanted their stuff back. > If I use any "rivalrous" good, my use deprives someone else. [...] Even my labor is rivalrous and therefore falls under the same objection -- if I choose to use it for one purpose, I deprive you of the ability to use my labor for another purpose. It could be seen that way. That's why we shoot slavers. They're insidious and dangerous. > Whether it's land or food, if I'm using it you're not. If that's your criteria for determining that something belongs to the collective, then I can never acquire the means by which to pay rent to the collective. No, you could use your labor. Or, if you were willing to farm the land (for instance) you could share a portion of the results. If you picked an uncontested piece of land the 'rent' could be pretty low, just enough to ensure it could be cleaned up after you left. > Why not actually include a true "everyone", by allowing people to voluntarily live under whatever system they choose? The biggest factor in their decision would be if they owned a lot of resources from previous thefts. Of course they'd never be willing to give up their loot. > It can be done without using force of arms offensively. But why should it? I could work my whole life (in your salt mine) to afford a piece of what you lucked into, or I could "luck into it" myself... > If you want to be a collectivist, go find or start a collective and donate all your stuff to it [...] Or, I could donate all your stuff to it. > Whatever force of arms was used to steal in the past, leave that in the past. Says the guy left holding the TV... You can't come up with anything that justifies the current distribution of stuff without justifying how we got here, and that justifies someone else coming and doing to you what you (collectively) did to others. This is how it is but it's not somehow 'right' despite having been grandfathered in.

lotharbot 15y ago
> You can't come up with anything that justifies the current distribution of stuff Nor do I need to. All I need to do is justify the position that you shouldn't do more violence and engage in more theft against whatever faction I was born into just because you decided your faction has a claim (either past or future) on our stuff. You can't change the past, regardless of how "right" or "wrong" you think it was. It doesn't matter if what people did in the past was justified; it's the past, and they're dead and gone, so leave it be. Choose to live at peace in the present. > I see. I'd be a dirty thief for trying to get me a piece of that stolen loot and you'd be heroic for defending it against me. You'd be a violent asshole for trying to shoot me and my family for our stuff, and I'd be heroic for protecting my family from a violent asshole. The fact that you'd also be a thief is secondary. The fact that you think your thievery is justified by your philosophy is irrelevant. If you want to persuade me to give up my stuff voluntarily, I have no problem with that. If B and C show up and want their stuff back and simply present a compelling argument, that's great. If you or B or C want to initiate force against me, that's where I have a problem.
- wnight 15y ago
  > If you or B or C want to initiate force against me, that's where I have a problem. And of course, taking back their TV would be force. > You'd be a violent asshole for trying to shoot me and my family for our stuff, and I'd be heroic for protecting my family from a violent asshole. Exactly. Which is why I'd wait for you to leave your house for the day and break in, change the locks, and wait for you to use force on me, making me heroic. > Choose to live at peace in the present. I choose to live at peace in the next present. This one is all camped out. > All I need to do is justify the position that you shouldn't do more violence and engage in more theft against whatever faction I was born into It doesn't matter what faction you were born into, if you buy a TV that was stolen - even if before you were born, you're a thief. You're hiding behind the defense that violence is bad (unwarranted violence is...) and as such, because taking TVs involves violence, that the TV must stay with you. That the violence in question would be directed at those enjoying already violently stolen property lessens the impact of the second round of violence, in the eyes of the observers. After it happened you'd be B, and history. Nobody would care. > The fact that you think your thievery is justified by your philosophy is irrelevant. >> You can't come up with anything that justifies the current distribution of stuff > Nor do I need to. If you want to enjoy the property with a good conscience, you do. Without the secondary market in stolen TVs you represent there wouldn't have been a profit in stealing the TV originally. Your attitude would seem less self-serving if there wasn't an almost certainty that your government is complicit in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, at least at level where you or I would be an accomplice under law, despite these wars being fairly obviously just a resource grab, not security related as they were originally justified. (And if not these injustices, then countless others.) In other words, the mechanisms of your day-to-day life are busily creating more Bs and Cs all the time. And yet you have the arrogance to dictate that you're the end of the line. If your definition of ownership involved who could do the most good with a resource there would be an measure with which to determine your rights, but if you simply measure ownership as possession, if I take things away from you I own them as truly as you do. I was merely pre-defending myself (A') against the thieves of A. As you have been unable to suggest any mechanism for ownership that doesn't come down to opposing violence, and your imagined rights as a non-combatant to have the violence happen to others, I'm going to say again that you've failed to make the case for private ownership of resources.

by wnight 15y ago

lotharbot 15y ago

> You can't come up with anything that justifies the current distribution of stuff Nor do I need to. All I need to do is justify the position that you shouldn't do more violence and engage in more theft against whatever faction I was born into just because you decided your faction has a claim (either past or future) on our stuff. You can't change the past, regardless of how "right" or "wrong" you think it was. It doesn't matter if what people did in the past was justified; it's the past, and they're dead and gone, so leave it be. Choose to live at peace in the present. > I see. I'd be a dirty thief for trying to get me a piece of that stolen loot and you'd be heroic for defending it against me. You'd be a violent asshole for trying to shoot me and my family for our stuff, and I'd be heroic for protecting my family from a violent asshole. The fact that you'd also be a thief is secondary. The fact that you think your thievery is justified by your philosophy is irrelevant. If you want to persuade me to give up my stuff voluntarily, I have no problem with that. If B and C show up and want their stuff back and simply present a compelling argument, that's great. If you or B or C want to initiate force against me, that's where I have a problem.

wnight 15y ago
> If you or B or C want to initiate force against me, that's where I have a problem. And of course, taking back their TV would be force. > You'd be a violent asshole for trying to shoot me and my family for our stuff, and I'd be heroic for protecting my family from a violent asshole. Exactly. Which is why I'd wait for you to leave your house for the day and break in, change the locks, and wait for you to use force on me, making me heroic. > Choose to live at peace in the present. I choose to live at peace in the next present. This one is all camped out. > All I need to do is justify the position that you shouldn't do more violence and engage in more theft against whatever faction I was born into It doesn't matter what faction you were born into, if you buy a TV that was stolen - even if before you were born, you're a thief. You're hiding behind the defense that violence is bad (unwarranted violence is...) and as such, because taking TVs involves violence, that the TV must stay with you. That the violence in question would be directed at those enjoying already violently stolen property lessens the impact of the second round of violence, in the eyes of the observers. After it happened you'd be B, and history. Nobody would care. > The fact that you think your thievery is justified by your philosophy is irrelevant. >> You can't come up with anything that justifies the current distribution of stuff > Nor do I need to. If you want to enjoy the property with a good conscience, you do. Without the secondary market in stolen TVs you represent there wouldn't have been a profit in stealing the TV originally. Your attitude would seem less self-serving if there wasn't an almost certainty that your government is complicit in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, at least at level where you or I would be an accomplice under law, despite these wars being fairly obviously just a resource grab, not security related as they were originally justified. (And if not these injustices, then countless others.) In other words, the mechanisms of your day-to-day life are busily creating more Bs and Cs all the time. And yet you have the arrogance to dictate that you're the end of the line. If your definition of ownership involved who could do the most good with a resource there would be an measure with which to determine your rights, but if you simply measure ownership as possession, if I take things away from you I own them as truly as you do. I was merely pre-defending myself (A') against the thieves of A. As you have been unable to suggest any mechanism for ownership that doesn't come down to opposing violence, and your imagined rights as a non-combatant to have the violence happen to others, I'm going to say again that you've failed to make the case for private ownership of resources.