4 ms·

I'm genuinely sorry that you feel that way.

nirvana 15y ago
Those are not my feelings, they are the objective fact of reality. I'm sorry I wasted time giving you the benefit of the doubt when your only intention was to engage in personal attacks. If you were "genuinely sorry" for your actions, you would apologize for them.
- amouat 15y ago
  Quite frankly, I don't see too much to take offence at in cmhamill's words. It really doesn't appear to me that there was an intention to attack you personally, although it was perhaps blunt in places.
- thwest 15y ago
  If you want to raise the level of discourse on the internet is it your obligation to object to people's core statements, rather than ancillary fallacies that might surround them. Did you ever answer this from cmhammil? I simply ask you this: if the taking of property via force is a violation of your "NAP," what do you say to the implicit threat of force which establishes the principle of property in the first place?
  - derleth 15y ago
    If I make a chair, and I claim it as mine, where's the force?
    - alextgordon 15y ago
      If I take the chair from you, you'll force me to give it back (or rather the police will, on your behalf). ...which sounds reasonable enough to non-anarchists. But consider something closer to our hearts: If I design an algorithm and patent it as mine, where's the force?
      - derleth 15y ago
        > If I design an algorithm and patent it as mine, where's the force? Ultimately, in the legal system implementing patent laws. However, as you well know, patents and chairs aren't the same kind of property, in that chairs are a rivalrous good and patents are not.
    - cmhamill 15y ago
      Nowhere. But that's not property, right? I mean, that's a man claiming he owns a chair. Now let's say I steal your chair. This is the moment in our narrative where we get to see whether you and I live in a society that adheres to the property principle. If I steal your chair, and everyone gets sort of angry with me, and I say shove off and sit on my new chair, then we live in a society where the property principle is at most weakly enforced. Let's say I steal your chair and get arrested. That implies that there are police, who are funded by some kind of entity which has taken it upon itself to enforce property rights. Which means that the means by which property becomes a real social fact is force enacted by, say, the state, against those who choose to disregard the principle. Thus in a society where the property principle is taken for granted, that principle is in itself upheld by the implicit threat of force.
      - derleth 15y ago
        I could just as easily say that theft occurs via the threat of force, explicit or implicit: I don't resist your theft because, usually, I know or strongly suspect you have a firearm, or a knife, or a greater willingness to use your muscle mass to rearrange my organs. So, if I resist your theft, am I asserting property rights or am I exercising my right to self-defense?
        cmhamill 15y ago
        I'd personally be inclined to say that what you're doing when you resist my threat is contingent upon what kind of social arrangement we find ourself in. In a Western-style parliamentary republic, your action will probably be interpreted as asserting property rights. If my intentions were obviously physically harmful, then we can throw in the self-defense, too. But let's change the chair to something more consequential—a small crate of canned food. Let's say that you and I both know that you are not lacking for resources or food, and that I am homeless. And let's say that I steal this crate. According to the interpretation of the NAP which takes property rights as a fundamental and does not admit of property already being an act of aggression in the first place, I'm the criminal, and you'll be in the right (maybe an asshole, but in the right) to resist my theft. But assuming all the above, is it any more of an aggression to take your food (assuming I'm not off to stab you or whatnot) than for you to benefit from a societal interpretation of rights that threatens me with retaliation if I attempt to feed myself?

Those are not my feelings, they are the objective fact of reality. I'm sorry I wasted time giving you the benefit of the doubt when your only intention was to engage in personal attacks. If you were "genuinely sorry" for your actions, you would apologize for them.

amouat 15y ago
Quite frankly, I don't see too much to take offence at in cmhamill's words. It really doesn't appear to me that there was an intention to attack you personally, although it was perhaps blunt in places.
thwest 15y ago
If you want to raise the level of discourse on the internet is it your obligation to object to people's core statements, rather than ancillary fallacies that might surround them. Did you ever answer this from cmhammil? I simply ask you this: if the taking of property via force is a violation of your "NAP," what do you say to the implicit threat of force which establishes the principle of property in the first place?
- derleth 15y ago
  If I make a chair, and I claim it as mine, where's the force?
  - alextgordon 15y ago
    If I take the chair from you, you'll force me to give it back (or rather the police will, on your behalf). ...which sounds reasonable enough to non-anarchists. But consider something closer to our hearts: If I design an algorithm and patent it as mine, where's the force?
    - derleth 15y ago
      > If I design an algorithm and patent it as mine, where's the force? Ultimately, in the legal system implementing patent laws. However, as you well know, patents and chairs aren't the same kind of property, in that chairs are a rivalrous good and patents are not.
  - cmhamill 15y ago
    Nowhere. But that's not property, right? I mean, that's a man claiming he owns a chair. Now let's say I steal your chair. This is the moment in our narrative where we get to see whether you and I live in a society that adheres to the property principle. If I steal your chair, and everyone gets sort of angry with me, and I say shove off and sit on my new chair, then we live in a society where the property principle is at most weakly enforced. Let's say I steal your chair and get arrested. That implies that there are police, who are funded by some kind of entity which has taken it upon itself to enforce property rights. Which means that the means by which property becomes a real social fact is force enacted by, say, the state, against those who choose to disregard the principle. Thus in a society where the property principle is taken for granted, that principle is in itself upheld by the implicit threat of force.
    - derleth 15y ago
      I could just as easily say that theft occurs via the threat of force, explicit or implicit: I don't resist your theft because, usually, I know or strongly suspect you have a firearm, or a knife, or a greater willingness to use your muscle mass to rearrange my organs. So, if I resist your theft, am I asserting property rights or am I exercising my right to self-defense?
      - cmhamill 15y ago
        I'd personally be inclined to say that what you're doing when you resist my threat is contingent upon what kind of social arrangement we find ourself in. In a Western-style parliamentary republic, your action will probably be interpreted as asserting property rights. If my intentions were obviously physically harmful, then we can throw in the self-defense, too. But let's change the chair to something more consequential—a small crate of canned food. Let's say that you and I both know that you are not lacking for resources or food, and that I am homeless. And let's say that I steal this crate. According to the interpretation of the NAP which takes property rights as a fundamental and does not admit of property already being an act of aggression in the first place, I'm the criminal, and you'll be in the right (maybe an asshole, but in the right) to resist my theft. But assuming all the above, is it any more of an aggression to take your food (assuming I'm not off to stab you or whatnot) than for you to benefit from a societal interpretation of rights that threatens me with retaliation if I attempt to feed myself?