Political Crossfire Forums

[LeopardPM]

RueTheDay wrote:
There would be no market without property rights.

property rights would naturally develop on the market

Quote: There would be very little in the way of property rights without a government to enforce them.
government isn't needed to enforce property rights, just as standards develop naturally (when desired) on the market, just like product safety organizations, just like... everything. Look, it works like this: trade is a HUGE benefit to each and every person that participates, property rights and respect thereof is required for trade to be effective and worth it, thus an overly large demand for respect of property rights... what the demand wants, the market caters to.

Quote: Thus, the "laissez-faire" economy you desire is an enigma because it could never exist without the government in the first place.
no, it is schemes of taxation that could not develop without government, violations of property rights.

Quote: Quote:
Quote: In many ways, libertarians remind me of creationists. "Everything must have a cause (except for God)" in many ways parallels "The government is always bad and coercive (except when it enforces property rights and contracts)". It's that "except" that always torpedoes the argument. there is no "except," you simply inserted one to make a more effective strawman.

You believe the government is "bad and coercive" when it enforces property rights and contracts?
no, it is bad and coercive when it violates them.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: You believe the government is "bad and coercive" when it enforces property rights and contracts?

That is called "governing". :-D

[Free Thinkr]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
There would be no market without property rights.

property rights would naturally develop on the market
It sure would. Just like it did in Deadwood; Al Swearengen decides it's his, it's his. You don't like it, your throat gets slit while you sleep.

Quote: Quote: There would be very little in the way of property rights without a government to enforce them.
government isn't needed to enforce property rights, just as standards develop naturally (when desired) on the market, just like product safety organizations, just like... everything. Look, it works like this: trade is a HUGE benefit to each and every person that participates, property rights and respect thereof is required for trade to be effective and worth it, thus an overly large demand for respect of property rights... what the demand wants, the market caters to.
Yes, and people always act rationally and morally. It's not like our own nation's history is filled with tales of camps that existed in a state of near anarchy, where life was held in little regard. Oh, wait, yes it is.

You own a house in your anarchist utopia. One day, a very powerful developer comes along and tells you he'd like to purchase your house and build a business development on the land where your house currently stands. You decline, telling him that your house very much suits you and your family, and has great sentimental value. The next day, the developer comes back with a hundred armed men and asks you again to sell your house, leaving an unmistakable impression that he's not eager to take no for an answer. What will you do now?

Quote: Quote: Thus, the "laissez-faire" economy you desire is an enigma because it could never exist without the government in the first place.
no, it is schemes of taxation that could not develop without government, violations of property rights.
Mobs tax people all the time. "Pay us, lest your building burn to the ground." I can't imagine why, given readily observable history, you'd be under the impression that government force is the only kind of force that can exist.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: In many ways, libertarians remind me of creationists. "Everything must have a cause (except for God)" in many ways parallels "The government is always bad and coercive (except when it enforces property rights and contracts)". It's that "except" that always torpedoes the argument. there is no "except," you simply inserted one to make a more effective strawman.

You believe the government is "bad and coercive" when it enforces property rights and contracts?
no, it is bad and coercive when it violates them.
Without the government, property rights boil down to "might makes right." If you have no might under such a system, you have no rights.

[LeopardPM]

Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
There would be no market without property rights.

property rights would naturally develop on the market
It sure would. Just like it did in Deadwood; Al Swearengen decides it's his, it's his. You don't like it, your throat gets slit while you sleep.
don't know the reference, but I know people do this already.

Quote: Quote: Quote: There would be very little in the way of property rights without a government to enforce them.
government isn't needed to enforce property rights, just as standards develop naturally (when desired) on the market, just like product safety organizations, just like... everything. Look, it works like this: trade is a HUGE benefit to each and every person that participates, property rights and respect thereof is required for trade to be effective and worth it, thus an overly large demand for respect of property rights... what the demand wants, the market caters to.
Yes, and people always act rationally and morally. It's not like our own nation's history is filled with tales of camps that existed in a state of near anarchy, where life was held in little regard. Oh, wait, yes it is.
I never said people always act morally, or that all people are rational. There will always be a percentage of the population that do not obey standards, social norms, or any morality. You will find that in all of history, our nation's as well as others, incidents of such violence are actually few and far between and for the most part people do act peaceably in their day to day affairs and do recognize immoral acts of violence and refrain from committing such. In fact, this is why such a hype is made about those 'few and far between', because they are so rare as well as horrible.

Quote: You own a house in your anarchist utopia. One day, a very powerful developer comes along and tells you he'd like to purchase your house and build a business development on the land where your house currently stands. You decline, telling him that your house very much suits you and your family, and has great sentimental value. The next day, the developer comes back with a hundred armed men and asks you again to sell your house, leaving an unmistakable impression that he's not eager to take no for an answer. What will you do now?
you build your straw in a vacuum, lets flesh out this universe a bit, shall we?
So, what do I do now? I inform my house insurance company regarding this renegade developer who then notifies his insurance company of their potential liability due to their clients actions. His insurance company drops him like a hot potato (since this obviously isn't the first time such an incident has happened and they are probably well aware of the actions of this lawless individual) and he then also looses all funding from financial institutions and perhaps even has all of his existing liabilities called in due to his violation of multitude of contracts in which he agreed not to perform coercive acts or commit violence. Now this mighty developer has no money to pay his mercenary army, has my insurance company providing security against his potential actions, and everyone has been informed of what a despicable person this guy is and he is basically shunned and isolated. Do you think even Hitler was 'irrational' or stupid enough to ruin his entire 'developer empire' to obtain my measly property? I think not.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Thus, the "laissez-faire" economy you desire is an enigma because it could never exist without the government in the first place.
no, it is schemes of taxation that could not develop without government, violations of property rights.
Mobs tax people all the time. "Pay us, lest your building burn to the ground." I can't imagine why, given readily observable history, you'd be under the impression that government force is the only kind of force that can exist.
oh sure, I don't deny that everyone would love to get money without putting forth much effort, the problem is that without government, the cost of such minor effort (using force) becomes extremely prohibitive. Government does not have to pay the cost, private use of force is liable for it.

Quote: Quote: Quote:
You believe the government is "bad and coercive" when it enforces property rights and contracts?
no, it is bad and coercive when it violates them.
Without the government, property rights boil down to "might makes right." If you have no might under such a system, you have no rights.
not at all, under such a system, the most efficient and effective methods boil to the top - just like anything else in a market system. The combined best interest of the majority of people is to maintain peaceful interaction and honest trade so the 'might' actually back the peaceful route, not the violent one. Strength in numbers, not force.

[Free Thinkr]

LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: It sure would. Just like it did in Deadwood; Al Swearengen decides it's his, it's his. You don't like it, your throat gets slit while you sleep.
don't know the reference, but I know people do this already.
The point is that you have at least some recourse currently. In your little system, a rich and powerful person would be completely unchallenged so far as I can tell. You speak of private police, but it seems to me such police would be at the whim of whomever could pay them the most; or at the very least, mercenary forces would easily challenge them for authority.

Quote: Quote: Yes, and people always act rationally and morally. It's not like our own nation's history is filled with tales of camps that existed in a state of near anarchy, where life was held in little regard. Oh, wait, yes it is.
I never said people always act morally, or that all people are rational. There will always be a percentage of the population that do not obey standards, social norms, or any morality. You will find that in all of history, our nation's as well as others, incidents of such violence are actually few and far between and for the most part people do act peaceably in their day to day affairs and do recognize immoral acts of violence and refrain from committing such. In fact, this is why such a hype is made about those 'few and far between', because they are so rare as well as horrible.
And because the threat of imprisonment they have faced in the vast majority of history. The second authority is removed, such as in the old west, such characters become legendary, and have wide-ranging effect.

Quote: Quote: You own a house in your anarchist utopia. One day, a very powerful developer comes along and tells you he'd like to purchase your house and build a business development on the land where your house currently stands. You decline, telling him that your house very much suits you and your family, and has great sentimental value. The next day, the developer comes back with a hundred armed men and asks you again to sell your house, leaving an unmistakable impression that he's not eager to take no for an answer. What will you do now?
you build your straw in a vacuum, lets flesh out this universe a bit, shall we?
So, what do I do now? I inform my house insurance company regarding this renegade developer who then notifies his insurance company of their potential liability due to their clients actions. His insurance company drops him like a hot potato (since this obviously isn't the first time such an incident has happened and they are probably well aware of the actions of this lawless individual) and he then also looses all funding from financial institutions and perhaps even has all of his existing liabilities called in due to his violation of multitude of contracts in which he agreed not to perform coercive acts or commit violence.
I said powerful. He is his insurance company. Think Carnegie or Rockefeller.

Quote: Now this mighty developer has no money to pay his mercenary army, has my insurance company providing security against his potential actions, and everyone has been informed of what a despicable person this guy is and he is basically shunned and isolated. Do you think even Hitler was 'irrational' or stupid enough to ruin his entire 'developer empire' to obtain my measly property? I think not.
If you think this would work, you should actually look at the actual cases of people such as Rockefeller, and how it is they came to own what they did. Your insurance company? LOL. They'd drop you like a hot potato, if the developer didn't kill you immediately upon your rejection of his 'offer.'

Quote: Quote: Mobs tax people all the time. "Pay us, lest your building burn to the ground." I can't imagine why, given readily observable history, you'd be under the impression that government force is the only kind of force that can exist.
oh sure, I don't deny that everyone would love to get money without putting forth much effort, the problem is that without government, the cost of such minor effort (using force) becomes extremely prohibitive. Government does not have to pay the cost, private use of force is liable for it.
Explain. It seems to me that, government or no, it's a lot easier for me to take your money than it is to earn some.

Quote: Quote: Without the government, property rights boil down to "might makes right." If you have no might under such a system, you have no rights.
not at all, under such a system, the most efficient and effective methods boil to the top - just like anything else in a market system. The combined best interest of the majority of people is to maintain peaceful interaction and honest trade so the 'might' actually back the peaceful route, not the violent one. Strength in numbers, not force.
Just wow. Christian fundamentalists seem reasonble by comparison. I can't help but wondering why, if what you say here is true, the tendency has always been to stronger government, rather than weaker.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
There would be no market without property rights.

property rights would naturally develop on the market

As usual, you completely missed the point. There is no market in the first place without property rights. Markets imply agreements to voluntarily trade that which is my property for that which is your property. No property rights = no markets.

What's funny is that pretty much all classical liberals and libertarians understood this point - from Bastiat to Say to von Mises to Hayek, even Ayn Rand understood this FUNDAMENTAL point. Then Rothbard came along and forgot it, and all of his followers have been making the same mistake ever since.

Quote:
Quote: There would be very little in the way of property rights without a government to enforce them.
government isn't needed to enforce property rights, just as standards develop naturally (when desired) on the market, just like product safety organizations, just like... everything. Look, it works like this: trade is a HUGE benefit to each and every person that participates,

There can be no voluntary trade without a system that defines and enforces that which is mine and that which is yours. Otherwise, it's far easier for the strong to simply TAKE what they want from the weak without trading anything.

Quote:
property rights and respect thereof is required for trade to be effective and worth it,

You're starting to understand apparently, you just need to take the thought to its logical conclusion.

Quote:
thus an overly large demand for respect of property rights... what the demand wants, the market caters to.

...and then you completely miss the boat.

[Free Thinkr]

RueTheDay wrote: There can be no voluntary trade without a system that defines and enforces that which is mine and that which is yours. Otherwise, it's far easier for the strong to simply TAKE what they want from the weak without trading anything.
Exactly. Like in my example: what's to stop someone who is very rich and very powerful from declaring some natural resource to simply be his? Apparently, some have grown so used to government protection that they're simply unable to imagine how things would go if it didn't exist.

[LeopardPM]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
There would be no market without property rights.

property rights would naturally develop on the market

As usual, you completely missed the point. There is no market in the first place without property rights. Markets imply agreements to voluntarily trade that which is my property for that which is your property. No property rights = no markets.

What's funny is that pretty much all classical liberals and libertarians understood this point - from Bastiat to Say to von Mises to Hayek, even Ayn Rand understood this FUNDAMENTAL point. Then Rothbard came along and forgot it, and all of his followers have been making the same mistake ever since.

so, are you saying that if a group of people are stranded on an island, their only option is to be at each others throats without some outside governmental force to enforce property rights? Property rights have been with humans since the first caveman claimed a cave and picked up a club (HIS club!), other people coming across the same cave and noticing it was inhabited would know that the cave was indeed owned and know that to disrespect such ownership by an act of trespass was an invitation to defensive violence. Almost all folks understand this truth, understand the natural ability of other humans to own property (matter: objects, land, etc). I do not trade with people because of the possibility of government force being brought upon me if I choose a violent method, I trade with others instead of using violence because it is more beneficial both economically and socially.

Quote: Quote:
Quote: There would be very little in the way of property rights without a government to enforce them.
government isn't needed to enforce property rights, just as standards develop naturally (when desired) on the market, just like product safety organizations, just like... everything. Look, it works like this: trade is a HUGE benefit to each and every person that participates,

There can be no voluntary trade without a system that defines and enforces that which is mine and that which is yours. Otherwise, it's far easier for the strong to simply TAKE what they want from the weak without trading anything.
there can be simple voluntary trade without any 'official' system that defines or otherwise recognizes: people already and always have known this basic system: if it is not yours, then it is not yours; if it is unowned then it can become yours; if it is someone else's, then you can ask for it and/or trade for it to become yours. This is true regarding rocks, houses, sticks, land, and every other thing under the sun. Even when kids are taught from birth to 'share' everything and have had no formal exposure to ownership, they still understand it and can respect it. Regarding strong vs weak: it is relative - what is 'stronger', a group of 100 'weak' men, or a group of 5 'stronger' men? I would bet on the larger quantity as a rule of thumb, wouldn't you? There are exponentially greater numbers of 'weak' people then 'strong' folks.


Quote: Quote:
property rights and respect thereof is required for trade to be effective and worth it,

You're starting to understand apparently, you just need to take the thought to its logical conclusion.
I understand the need to respect property rights, which is why I totally advocate the abolition of the State: it is the only institution which violates property rights as a matter of course in addition to being immoral.

Quote: Quote:
thus an overly large demand for respect of property rights... what the demand wants, the market caters to.

...and then you completely miss the boat.
the boat is that the desire to effect peaceful trade is much greater than than otherwise - virtually everyone recognizes that it would be 'wrong' to have their property stolen from them.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
There would be no market without property rights.

property rights would naturally develop on the market

As usual, you completely missed the point. There is no market in the first place without property rights. Markets imply agreements to voluntarily trade that which is my property for that which is your property. No property rights = no markets.

What's funny is that pretty much all classical liberals and libertarians understood this point - from Bastiat to Say to von Mises to Hayek, even Ayn Rand understood this FUNDAMENTAL point. Then Rothbard came along and forgot it, and all of his followers have been making the same mistake ever since.

so, are you saying that if a group of people are stranded on an island, their only option is to be at each others throats without some outside governmental force to enforce property rights?

One of the first things they would probably do would be to FORM a government, in order to resolve conflicts among people and enforce laws governing their conduct.

Quote: Property rights have been with humans since the first caveman claimed a cave and picked up a club (HIS club!), other people coming across the same cave and noticing it was inhabited would know that the cave was indeed owned and know that to disrespect such ownership by an act of trespass was an invitation to defensive violence.

That's just flat out false. Most primitive societies did not have strict private property rights. Many thing, land and natural resources among them, were communally owned. This is yet another failed attempt by the Rothbardians to rewrite history.

Quote: Almost all folks understand this truth, understand the natural ability of other humans to own property (matter: objects, land, etc). I do not trade with people because of the possibility of government force being brought upon me if I choose a violent method, I trade with others instead of using violence because it is more beneficial both economically and socially.

You are ignoring virtually all of human history up until a few hundred years ago if you actually believe that nonsense. Did individuals (not nobility) own land under feudalism? Were they free to pursue any business enterprise they wanted?

It's time for you to start facing the facts of history, Leopard.

Quote:
Quote: Quote:
Quote: There would be very little in the way of property rights without a government to enforce them.
government isn't needed to enforce property rights, just as standards develop naturally (when desired) on the market, just like product safety organizations, just like... everything. Look, it works like this: trade is a HUGE benefit to each and every person that participates,

There can be no voluntary trade without a system that defines and enforces that which is mine and that which is yours. Otherwise, it's far easier for the strong to simply TAKE what they want from the weak without trading anything.
there can be simple voluntary trade without any 'official' system that defines or otherwise recognizes: people already and always have known this basic system: if it is not yours, then it is not yours; if it is unowned then it can become yours; if it is someone else's, then you can ask for it and/or trade for it to become yours.

What defines "what is yours and what is mine"? What prevents me from claiming that "your" car is "mine"? The law.

Sometimes I think you anarcho-capitalist loons must have all grown up very sheltered lives in affluent suburbs. You've obviously never been to the inner cities of western countries, let alone any lesser developed nations, where no one gives a rat's ass what you think is your property and people are more than happy to help themselves to it......unless prevented from doing so by the enforcement of law.

Quote:
This is true regarding rocks, houses, sticks, land, and every other thing under the sun. Even when kids are taught from birth to 'share' everything and have had no formal exposure to ownership, they still understand it and can respect it. Regarding strong vs weak: it is relative - what is 'stronger', a group of 100 'weak' men, or a group of 5 'stronger' men? I would bet on the larger quantity as a rule of thumb, wouldn't you? There are exponentially greater numbers of 'weak' people then 'strong' folks.

Demonstrably false. There are relatively large numbers of "weak" shopkeepers and relatively small numbers of "strong" mafioso. Yet the mafioso continue to extort money from the hordes of shopkeepers who dare not rise up and resist. The existence of mafias, street gangs, drug lords, and other forms of organized crime all disprove your utopian fantasy of the masses rising up and providing mutual aid and protection.

Quote:
Quote: Quote:
property rights and respect thereof is required for trade to be effective and worth it,

You're starting to understand apparently, you just need to take the thought to its logical conclusion.
I understand the need to respect property rights, which is why I totally advocate the abolition of the State: it is the only institution which violates property rights as a matter of course in addition to being immoral.

Without the state, there would be no significant property rights.

Quote:
Quote: Quote:
thus an overly large demand for respect of property rights... what the demand wants, the market caters to.

...and then you completely miss the boat.
the boat is that the desire to effect peaceful trade is much greater than than otherwise - virtually everyone recognizes that it would be 'wrong' to have their property stolen from them.

:lol: You are trying to claim that "virtually everyone" shares the same ethic as you, and it is silly. It's as if you want to pretend that everything you don't like simply doesn't exist.

[Gus]

You're objectively entitled to land if you can keep it--if someone takes your land, you're no longer rationally entitled to it. Easy enough...

[RueTheDay]

Gus wrote: You're objectively entitled to land if you can keep it--if someone takes your land, you're no longer rationally entitled to it. Easy enough...

In other words, "might makes right", or even more generally, "whatever is, is right". If a slavemaster is more powerful than a man he has enslaved, he is entitled to his slave.

[LeopardPM]

Rue,
are you saying that, without government, you yourself would be stealing from your neighbor, haphazardly murdering folks as you meet them in your travels? Is everyone this seething froth of violence which is only stemmed by the possibility of being caught and punished? If that is what you truly believe then you must be frightened out of your skull even going to the grocery store - who knows if someone is having a bad day and 'forgets' these chains in place and slits your throat because you 'stole' their parking place!

[Gus]

RueTheDay wrote: Gus wrote: You're objectively entitled to land if you can keep it--if someone takes your land, you're no longer rationally entitled to it. Easy enough...

In other words, "might makes right", or even more generally, "whatever is, is right". If a slavemaster is more powerful than a man he has enslaved, he is entitled to his slave.
Yes. Laws of reality. Rational ethics are objective ethics, and objective ethics are merely observances of reality. It could be said that scientists are objective ethicists.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: Rue,
are you saying that, without government, you yourself would be stealing from your neighbor, haphazardly murdering folks as you meet them in your travels?

Me personally? No. A significant fraction of the population? Absolutely without any doubt.

Quote:
Is everyone this seething froth of violence which is only stemmed by the possibility of being caught and punished?

A substantial number of people are. It doesn't have to be everyone. It doesn't have to even be the majority of people.

Quote:
If that is what you truly believe then you must be frightened out of your skull even going to the grocery store - who knows if someone is having a bad day and 'forgets' these chains in place and slits your throat because you 'stole' their parking place!

I'd be a hell of a lot more frightened if we didn't have a police force, a judiciary, and a prison system.

[RueTheDay]

Gus wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Gus wrote: You're objectively entitled to land if you can keep it--if someone takes your land, you're no longer rationally entitled to it. Easy enough...

In other words, "might makes right", or even more generally, "whatever is, is right". If a slavemaster is more powerful than a man he has enslaved, he is entitled to his slave.
Yes. Laws of reality.

What are these laws of reality?

Quote: Rational ethics are objective ethics, and objective ethics are merely observances of reality. It could be said that scientists are objective ethicists.


Randroid claptrap.

Ethics concern what an individual SHOULD do. Science concerns what IS. As Hume pointed out a few hundred years ago, you can't derive an ought from an is.

[LeopardPM]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Rue,
are you saying that, without government, you yourself would be stealing from your neighbor, haphazardly murdering folks as you meet them in your travels?

Me personally? No. A significant fraction of the population? Absolutely without any doubt.
funny how just about everyone says this, "Me?! no, but alot of 'other' people!" - fact is, just about NO ONE wants to commit violence but FEEL that everyone else in the world is violent... Do you feel you are abnormal, Rue, what makes you one of the special few that don't want to commit violence? You, Rue, me, and 99% of everyone else just want not to have violence committed against us - if we meet up with an unknown human in a dark alley, we are much more likely to ignore them as we attempt to pass by (probably with heightened senses of danger going off) than we are to say "Hey! What an opportunity! I could take this guy and probably get $40 - $100 richer for a mere 1-2 minutes of work!"... what is the rate for violent crime in the US? And what percent of the population committs this paltry rate? Here is one graph I found: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm and it appears that the violent crime rate hovers around 5% - AND of that, 50% is simple assualt (bar brawls, etc). Now we also know that most crime is committed by repeat offenders: 1 person committing multiple crimes. So we know that as far as the quantity of criminals out there is MUCH less than 5% of the population! So, according to you, these are 'the big ones', 'the mean mightiest ones' - less than 1 in 20? Come on Rue, I know 20 fifth graders that could take down any single man, even if its Arnold!

But, we sure are frightened out of our skins, aren't we?! TV News and the media in general do their jobs and keep us terrified of each other just as Bush tries to do on an international scale - the never-ending war on terror.

Quote: Quote:
Is everyone this seething froth of violence which is only stemmed by the possibility of being caught and punished?

A substantial number of people are. It doesn't have to be everyone. It doesn't have to even be the majority of people.
is less than 1 in 20 too much to deal with?

Quote: Quote:
If that is what you truly believe then you must be frightened out of your skull even going to the grocery store - who knows if someone is having a bad day and 'forgets' these chains in place and slits your throat because you 'stole' their parking place!

I'd be a hell of a lot more frightened if we didn't have a police force, a judiciary, and a prison system.
Who ever suggested going without police protection, judicial systems, or prison systems (or other punishment methods)?

[Atlas Bergeron]

LeopardPM wrote: Rue,
are you saying that, without government, you yourself would be stealing from your neighbor, haphazardly murdering folks as you meet them in your travels?

"I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
Aristotle

I would like to vouch for Rue and say that he has also studied philosophy

[Atlas Bergeron]

RueTheDay wrote: Gus wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Gus wrote: You're objectively entitled to land if you can keep it--if someone takes your land, you're no longer rationally entitled to it. Easy enough...

In other words, "might makes right", or even more generally, "whatever is, is right". If a slavemaster is more powerful than a man he has enslaved, he is entitled to his slave.
Yes. Laws of reality.

What are these laws of reality?

Quote: Rational ethics are objective ethics, and objective ethics are merely observances of reality. It could be said that scientists are objective ethicists.


Randroid claptrap.

Ethics concern what an individual SHOULD do. Science concerns what IS. As Hume pointed out a few hundred years ago, you can't derive an ought from an is. I find this distinction interesting. Coud you not say that the science of ethics is a science which determines what reality is and man's realation in it, and then determines what man "should do" if he would like to meet a set of objectives? (the two that I can think of are his life and his happieness). This would destory your destinction between "sceince" and "ethics". Assumedly, the base of ethics would be the desire to live, which is hardly scientific. But after that, it would be all science and logic.

[Atlas Bergeron]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Rue,
are you saying that, without government, you yourself would be stealing from your neighbor, haphazardly murdering folks as you meet them in your travels?

Me personally? No. A significant fraction of the population? Absolutely without any doubt.
funny how just about everyone says this, "Me?! no, but alot of 'other' people!" - fact is, just about NO ONE wants to commit violence but FEEL that everyone else in the world is violent... Do you feel you are abnormal, Rue, what makes you one of the special few that don't want to commit violence? You, Rue, me, and 99% of everyone else just want not to have violence committed against us - if we meet up with an unknown human in a dark alley, we are much more likely to ignore them as we attempt to pass by (probably with heightened senses of danger going off) than we are to say "Hey! What an opportunity! I could take this guy and probably get $40 - $100 richer for a mere 1-2 minutes of work!"... what is the rate for violent crime in the US? And what percent of the population committs this paltry rate? Here is one graph I found: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm and it appears that the violent crime rate hovers around 5% - AND of that, 50% is simple assualt (bar brawls, etc). Now we also know that most crime is committed by repeat offenders: 1 person committing multiple crimes. So we know that as far as the quantity of criminals out there is MUCH less than 5% of the population! So, according to you, these are 'the big ones', 'the mean mightiest ones' - less than 1 in 20? Come on Rue, I know 20 fifth graders that could take down any single man, even if its Arnold!
all of this is non sequitar--there is not clear path from premise to conclusion since all the data you give is obtianed in a system with a government and a police force. What you need to do is look at the violent crime rate in a country which does have anarchy. Take, for instance, the Sudan.

and no, twenty fifth graders could not take down Arnold. I'm sorry to break this too you.

[LeopardPM]

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
and no, twenty fifth graders could not take down Arnold. I'm sorry to break this too you.
ok, put pencils in their hands... sure they could