Ownership is subjective?

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YToyCVrGSkQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YToyCVrGSkQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuHD9sHALnc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuHD9sHALnc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

Some conversations I had on the Emergent Governance one:

Me:  "Hmmm... This sounds suspiciously like mob rule, imho."

hydralisk125:  "Prescriptive vs descriptive."

Me:  "Explain."

hydralisk125:  "CS covers this in his video, 'Democracy =/= subjectivity (Private Property)'."

Me:  "Thanks.  I'll watch it now.
Wait, hold on, now I get it.
He's describing how ownership develops, not saying that the way it does is a good/bad thing.
I'm such a scatterbrain tonight...

It's an interesting paradigm, though I still prefer and like the inalianable right to life, liberty and property (negative rights that can only be violated) paradigm."


clearthedecks:  "@Surhotchaperchlorome: Unfortunately it's not possible to have society without having some sort of mob rule/intersubjective consensus. You say that you believe in the "unalienable right to life/liberty/property". But even that is subjective. Do you have the unalienable right to life if you murder someone? What if you unsuccessfully tried to murder someone? What exactly counts as legitimate property? Does the property have to be in constant use or use for only a certain period of time?  To elaborate further, what if I parked my car in an abandoned field with the intention of coming back to it a day later to drive again? What if I left the car there with the intention of not coming back to it for a week, or a month, or a year, or 50 years? At what point is that car no longer my legitimate property and someone can take it under the assumption that the original owner has abandoned it?"

Me:  "In order of points presented:
I agree with that. I think I admitted this in another post, if not on this video than on another.
Hence why I called them paradigms. I'm not saying that it's absolute truth.
Yes.
Yes again.
I suppose that would be for common law to be decided. A very good question.

I'm not a judge/arbiter, so I wouldn't have an answer to that question."

ConfederalSocialist (in response to my point about this sounding like mob rule):  "Don't be a prick by making little pricks like this. Spit it out, how is it false? And remember the difficulty of the marginal state that makes the enforcement of mob will not a simple matter of majoritarianism."

Me:  "'Don't be a prick by making little pricks like this.'  Hit a nerve didn't I?

'Spit it out, how is it false.'
What if I don't consent to the laws/intersubjective consensus in question?
What if I want out from what my neighbors think? If I disagree with them that it's MY shirt?

'And remember the difficulty of the marginal state that makes the enforcement of mob will not a simple matter of majoritarianism.' If this means what I think it does, what I said about Republic != democracy is true."

Confederalsocialist:  "Then you move away and/or don't deal with them."

Me:  "Fair enough.  You don't like being called an advocate of democracy, yes?"

KatakiUchiha:  "It doesn't matter if you consent to it anymore than it matters that you consent (or not) to the government ruling over you. It's still there. You thinking that it's not there doesn't make it go away.
If you don't want it, then don't have any neighbors. "

Me:  "I'm aware that it would still be there, duh.
I'm talking about secession from the system, jackass.
I'm just saying, what if I don't agree with said consensus, and was wondering how it differed from mob rule.

Also, If that's true, then why does it matter whether or not there is anarchy or total government, or anything in between? Consent of the governed is one of the bigger arguments against government, for Anarchy.
I think you said 'fuck that shit.' to it."


Me (on the other video):  "Democracy, as a form of government (mob rule) is what most refer to as "pure" or "direct" democracy.
I know that in a republic (in theory anyways) that the majority is constrained by a special set of common law (Constitution). This is not so in a democracy (direct/pure).
So I guess it boils down to this: Would the majority be constrained from violating the rights of the minority in an Anarchy?
I guess that's what I'm getting at.
When I say rights, I mean negative rights of life, liberty and property (they can be violated, not taken away. See Shanedk's videos on the constitution for a description of the paradigm).
Or the health care article on mises about the Clinton Healthcare system."

It's the one in Red that got me the most, and my response to it.  Basically, it's looking at the idea of rights as subjective, not as inalienable.
What are your thoughts on this?  Is it true?  Is it a more advanced way of looking/interpretting the concept of rights, or something else?
Also, another problem was how, if this is for real (descriptive instead of prescriptive) that property rights are subjective from intersubjective consensus, how then, does Anarcho-Capitalism, in this sense, vary from mob rule/ ultra direct democracy?

Something he tries to rebut in this:  [yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/za5bej5t36E&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/za5bej5t36E&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

It's this little bit that's the biggest concern to me:
"clearthedecks:  "@Surhotchaperchlorome: Unfortunately it's not possible to have society without having some sort of mob rule/intersubjective consensus. You say that you believe in the "unalienable right to life/liberty/property". But even that is subjective. Do you have the unalienable right to life if you murder someone? What if you unsuccessfully tried to murder someone? What exactly counts as legitimate property? Does the property have to be in constant use or use for only a certain period of time?  To elaborate further, what if I parked my car in an abandoned field with the intention of coming back to it a day later to drive again? What if I left the car there with the intention of not coming back to it for a week, or a month, or a year, or 50 years? At what point is that car no longer my legitimate property and someone can take it under the assumption that the original owner has abandoned it?""

I responded to it with this:  "In order of points presented:
I agree with that. I think I admitted this in another post, if not on this video than on another.
Hence why I called them paradigms. I'm not saying that it's absolute truth.
Yes.
Yes again.
I suppose that would be for common law to be decided. A very good question.

I'm not a judge/arbiter, so I wouldn't have an answer to that question."
Did I answer that accurately/correctly?

[MrBogosity]

Yes, the law does have provisions for concluding when something is abandoned. I can't tell you what they are, though.

[Travis Retriever]

Another related question/point.
In one of your videos, you said:
"And the reason I'm for Police, courts, and national defense isn't because government doesn't suck at those, it does...it's because it doesn't suck as bad as mob rule."
This is a concern, how would Anarcho Capitalism be different from mob rule, in your opinion.  I've heard stuff from ConfederalSocialist, but I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

[MrBogosity]

I'm not sure that it wouldn't be. That's why I'm not an anarchist.

[Travis Retriever]

Very good point...
CS's points were that it would be costly/innefficient for companies/groups in an Anarchy to do so (a bit of an oversimplification of his points, but close enough), but that's a very weak argument in my honest opinion, borderlining an argument from incredulity imho.

Honestly though, the best arguments I've ever seen for private courts and police were from Dr. Mary J. Ruwart in her book Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle

[Travis Retriever]

Between me and Morrakiu via Private Messages:

Morrakiu (in response to this video: [yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMeaD_CY0Q0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMeaD_CY0Q0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]):  "I would probably go with communitarian.
You move to an area and agree to some terms in a contract, one of them being "I will not murder". When this part of the contract is broken, you've given up your "right to live", and it now rests in the hands of the closest relative of the offended party. You would have agreed to ALL of this upon moving to the area. Amirite?"

Me:  Are you for the death penalty?
Why, why not?

Morrakiu:  "I'm opposed to the death penalty in our current system. On a much broader scale, I'm not really sure. I don't see life in prison as being preferable to death, honestly. My support or opposition of the death penalty would rest on the track record of the system and their standard of evidence.
We don't want murderers and rapists in our society, so we must use force to stop them. They violate the bodies and lives of others, therefore they have given up their "right" to life. When an armed robber breaks into your home, he has given up his "right" to life, and so you're completely justified in using reasonable force to defend yourself.


I find it hard to believe that these statistics are due only to socio-economic and cultural differences...
In 2008, 37 inmates were executed, 5 fewer than in 2007.
Of persons executed in 2008:
-- 20 were white
-- 17 were black

But maybe I'm wrong about the current system. Could be."

Me:  "Fair enough.

There is one thing though, regarding the "right to life". The paradigm isn't that simple. It goes more into the concept of inalienable rights, meaning that rights can't be taken away, or "given up" only violated (Shanedk knows more about this stuff than I do though, see his constitutional lecture regarding Democracy versus Republic to see where I'm coming from).

I'm personally for Dr. Ruwart's restitution model, as explained in her book "Healing our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle": http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/ <- the free online version. I see it as: You have a right to defend yourself against the initiation of force and fraud. The Justice System (police, courts, national defense, etc) along with restitution are logical extensions of that. You have a right to use property, but because it has been damaged or taken, the perpetrator should give back or restore what has been taken, all stemming from property rights. I prefer her model of the murder giving restitution to the loved ones or family of the murdered; I don't agree that two wrongs make a right, but that's just my opinion.
As for the armed robber, I agree, but primarily on grounds of necessity, as explained (somewhat) in the attached video.

Thanks for the reply, Mark. "

Morrakiu:  "Yeah, 'right' isn't the best word to use. I mean "right" to life as something the people generally agree upon, not something inherent or inalienable. 'Rights' can be given up, and they can be taken away as punishment for violating what the society perceives as the "right" of another. If I'm in a coma, I can't make decisions for myself, so the "right" may be given to a close relative to decide whether I should lay in my own waste for the rest of my life, or die. There may even be a conflict of "rights". Do I have the right to life, or does my relative have the right to spend his/her income as he/she pleases? I wonder if anyone asked that when the Terry Schiavo controversy was going on..."

Me:  "Those are privileges, not rights.

Interesting point about the conflicts though."

[Travis Retriever]

I guess what's confusing to me is: 

Is the model of rights of "Inalienable rights" correct, the most reliable, bs, etc?
What would be the best way to handle the conflict of rights Mark described using this paradigm of inalienable rights.

Not to mention how his point about "society decides what rights you have" is a very dangerous assertion.

[MrBogosity]

Yes, because they can always "decide" that blacks don't have the right to not be enslaved again.

Your point about rights vs. privileges is a good one. Another point is that, with rights come responsibilities. Exercising your rights means being held responsible for the consequences of your actions.

[Travis Retriever]

Yes, because they can always "decide" that blacks don't have the right to not be enslaved again.

What was that a yes to?  Was that a yes to his point about rights being defined by society? (It looks like it).
It pictured it as:  the black slaves had rights, and always did:  said rights were just violated by government and stuff.

[MrBogosity]

As in yes, it's a dangerous assertion.

[Travis Retriever]

Thanks.

What about the "conflict of rights" Mark brought up?
How would that work/be handled?

[Travis Retriever]

What about the "conflict of rights" Mark brought up?How would that work/be handled?

I just thought of how: Because rights are synonymous with responsibilities, Terry's family would have the last say.  Terry can no longer be responsible for her body and for her life at this point, so technically, she wouldn't have a right to life, especially since (I could be wrong here) her brain was no longer...errr...working, or something.