How is labor different than robbery?

[Josh_LA]

Ok. Back to basics.



3) And here we get to a important point, wich is violence. The main difference of the other points with this one is that in this one a human being is using violence to get the fruit of someone else effort.

Who is to say "somebody else's effort" is his own property?

There are a lot of moral, philosophical and even scientific consideration here, and you can choose whatever it suits you better. The fact is that most human societies choose the rule of no agresion between its members. Most animal choose this rule too. Lions dont really need to go hunting for other types of animals. They could fight each other and eat each other. They simply dont do it.

So basically there's no inherent reason other than it just is?

They prefer to stablish a "society" and hunt and kill other animals. This happens with a lot of other animals, including humans. Dont ask me why. It just happens.

How do you then argue against socialism if that's how a socialist says things ought to be?

So the no agresion rule appears in a lot of animal societies, including the human one. And that is the difference between this one and the rest.

But if you work to earn money, and exclude others either via competition or protection of yourself, why is that not violence?

 

[Met Income]

I agree, nobody!

Thanks for making my point.

and robbery is force, obvi

 

[Met Income]

Who is to say "somebody else's effort" is his own property?




So basically there's no inherent reason other than it just is?



How do you then argue against socialism if that's how a socialist says things ought to be?



But if you work to earn money, and exclude others either via competition or protection of yourself, why is that not violence?

you're asking us to disprove a negative. how is it violence?

 

[Josh_LA]

If you do not know what "violence" means, perhaps you should read the dictionary. It is pretty clear that any action that constitutes physical force is not violence, violence is only when one uses physical force against another being.

Excluding others from your property is not violence since it is your property. In order to exclude someone, that someone needs to want to forcefully enter onto your own property, hence violating your property rights. Your property rights are a direct extension of your self ownership.

Why is your property part of your self ownership? Was it born with you?

Why should we respect property if we don't have to? ("because that makes society better" is an acceptable answer for me)

You own yourself, thus, whenever you mix your blood, sweat, and labor with property, that property becomes yours. As long as you continue to occupy that property or someone does so contractually for you, that property remains yours.

Then why would abortion and murder by wrong? What if my survival, comfort, happiness and interests depend on having less people around me?

There isn't anything inherently "right" or "wrong" about upholding human rights. Human rights are completely value free. They only exist because an initiation of violence between one human and another implies that the aggressor denies his own rights, therefore allowing others to seek retaliation and repatration. For example, by killing someone else, the logical extension of my action implies that I consent to someone else killing me, even if I do not consciously consent.

yes, I agree, if I kill somebody, I am allowing the same to happen to me.

 

[Josh_LA]

and robbery is force, obvi

No, robbery is not force, no more than protecting property is force.

Nobody is forcing you to choose to live if you're held at gun point to give up your money, you're perfectly free to choose being shot.

 

[Josh_LA]

you're asking us to disprove a negative. how is it violence?

Ok, let's back up a little.

Who are you to say just because you worked with your labor, you get to keep the fruits?

If you perform a service in exchange for $2, that's an act of violence because the alternative is the service can't be delivered if you didn't get compensated.

The same way you hold a gun to a person's head for $2, the alternative is he doesn't get to walk away without a gun shot wound if he doesn't compensate you.

 

[Young Paleocon]

It seems you're acting from the view point that there is a right to eat....There isn't. The difference between labor and robbery is contractual agreement and agreed upon exchanges. You don't HAVE to get a job to eat, you could grow a garden, but if you initiate violence upon someone in order to FORCE them to give you something that hasn't been agreed upon, thus requiring the violence, it is wrong. That simple. I don't see the philosophic hole.

 

[Josh_LA]

It seems you're acting from the view point that there is a right to eat....There isn't.

I agree, there isn't. Only socialists believe there is. As if it's my fault somebody was born.

The difference between labor and robbery is contractual agreement and agreed upon exchanges. You don't HAVE to get a job to eat, you could grow a garden, but if you initiate violence upon someone in order to FORCE them to give you something that hasn't been agreed upon, thus requiring the violence, it is wrong. That simple. I don't see the philosophic hole.

No, even using violence is not a threat, a person can freely choose to accept being beaten or shot if he wants. Some people would rather be shot, some people would rather be fed, are we saying one view isn't acceptable?

 

[boberino]

Arguing for the sake of arguing is no different than being an idiot.

 

[Josh_LA]

Arguing for the sake of arguing is no different than being an idiot.

if there is an answer there is no argument

 

[Young Paleocon]

I agree, there isn't. Only socialists believe there is. As if it's my fault somebody was born.



No, even using violence is not a threat, a person can freely choose to accept being beaten or shot if he wants. Some people would rather be shot, some people would rather be fed, are we saying one view isn't acceptable?

It's the act of aggression against the non-agreed upon which is the problem. There are those that are masochists and who agree to have violence inflicted upon them, but if someone wants food and you force feed them past the agreed upon limit and harm or kill them that is aggression. Threat of violence and violence both to achieve ends both result in aggression to take non-agreed upon objects.

 

[Josh_LA]

It's the act of aggression against the non-agreed upon which is the problem. There are those that are masochists and who agree to have violence inflicted upon them, but if someone wants food and you force feed them past the agreed upon limit and harm or kill them that is aggression. Threat of violence and violence both to achieve ends both result in aggression to take non-agreed upon objects.

So you believe as long as I can convince people to give me their money with nothing in return, that's OK?

That still doesn't solve this problem

-we've established you have no right to eat
-so why should you have the right to your property free from aggression?

 

[Young Paleocon]

So you believe as long as I can convince people to give me their money with nothing in return, that's OK?

That still doesn't solve this problem

-we've established you have no right to eat
-so why should you have the right to your property free from aggression?

Yes, if they agree to give money....what is that charity. If it's backed up by force or enacted by force thennnnn.......not-viable. "Right to YOUR property", entails that one received it through non-aggressive means and it is therefore legitimate. Therefore, it was received through non-aggressive means, and any attempt to take it through violence or threat of violence is breaking the change of agreed upon, non-aggressive, exchanges and thus is robbery. Yet, retroactively, in the case of American Indians, if the person that took said property dies, a person that receives the property through non-aggressive and/or agreed upon means is not responsible, though may feel a moral obligation if aware, to return the property or be forced to retroactively.....I think.

 

[Josh_LA]

Yes, if they agree to give money....what is that charity. If it's backed up by force or enacted by force thennnnn.......not-viable. "Right to YOUR property", entails that one received it through non-aggressive means and it is therefore legitimate.

But since you have no right to eat, doesn't matter if I got the food for myself from your hands (by force), or at gun point (by threat), or just ran faster than you to grab it before you can (by speed, by talent), does it?

I guess what I'm asking is, what counts as aggression?

Even if I put a gun to your head, it's not my fault you value your life more than your money, is it? Aren't you still free to chose being shot?

Therefore, it was received through non-aggressive means, and any attempt to take it through violence or threat of violence is breaking the change of agreed upon, non-aggressive, exchanges and thus is robbery. Yet, retroactively, in the case of American Indians, if the person that took said property dies, a person that receives the property through non-aggressive and/or agreed upon means is not responsible, though may feel a moral obligation if aware, to return the property or be forced to retroactively.....I think.

 

[Young Paleocon]

But since you have no right to eat, doesn't matter if I got the food for myself from your hands (by force), or at gun point (by threat), or just ran faster than you to grab it before you can (by speed, by talent), does it?

I guess what I'm asking is, what counts as aggression?

Even if I put a gun to your head, it's not my fault you value your life more than your money, is it? Aren't you still free to chose being shot?

Your correlating "right to eat" to "right to property"... And on your last question, the threat of violence or the violence prior to agreement compromises any agreement that may be made afterwords.

 

[Josh_LA]

Your correlating "right to eat" to "right to property"... And on your last question, the threat of violence or the violence prior to agreement compromises any agreement that may be made afterwords.

ok, so what difference is there between right to eat and right to property?

does a person have the obligation not to be violent if he never agreed not to be?

 

[Young Paleocon]

ok, so what difference is there between right to eat and right to property?

does a person have the obligation not to be violent if he never agreed not to be?

To your first question read this
Yes, if they agree to give money....what is that charity. If it's backed up by force or enacted by force thennnnn.......not-viable. "Right to YOUR property", entails that one received it through non-aggressive means and it is therefore legitimate. Therefore, it was received through non-aggressive means, and any attempt to take it through violence or threat of violence is breaking the change of agreed upon, non-aggressive, exchanges and thus is robbery. Yet, retroactively, in the case of American Indians, if the person that took said property dies, a person that receives the property through non-aggressive and/or agreed upon means is not responsible, though may feel a moral obligation if aware, to return the property or be forced to retroactively.

To your second question: Aggression violates agreement, unless agreed upon.

 

[Dr.3D]

Ok, so if a person's only way of obtaining necessary money and food to survive is robbery and theft, is that wrong?

I believe that would depend on if you are the robber or the one being robbed.


If I am ever in the situation of needing money and food to survive, would you mind if I robbed you?

It might seem like a good idea and not wrong to me(the person doing the robbing) at the time, you (the person being robbed) on the other hand may not agree.

 

[Josh_LA]

I believe that would depend on if you are the robber or the one being robbed.


If I am ever in the situation of needing money and food to survive, would you mind if I robbed you?

Yes, I would mind, but me minding doesn't protect myself, my guns might, so give it a try.

It might seem like a good idea and not wrong to me(the person doing the robbing) at the time, you (the person being robbed) on the other hand may not agree.

but my disagreement (if its only mental and verbal) won't matter to you, would it?

 

[Dr.3D]

Yes, I would mind, but me minding doesn't protect myself, my guns might, so give it a try.



but my disagreement (if its only mental and verbal) won't matter to you, would it?

I fail to see what your disagreement has to do with whether it is wrong to steal and rob people in order to survive.

You asked me if it was wrong to steal and rob people in order to survive.
You have said you believed it would be wrong if you were to be robbed.

Have we not answered the question?