WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST IN THE GENERAL: My Argument with a Flock of Communists...

[soulcyon]

Let me ask you a moral question.

If someone steals my apple, is it moral to take the apple back from them?
Is it moral to take it back from them tomorrow? next week?
If i can't get my apple back, is it moral to take a like but different apple?

If its moral to recover your apple, is it moral to punch the aggressor in to make him capitulate? break his arm? kill him?

We're talking about protection of rights - it's not about what YOU (as the owner) can do about your stolen apple, it's about how a government can protect your right to property (of the apple). I personally do not believe in the right to property, so I cannot answer your questions with any honesty. But I would assume with in current-day society, the morals would dictate that proportionality takes precedence in non-life threatening situations. So it is only morally correct for you to steal his apple if your apple was stolen, and not one bit more.

 

[soulcyon]

I disagree. If morality was subjective, then you could say that murder was moral for you. It's not. A subjective morality would mean that whatever you wanted to be moral would be moral; it's really a form of whim worship. The purpose of a code morality should be to guide you to life and happiness, not suffering and death.

Then how did slavery ever exist? Because at some point in time, society agreed that some humans were "lesser beings". But in today's standards, that is not morally correct. Moral correctness gives birth to a social contract - which also gives birth to a government. Governments live by an agreed-upon moral standard, which is unwritten. Look how our morals have changed over the past hundred years (women's rights, slavery .. etc). Simple historical evidence proves morality is subjective.

Social contractarians say that, but they're mistaken. In fact, the opposite is true. Here's the original formulation by Hobbes:

"I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man (the absolute monarch), or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that you give up your right to him and authorize all his actions in like manner."

In other words, the central authority can do whatever it wants with you, including taking your life. That's not supporting your life even in the short term, much less the long term.

Hobbes advocates perfect monarchy, while I'm talking about David Gauthier's Morals By Agreement. There are many variations of social contract theory, don't go mixing them up just to argue.

Someone commits a crime. Government responds / retaliates. That's not an initiation of force.

You are assuming the crime is one that involves violence, which is not always true. The government will initiate force regardless of the type of crime committed.

Those actions should be taken only in retaliation to someone initiating force; they shouldn't be the initiating actions.

?!?!?! You're the one that said the government's job is to track down/apprehend the suspects - thus they ARE initiating force. For example, you don't pay your taxes, police will be knocking down your door. Enough said.

 

[AceNZ]

Let me ask you a moral question.

I'm not sure if you were asking anyone in particular, but here are my answers:

If someone steals my apple, is it moral to take the apple back from them?

in the moment, if it can be done without using force, then yes

Is it moral to take it back from them tomorrow? next week?

yes, but only through government as your proxy (vigilantism in a civilized society is immoral)

If i can't get my apple back, is it moral to take a like but different apple?

yes, but only through government as your proxy (restitution)

If its moral to recover your apple, is it moral to punch the aggressor in to make him capitulate? break his arm? kill him?

The level of retaliatory forced used should be commensurate with the crime. There is a potential feedback loop, though, since resisting arrest is also a crime. So, if someone refuses to cooperate, and throws a punch at an officer (or threatens to do so), then yes, it would be moral to punch them back.

Except in emergencies, when your life depends on some form of retaliation or forcible defense in the moment, the moral solution for the victim of a crime is to delegate retaliatory actions to the police.

 

[Narmical]

We're talking about protection of rights - it's not about what YOU (as the owner) can do about your stolen apple, it's about how a government can protect your right to property (of the apple). I personally do not believe in the right to property, so I cannot answer your questions with any honesty. But I would assume with in current-day society, the morals would dictate that proportionality takes precedence in non-life threatening situations. So it is only morally correct for you to steal his apple if your apple was stolen, and not one bit more.

Way to weasel out of the question buddy. I am interested in what YOU think is moral re: your rejection of property rights. I fully understand "current-day society" so i ask again, to you, what is moral?

If someone steals my apple, is it moral to take the apple back from them?
Is it moral to take it back from them tomorrow? next week?
If i can't get my apple back, is it moral to take a like but different apple?

If its moral to recover your apple, is it moral to punch the aggressor in to make him capitulate? break his arm? kill him?

Here is an additional question; what does "my apple" really mean? is it moral to have a "my apple"?

 

[Narmical]

I'm not sure if you were asking anyone in particular, but here are my answers:



in the moment, if it can be done without using force, then yes



yes, but only through government as your proxy (vigilantism in a civilized society is immoral)



yes, but only through government as your proxy (restitution)



The level of retaliatory forced used should be commensurate with the crime. There is a potential feedback loop, though, since resisting arrest is also a crime. So, if someone refuses to cooperate, and throws a punch at an officer (or threatens to do so), then yes, it would be moral to punch them back.

Except in emergencies, when your life depends on some form of retaliation or forcible defense in the moment, the moral solution for the victim of a crime is to delegate retaliatory actions to the police.

Cool! thanks for answering. I'm assuming when you say with out violence your excluding the physical act of taking. In the general case do you calcify theft as violence or force?

 

[Mini-Me]

Way to weasel out of the question buddy. I am interested in what YOU think is moral re: your rejection of property rights. I fully understand "current-day society" so i ask again, to you, what is moral?

If someone steals my apple, is it moral to take the apple back from them?
Is it moral to take it back from them tomorrow? next week?
If i can't get my apple back, is it moral to take a like but different apple?

If its moral to recover your apple, is it moral to punch the aggressor in to make him capitulate? break his arm? kill him?

I'm actually very curious about soulcyon's answer. From my understanding, most leftist anarchists believe in rightful possession of personal effects at the very least, even if they don't believe in permanent property rights, particularly over the means of production. However, if you don't believe in any form of possession or property whatsoever, the very notion of "theft" becomes meaningless, and that's what soulcyon seemed to indicate in post 121. To me, that would imply it's okay for someone to take an apple out of your hand, and it's okay for you to take it back, and it's okay for them to take it again, in an endless loop, as long as no one [for example] punches the other guy or kicks him in the groin. Moreover, it's okay to take every piece of food out of someone's hand that they pick up, ensuring they never get to eat...ever. If this is what soulcyon means by not believing in property, I think he might want to revisit what most leftists actually believe!

 

[bobburn]

If someone took my apple and I could not take it back very quickly myself, I would file a replevin action to have my apple returned, if it could not be returned I would demand restitution in the amount of my apple plus the costs of recovery of my apple. That is moral. Making myself whole through the ordered use of our judicial system is moral.

 

[AceNZ]

Then how did slavery ever exist? Because at some point in time, society agreed that some humans were "lesser beings". But in today's standards, that is not morally correct.

Morality has to be discovered and chosen. Just because someone thinks something is moral doesn't mean it is.

People used to think that the Earth was the center of the universe, too -- that didn't make it so.

Moral correctness gives birth to a social contract - which also gives birth to a government. Governments live by an agreed-upon moral standard, which is unwritten. Look how our morals have changed over the past hundred years (women's rights, slavery .. etc). Simple historical evidence proves morality is subjective.

There is no social contract. What people consider to be moral changes as they learn and grow. That doesn't mean that morality is subjective; it means that people are at different stages in the learning process.

Hobbes advocates perfect monarchy, while I'm talking about David Gauthier's Morals By Agreement. There are many variations of social contract theory, don't go mixing them up just to argue.

Hobbes created SCT. Never heard of Gauthier.

You are assuming the crime is one that involves violence, which is not always true. The government will initiate force regardless of the type of crime committed.

You are assuming that "initiation of force" requires violence, which is not the case. Force takes many forms, including force against the mind: fraud, threats, and so on. The only actions that should be crimes are acts of force of one kind or another.

?!?!?! You're the one that said the government's job is to track down/apprehend the suspects - thus they ARE initiating force. For example, you don't pay your taxes, police will be knocking down your door. Enough said.

How is government initiating force when they track down/apprehend someone who has already committed a crime -- which was an act of force?

(FWIW, I don't support the idea of government taxation, much less using police to enforce non-payment.)

 

[Narmical]

I'm actually very curious about soulcyon's answer.

... Moreover, it's okay to take every piece of food out of someone's hand that they pick up, ensuring they never get to eat...ever. If this is what soulcyon means by not believing in property, I think he might want to revisit what most leftists actually believe!

Yeah if that's how he really views it, i guess he wouldn't mind if we used his credit card to buy some stuff? Maybe he should just post that on the forum. He doesn't really own his credit right?

 

[Mini-Me]

If someone took my apple and I could not take it back very quickly myself, I would file a replevin action to have my apple returned, if it could not be returned I would demand restitution in the amount of my apple plus the costs of recovery of my apple. That is moral. Making myself whole through the ordered use of our judicial system is moral.

You people are no fun at all! If someone took my apple, I'd suppress a giggle, and they'd look at me funny...then I'd tell them I got it out of a dumpster once they finished eating. They'd never steal from me again!

 

[AceNZ]

Cool! thanks for answering. I'm assuming when you say with out violence your excluding the physical act of taking.

Yes.

In the general case do you calcify theft as violence or force?

Theft is always force, but may or may not include violence.

The theft would involve violence if there was some harmful physical contact (some forms of verbal abuse or non-contact assault are also forms of violence).

 

[otherone]

The government will initiate force regardless of the type of crime committed.

THIS ^

The Rule of Law can ONLY exist with the threat of force...in our homes, on our streets, or in foreign relations. It is a primal fact of life, possibly even a law of nature. If you jump off a cliff...it's gonna hurt. If you piss off mom, she'll swat you with a wooden spoon. Thomas More's "Utopia" is a fantasy...'reason' only works with the reasonable.
By claiming the Right to property is 'moral', one implies that it is the responsibility of the State to protect that Right, through the application of force. This leads to further abuses, culminating in actions like all of us being complicit in funding and filling the ranks of an international police force stretching from the Banana Wars to Blood for Oil. The 'morality' of Exxonmobil's Right to property impels the State (all of us) to action.
The problem here, is of course, why MUST I have to give up MY Right to property (taxes) in order to protect ExxonMobil's?
In a 'free' society, it's not 'my' responsibility to protect 'your' stuff. That's YOUR responsibility. Jack McCoy (of Law and Order) eloquently states, "Man has only those Rights that he can defend." It is Exxonmobil's Right to protect it's property, it is MY right to defend MY property. It is the State's job to protect these Rights.

 

[scar]

Whenever I meet a communist I ask them to help carry my groceries.

hahahaha

 

[soulcyon]

Haha Mini-me, great point. I personally don't have preferences when it comes to leftist/rightist, I like to believe what's proven to work. Not just empirically, but on paper as well

I'm still working on the theory, but it's a very utopian view on what "property" should be. E.g, abolishing "private property" (which would simultaneously abolish money/trade) and allowing resources to be distributed equally and per-request basis. Resource based economy, you could call it - I wonder if this has been thought of by real philosophers in the past.

---

K, i'm officially going to say AceNZ is trolling :\

What people consider to be moral changes as they learn and grow. That doesn't mean that morality is subjective

... ok lol. define morality: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. If you agree with this definition (ala Webster), then you already agreed that morality is subjective. There is no measurable way to denote "right and wrong" behavior. It is just not possible.

You are assuming that "initiation of force" requires violence, which is not the case. Force takes many forms, including force against the mind: fraud, threats, and so on. The only actions that should be crimes are acts of force of one kind or another.

So, what kind of force falls under "not paying taxes"?

 

[jolynna]

You people are no fun at all! If someone took my apple, I'd suppress a giggle, and they'd look at me funny...then I'd tell them I got it out of a dumpster once they finished eating. They'd never steal from me again!

Ask them how the maggots tasted too.

 

[Narmical]

I'm still working on the theory, but it's a very utopian view on what "property" should be. E.g, abolishing "private property" (which would simultaneously abolish money/trade) and allowing resources to be distributed equally and per-request basis. Resource based economy, you could call it - I wonder if this has been thought of by real philosophers in the past.

I don't think you quite understand the concept of money & trade, or the tragedy of the commons.

 

[teacherone]

sounds like we got some venus project-ers in the house.

 

[The Bavarian]

when somebody says "per say" I just get a picture of a smug hipster in my head.

 

[affa]

Let me ask you a moral question.

If someone steals my apple, is it moral to take the apple back from them?
Is it moral to take it back from them tomorrow? next week?
If i can't get my apple back, is it moral to take a like but different apple?

If its moral to recover your apple, is it moral to punch the aggressor in to make him capitulate? break his arm? kill him?

When did it become 'your apple'?

Did it become your apple because you found it on the ground after it had fallen from the tree?
Did it become your apple because you exerted effort and climbed the tree and picked it?
Did it become your apple because you exerted effort and climbed the tree and picked every last apple, even though you only needed five to feed your family, and then tried to sell them to people who needed apples but would have preferred to climb the tree themselves?
Did it become your apple because you [or your grandfather] built a fence around the tree and claimed all apples forevermore?
Did it become your apple because, once claiming all apples, you began paying those who needed to eat 'your' apples to climb and pick fifty apples in exchange for one?

Unless we determine how it becomes 'your' [or 'mine'] apple in the first place, we're missing the point of the discussion. It's very easy, but simplistic, to discuss force 'after' it becomes someone's apple. When we hear 'take your apple', we're supposed to immediately think 'oh man, going up to that person and taking their apple is wrong'... but for some reason we're never supposed to discuss what made it their apple in the first place, and if any 'theft' or 'force' was involved.

to answer your questions: no, no/no, from another or from a tree? (no/yes), no (mildly - force should be avoided), no, no.

to answer my questions: it's only moral to claim that apple for yourself if you found it, earned it, and did not take more than you needed. after that, we need to question original resource allocation/theft and the question of morality becomes extremely complex and not so cut and dry... and completely explains why different 'moral' people fall on different sides of this discussion.

if you, through force [of fence, guard, etc] claim resources that were once public, especially ones as important as a food source, I find it disingenuous at best to then claim 'theft' when the people rise up to take them back.

It's force when villagers pitchfork or tar and feather a man, too. But leaving out the fact that he was an abusive tyrant that mistreated and over taxed his people results in a very different answer as to whether it's moral or not.

 

[soulcyon]

I don't think you quite understand the concept of money & trade, or the tragedy of the commons.

/me goes to Google

:o /me has been enlightened