Dominoes - Pay a little more

[SpontaneousOrder]

Yawn.

I'm spotting a pattern here. I point out the blindingly obvious flaws in your (lack of) logic, and you try to hide it with sarcasm or by changing the topic. It's funny because the "Yawn." says more about you than you're attempting to project onto me

[Old Greg]

I'm spotting a pattern here. I point out the blindingly obvious flaws in your (lack of) logic, and you try to hide it with sarcasm or by changing the topic. It's funny because the "Yawn." says more about you than you're attempting to project onto me

How about enforcing debt payment?

[SpontaneousOrder]

How about enforcing debt payment?

The fraud or theft which led to the debt, or the non-repayment of the debt, was the initial instance of the use of force. So using violent force in retaliation is perfectly fine, just as you'd use violence to defend yourself when attacked in the street. It's the initiation of force against a peaceful person that's the problem.

Violence, threats of violence, or fraud are all violations of what would be called the non-aggression principle, because they are all at root derivatives of the violation of property rights (and yes - of course you own yourself).

[Old Greg]

The fraud or theft which led to the debt, or the non-repayment of the debt, was the initial instance of the use of force. So using violent force in retaliation is perfectly fine, just as you'd use violence to defend yourself when attacked in the street. It's the initiation of force against a peaceful person that's the problem.

Violence, threats of violence, or fraud are all violations of what would be called the non-aggression principle, because they are all at root derivatives of the violation of property rights (and yes - of course you own yourself).

Where do property rights derive from?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Where do property rights derive from?

Rights are a product of man's morality, and property rights (or it's derivations) happen to be the only right ever posited which is non-contradictory, internally consistent, and universally applicable.

Morality is a man-made concept, but like all concepts it has to be logically consistent in order to be considered 'truth'. If you don't believe in the value of morality, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and if you do then the only right, derived from our morality, which we can grant one another is that of being free from the initiation of coercion (which is the same as having inalienable property rights over one's self and the product of one's labour).

For most (as far as i can tell) accepting that we have a sense of morality and, then analysing the consequences from first-principles, where we then see that freedom from coercion is the only logically consistent candidate for a 'right', is enough.

While I agree, I like Ayn Rand's Objectivism and her approach to epistemology and the science of ethics in particular (as opposed to someone like John Locke). Despite common misunderstanding, morality IS objective in nature.

You don't have to behave morally, but if you wanted to it's not a subjective experience.

[d000hg]

I'm spotting a pattern here. I point out the blindingly obvious flaws in your (lack of) logic, and you try to hide it with sarcasm or by changing the topic. It's funny because the "Yawn." says more about you than you're attempting to project onto me

Nope. At least when you're new you try to put in a bit of effort though, before everyone realises who it is.

[Old Greg]

Rights are a product of man's morality, and property rights (or it's derivations) happen to be the only right ever posited which is non-contradictory, internally consistent, and universally applicable.

Morality is a man-made concept, but like all concepts it has to be logically consistent in order to be considered 'truth'. If you don't believe in the value of morality, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and if you do then the only right, derived from our morality, which we can grant one another is that of being free from the initiation of coercion (which is the same as having inalienable property rights over one's self and the product of one's labour).

For most (as far as i can tell) accepting that we have a sense of morality and, then analysing the consequences from first-principles, where we then see that freedom from coercion is the only logically consistent candidate for a 'right', is enough.

While I agree, I like Ayn Rand's Objectivism and her approach to epistemology and the science of ethics in particular (as opposed to someone like John Locke). Despite common misunderstanding, morality IS objective in nature.

You don't have to behave morally, but if you wanted to it's not a subjective experience.

If I peacefully move into your garden with a tent, would you use force to evict me?

[AtW]

Rights are a product of man's morality, and property rights (or it's derivations) happen to be the only right ever posited which is non-contradictory, internally consistent, and universally applicable.

Morality is a man-made concept, but like all concepts it has to be logically consistent in order to be considered 'truth'. If you don't believe in the value of morality, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and if you do then the only right, derived from our morality, which we can grant one another is that of being free from the initiation of coercion (which is the same as having inalienable property rights over one's self and the product of one's labour).

For most (as far as i can tell) accepting that we have a sense of morality and, then analysing the consequences from first-principles, where we then see that freedom from coercion is the only logically consistent candidate for a 'right', is enough.

While I agree, I like Ayn Rand's Objectivism and her approach to epistemology and the science of ethics in particular (as opposed to someone like John Locke). Despite common misunderstanding, morality IS objective in nature.

You don't have to behave morally, but if you wanted to it's not a subjective experience.

Hi Gentile

[Platypus]

Hi Gentile

Old Hack more like

[d000hg]

Old Hack more like

More likely than Gentile, that's for sure.