Debate an Anarcho-communist: The Truth about the Non-aggression Principle and Capitalism

Evolutionfire · 2012-05-26T16:57:20.579342+00:00

Saying it doesn't make it so.
I never said anything about a "capital paradigm", so please don't argue against that straw man while ignoring my actual point.

Clue_Bat · 2012-05-26T16:55:55.617342+00:00

Oh, damn, I'd forgotten about 4E's mostly ludicrous combat rules regarding attribute use -- just one more reason I had chosen to forego that edition. Still, my point stands about editions prior to 4E.

Evolutionfire · 2012-05-26T16:54:25.495140+00:00

Not necessarily, especially in the case of "property" being defined in a conventional manner. Redefining "property" to exclude things it normally includes just so you can declare something established in a distinct ethical system does not validate the more inclusive notion of "property".

I mean . . . sure, you could call it a "property right" if you like, but the hypothetical altruist in question is almost certain to disagree with your choice of label, especially given that "property" generally requires not only exclusive right of control but also the ability to transfer that right or otherwise dispose of that right. Many ethical systems apply an "inalienability" standard to a right to be free from physical coercions such as slavery, and regard the notion of a person's body (in life) being "property" anathema due to the fact it could imply the ability to sell one's body while still inhabiting it.

Evolutionfire · 2012-05-26T16:49:21.858591+00:00

How is "no longer attached" the same as "attached"?

You can consider the ethics of possession to be a form of property rights theory if you like. I don't mind. I did not contrast an ethical notion of possession with the word "property", but rather with the conventional conception of "property" where one has a specific right to have a plot of unused land on the other side of the world free from molestation by others.

Yes, sure.

Okay, good. I'm glad we got that settled.

cking921 · 2012-05-26T16:43:25.892975+00:00

This is . . . silly.

"I'm playing a $foo. How do I not seem like I'm playing a $foo?"

The only solution that comes to mind is "Don't play a $foo."

Clue_Bat · 2012-05-26T04:41:05.377273+00:00

Glad we got that sorted out, then.

Evolutionfire · 1 day

How else could it be grounded? (not a rhetorical question, but I can't think of a way).

I'm a NAP libertarian who isn't even sure "property rights" per se can be ethically justified at all. Proprietary custom can certainly be consistent with ethics without being intrinsic to a sound, NAP-based system of ethics.

The NAP itself, in the justification of NAP ethics to which I subscribe, arises as a negatively termed formulation of a right of self-determination, which is the initial principle of ethics, derived rationally from agreeable first principles (such as "I exist; you do too; we cannot prove or disprove metaphysical morality"). That is where I get the notion that one's physical person is by right protected from aggressive molestation. In this respect, it is (depending on your concepts of physical existence) possibly either a matter of identity or of possession as distinct from property per se.

I was assuming he advocated a form of use rights. This is a species of property rights.

I'm not sure what justification he has for distinguishing possession from property as a matter of rights but, if you go with the property-independent theory of NAP ethics to which I subscribe, possession is distinct from proprietary control, in that property can often be removed or destroyed without proximate interaction with the proprietor, but possession cannot.

I'm not sure that its easy, right now I'm skeptical about that claim.

I think that, even if you haven't cottoned onto the property-independent theory of NAP ethics I just elucidated, you should be able to acknowledge that there are self-contradictory, absurdist, wholly invalid, nonsensical "systems" of ethics that could be said to justify (in a very narrow, contextless way) exclusive right to control of the disposition of one's own body.

For one example of a non-proprietary ethical system that may not acknowledge proprietary rights, consider the most extreme case of altruism as an ethical system, where one has exclusive right to control the disposition of one's own body -- and it is an ethical imperative for one to make decisions about the disposition of one's own body that will benefit others, even to one's own detriment, such that without that right to the disposition of one's own body there would be no such ethical imperative at all. Obviously, this leads to the least ethical of all worlds, where the good people are all dead, but that doesn't mean such ethical systems have not been invented.

Another example is a slew of "free will" doctrines of Christian ethics (which, admittedly, conflate practical systems of ethics with metaphysical systems of morals), where people have absolute, exclusive right to control the dispositions of their own bodies, with the sole proviso that once their bodies are in the ground and rotting their souls answer for their sins.

Evolutionfire · 1 day

No, I mean economics, as in history. Even economic schools of thought (that are not complete lunacy) other than Austrian at least show a tendency toward equilibrium due to the work of market forces sometimes, or for many (but maybe not all) cases. If there were no cases of market forces tending toward equilibrium, there would never have been the initial development of specialization and trade in the first place.

Clue_Bat · 1 day

Wait wait wait . . . let's ignore 5E for a moment. You say "Dex still determines . . . Damage rolls" (emphasis mine).

Still . . . ?

I'm having a difficult time remembering anything in the rules for earlier editions that provides a dexterity bonus to damage.

The "still" also applies (because it's from the same list) to "the most frequently mentioned Saving Throw", but in my experience Reflex saves are among the most rarely used in a standard game for earlier editions. Most of the saves I see in 3E-compatible stuff are Fortitude and Will, not Reflex saves. In 2E, Dexterity and Wisdom both applied to only a very limited range of saves under special circumstances. I don't happen to have any AD&D 1E books handy right now, but my old red box D&D books don't use attributes at all for saving throws.

So . . . I think you are mistaken with regard to Dexterity being disproportionately important due to application to damage and saves, to say nothing of the fact it meant nothing for skills in editions that didn't even have skills (1E AD&D and old-school D&D).

Evolutionfire · 3 days

Sure, to claim right of property over anything that you do not physically possess (i.e. hold) is the threat of violence.

This renders your claim that one may "possess" a home nonsensical.

I dont believe that consolidation of wealth is unavoidable, just unavoidable when you have property rights. And in a capitalist system you have no safeguards against it except "the market"

You're splitting hairs that have no business being split here. Fine. Try this:

The claim that "it has been shown repeatedly, that over time, in capitalist society, wealth tends to amass in the hands of the few," in no way proves that this is unavoidable when you have property rights or (ignoring the claim that amassing wealth always leads to slavery, which could conceivably be argued forever with no resolution) undesirable, so it is unlikely to convince anyone of anything.

And in a capitalist system you have no safeguards against it except "the market"

In a command economy system, you have no safeguards except people power-hungry enough to rise to positions of "authority". In an anarcho-communist society, you have no safeguards except wishful thinking. What's your point?

I am interested to see evidence of markets self regulating towards balance.

Read about economics.

Evolutionfire · 3 days

To be fair, that's not necessarily predicated on property rights. In fact, Evolutionfire's distinction of possession from property rights seems to apply here, as does the notion of the NAP without resort to property rights. It's very easy to justify an exclusive right to control the disposition of one's own body by a wide range of ethical theories -- even theories that otherwise lead to absurd consequences or generally contradict themselves.

I'm not entirely certain Evolutionfire even supports an absolute, exclusive right to control the disposition of one's own body.

jackhammer2022 · 3 days

I'm not reddit, evidently.

Racket is what happens when PLT "Scheme" finally admits it isn't really Scheme. Guile is what happens when, just like it fucks up everything else, the GNU project decides that Scheme is too nice and sets out to fuck it up.

Evolutionfire · 3 days

I disagree. It's a legal dispute. When you get overpaid men in three-piece suits talking about it on behalf of the two claimants in front of a guy in a funny wig and/or black robes with a mallet in his hand, it's a court case.

Evolutionfire · 3 days

Would it have been okay to have brought a gun into the situation and demand they all pay their "fair share" to get this man a sandwich?

/me puts on his commie costume.

It would be okay if you had a badge!

Evolutionfire · 3 days

In my little world, the NAP isn't axiomatic -- it's derived rationally from generally agreeable first principles (such as "people exist").

Evolutionfire · 3 days

Just say she has a teleportation device she can use to evict people. In five or ten years, it might even be possible.

Evolutionfire · 3 days

how about paying a kid to mow your lawns?

Yes, that's oppressive by ancom standards, as far as I'm aware. Employment is oppressive.

It's a load of hooey, but there it is.

Evolutionfire · 3 days

The arguments against property as presented by Evolutionfire, to the extent one may accept them (for argument's sake if nothing else), work just as well against claims of a right to a hammer or home when one does not actively possess it in a way that prevents others from doing likewise without conflict. Thus, "this possession is a natural right" does not in any way, according to Evolutionfire's arguments against property, allow a person to bar another person entry to a "home" other than by physically standing in the way.

The claim that "it has been shown repeatedly, that over time, in capitalist society, wealth tends to amass in the hands of the few," in no way proves that this is unavoidable or (ignoring the claim that amassing wealth always leads to slavery, which could conceivably be argued forever with no resolution) undesirable, so it is unlikely to convince anyone of anything.

"This is the highest aspiration of capitalism" is a straw man fallacy, and everything following it in that short paragraph is predicated upon it.

dexter2062 · 7 days

This is what another awful language looks like:

FTFY

. . . and yes, that is rather awful.

jackhammer2022 · 7 days

Too bad it's in Racket.

dexter2062 · 7 days

Were you interested in learning how an awful language would look?

dexter2062 · 7 days

Learn a new programming language (COBOL)

emphasis added to highlight absurdity

dexter2062 · 7 days

Nah. It's more like reading up on the engineering principles that go into engine design, starting with metallurgy. The relevance of petroleum automotive fuel is ignition temperatures under various pressures, modern additives and the effects they have, burn temperature, characteristics of fuel:air mixture ratios, and so on -- not refining -- and yeah, some of the Dragon Book's content may be equivalent to such factors unrelated to the refining process.

dexter2062 · 7 days

NoSQL is web scale.

dexter2062 · 7 days

Why only eight? Slacker.

apotheon

TROPHY CASE

Five-Year Club	reddit mold
Verified Email

apotheon

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login