Its OK, it was going to degenerate in to you calling me names anyway.

FYI, your reference to douche-baggery is an ad hominem which rests on the same false dilemma I have pointed out for you.

Bottom line, if a libertarian opposes using state coercion to (attempt to ) solve poverty, it doesn't mean they don't want to solve poverty. Do you understand?

natedogg

You wrote: "Whats the point of having this child succeed when they aren't going to own their own labour anyway?" and now you are again writing that children won't own *any* of the fruits of their labor.

The fact is you don't own all your own labor if you pay taxes. So by drawing a black and white line around the "fruits of your labor" you have just made a case for giving up on your own life. But wait, maybe there is a shade of gray after all, eh? Maybe people can value helping children succeed without advocating that ALL your property be stripped from you? No that can't be. Because we're only allowed to spew absolutist dogma when it comes to property rights --all or nothing, baby.

I guess the "death star objection" defense only applies in defending absolute property rights.

Yes. You obviously haven't read the AC FAQ since this is mentioned in there.

If two groups, anarchists and minarchists are warring to either set up a gov or not, and I'll somehow tip the scales... I care about what will maximize average/median/whatever happiness. Either way, I'll be making a decision that effects the well-being of everyone else. Yes, one decision means preventing coercion, one means becoming an active part of it. I don't really care about that part, every decision you make has unconsented effects on others... and I don't believe in natural rights.

Just to be clear, I'm not agreeing with saying libertarians or ACists don't care. I just thought the rest of his point was a good one. I don't see anything wrong with expanding the definition of coercion. And the point works just as well IMO whether or not you call it "coercion". The point is that there are freedom-limiting factors that have nothing to do with coercion by moral agents. I like the argument, because I have socialist leanings, but I wouldn't expect minarchist or libertarian statists to like it much.

I understand, however I disagree with that point of view.
I know what you mean, an unregulated free-market its better because more wealth will be created and eventually the poor will improved their quality of life, etc,etc.

That is one argument against the necessity for state coercion, but my main point is just that being opposed to state coercion doesn't mean you oppose all efforts to solve the problem, or that you are indifferent to the problem, but I got the impression that was your main point at first.

I myself don't support using state coercion because I believe there are many other ways to solve the problem of people being born into poor circumstances, while at the same time there is no (reasonable) way to solve the problem of bad parenting.

natedogg

Again, what is the "right to life?" Where does it come from? (This is not the same as self-ownership.)

(Edit: In our abortion discussion, you will note I never argued for any sort of "right to life." Mainly because it doesn't matter what I think when such a large number of people clearly disagree. It's really just my personal preference, anyway.)

I am asking you to substantiate your assertions. Right to health care, right to sustenance, etc., are observably not supported by a very large number of people. Not nearly large enough to qualify as axiomatic. I suspect a poll of people on this message board would be 60/40 against a right to even basic sustenance. While I realize this message board is a highly skewed populace, the point is, you cannot pull those things out of the blue without a VERY large percentage of people who agree. I guess you can make the case that those things SHOULD be axiomatic (basically arguing that everyone should agree with you), but we aren't there yet. (And hopefully we'll never be.)

When I talked about ACism being the only logical belief system, I was referring to as opposed to modern US party politics, and I conceded that pure socialism may come close (I am admittedly not an expert on the matter, I was a chemical engineering major and am now in finance), but that it stems from what many, many people consider to be a very undesirable set of first principles, consisting of all these various "rights" you keep mentioning that are totally subjective and even general positive-rights supporters disagree on (after all, it's just a personal preference, really). You cannot compare even a right to basic sustenance as axiomatic versus self-ownership as axiomatic. There is no comparison.

Then who is obligated to do what? (Hint: No one is obligated to do anything.) What do you mean by "outside?"

Nate, consider the following hypothetical discussion

A: How about goverment programs for hot meals for children on school?
B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it
C: No, because if you fund that program you will have to tax people and that will result in market inneffeciencies and in the long run those kids will be worse off.
D: Wah, wah why cant I be free? Its not my fault poor people have sex.
E: I think a voluntary solution to the problem its better, the community will be aware those children need help and since they will care they will feed the kids themselves, if you put a goverment porgram those people that were going to help wont help and the children will be worse off.

Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem
Person C is overestimating the effect a slight tax will have on the incentives and is underestimating the irreversible damage that is produced because the kids wont get proper nutrition when theyre still kids.
Person D is being a douchebag
Person E is being extremely naive and is just HOPING the community will care enough to take the time to do voluntary solution.

I hope that clarifies my position.

How about this?

Question: Should we allow slavery because we need cotton to prevent people from having cold winters due to not having coats?

B: No, because to fund that program you need to force others to pay for it

Person B is giving more importance to absolute property rights than to a natural state problem

Same damn thing as what you said.

Wow, how can you actually oppose schoolchildren getting hot meals? You are a terrible person obviously.

Thanks guys, I knew I could count on you.

natedogg

AlexM wants children to die cold and hungry, obv.

Except that giving a small percentage of youre wealth is not the same as being a slave! Do you really consider yourself a slave?

It arises from the same nebulous area as self-ownership does. But that's got little to do with your argument, because...

...who cares? What does the number of people that do or do not believe in a given right have to do with whether the belief system the right is based upon is logically consistent?

Again, who cares if the first tenet is or is not axiomatic? It's still an entirely consistent belief. In fact, I happen to think your core tenet, self-ownership, is absolutely worthless without some kind of societal framework to base it on (namely, if you are born into a dirt-poor family with no education system available, does you owning your labor *mean* anything? Can a Russian serf just after emancipation be said to be enjoying the fruits of his labor in any meaningful sense of the word?)...but I don't go around calling your beliefs illogical. They plainly do make sense given the core principles you operate under. I mean, I think the entire belief system is a giant externality hamster wheel and pretty much as bad as a utopian thought experiment has ever gotten, but it's not "illogical".

Unencumbered by any societal obligations whatsoever, it should be self-evident that the right to property is defined by the number of guns on your side vs. the number of guns on the other guy's. Unlike self-ownership, which you can kinda get away with almost anywhere with the right skin color and possibly language, property requires vast amount of outside help to maintain, whether through government/private security/whatever. It's a negative right until it meets the real world, where various 20'th century governments were the first to actually provide it to *everyone*.

Absolutely. I might be given far more "privileges" than even the best kept house slave of 200 years ago, but I'm still a slave.

AlexM who do you consider to be more of a slave, Bill Gates or a poor kid with neglecting parents that is born in AC land?

Uhm, Bill Gates is one of the masters in our society... When I own a giant corporation whose profits are based mostly on government tyranny, you can compare me to Bill Gates.

As for the child, to some extent all children are slaves, but with neglected parents, it's the same in AC land as in government land. Either people will notice and take the children away from them or people won't notice.

So... what do either of these people have to do with anything?

You left out the 3rd option of people noticing but not caring enough to take them away.

True, but I was only including the options that are equally likely, not the ones that are more likely under government than AC.

AlexM, perhaps my example was way too far-fetched, anyway the point I want to make is that youre definiton of slavery is inadequate. The fact that you think that someone that lives on spacious house, a confortable car and a 9-5 job he enjoys is a slave just because he has to pay income tax says a lot about your worldview.

If you think I was attacking you with the comment about logically consistent belief systems, I wasn't, unless you are actually some staunch party line Dem and I didn't know it (which I seriously doubt). Frankly, I have no idea what you believe. I know you're not an ACist or a neo-con - but that's about it. You really don't spend much time arguing in support of anything - mostly just detracting from things you oppose, and even then you sometimes hint you are playing devil's advocate. Not that that's necessarily bad.

So, yeah - if you accept all those positive rights as axiomatic, you can be logically consistent I suppose. I happen to think it's a disgusting set of axioms, but logical? I guess it could be.

Absurd. Having a government undermines property rights in the first place. That said, some gov't somewhere might have done something vaguely resembling this - I don't know, I'm not a history expert - but Kelo was a nail in the coffin for property rights in America. (How bout that! I worked in a Supreme Court case reference in a reply to Adanthar! *braces for 2500-word legal critique*)

Sure, my house hasn't been condemned, but basically what any of us have is only what the gov't lets us keep, which is basically true when any one group has a monopoly on the use of force. I don't call that providing property rights to anyone, much less everyone. Pretty sure the people who've had their homes seized for the sake of gov't/corporate profiteering wouldn't think so, either.

What it says about my worldview isn't terribly relevant. Stop enslaving me.

Also, few people enjoy their jobs...