Even more ethical considerations...

[Win]

[snip] Some people perceive a controlling structure as mostly liberating; I happen to see it as mostly oppressive. This is partly due to differences in our personalities and tastes (not bad or good, just different). [end snip] Sorry, I don't buy it. If someone is the type of person that thinks supremely valid selfishness is justification for wanting somebody's purse and cause to take possession of it by hitting her over the head and taking it, well, that person probably will find our society opressive and not to his/her liking. To that, I say great. That type of society and individual is bad, period. It's not a matter of taste. [another snip] At least part of that sloppy, steaming load I shoveled into this forum .. [end snip] The chances are pretty good that's what a lot of us are thinking, but are too polite to just come out and say it. [snip]

Quote:

---

The distinction is profound. Ownership is the full panorama of rights associated with property, including the right to delegate its possession, property of course including both the tangible as well as the intangible. Possession, or possessing, generally is something less than ownership, such as a qualified right in property, although some types of possession (there are many) may have many of the attributes of ownership.

---

Re-read how many times you used the word “rights” in your statement, and then look at where those words are positioned. I assure you that’s of significance. You have no “rights” to speak of unless other people agree you do. [snip] Of course it's significant, and rights was not a casual choice of words. And you are flatly incorrect when you say I have no rights unless other people agree that I do. My rights are inalienable and an endowment to me from my creator. I suggest reading the Unaninous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, commonly known as the Declaration of Independence, the first fourteen or so amendments to the United States Constitution, and in my peculiar case, the Constitution of the State of Arkansas of 1874, particularly Article 2, and the amendments thereto. The use of the word rights in those documents is significant as well, and hardly casual. [last snip] One day someone is going to come along who has a full realization of what it really means for something to “belong” to you. You can kiss that object goodbye if you’re totally relying on the effectiveness of your indoctrination. [end snip] Ever hear of make my day laws and that second amendment thing? Another one or two of those pesky rghts.

 

[Win]

Sorry I missed these gems: [snip] The barter system is alive (but maybe not well) even among thieves though. In the case of theft at gunpoint, I trade the promise of my safety for goods. Exactly the same structure as any other tit for tat exchange — no difference. [end snip] Armed robbery is a serious crime. Likening the legitimacy of armed robbery to a consensual transaction is a big steaming load. [snip] An anarchy is a cooperative network of people with either a non-existent or very weakened system of government. [snip] You have played so many semantic games with yourself that you have lost track of where you are at. A cooperative network of people is a government. Go back and read that bit in the Declaration of Independence about government deriving its just powers from consent of the governed.

 

[JerryS]

Quote:

---

Armed robbery is a serious crime. Likening the legitimacy of armed robbery to a consensual transaction is a big steaming load.

---

That’s “sloppy, steaming load” and you actually you have a very valid point there. Someone should call the analogy police on me; I really could have made my point more clear. In my mind at least, I was only really meaning to compare the operation of the basic trade, but coercion certainly does make a huge difference when you factor it into the equation. Perhaps this is the point where we part ways. If neither of us can do much more to exchange ideas on this subject in this context with what we’ve got, then it is what it is. We do not have to “agree to disagree” or whatever you want to call it, but the usefulness of continuing this conversation may simply be limited because of, well… limitations. For one, I see no arguments of any practical use over statements like these:

Quote:

---

My rights are inalienable and an endowment to me from my creator.

---

Where can I go with this? If you believe your rights are given to you and protected by a higher power, or that this higher power infuses you with a supernatural knowledge of good and evil, then unless the nature of this thing is open to examination by the both of us, there is — quite literally — nothing to rationally debate. I’m not saying you’re wrong or stupid: I’m saying there is literally nothing to discuss. Perhaps a metaphysical definition or any associated falsifiable information regarding this entity would be something we could discuss. From the general tone in which you used this phrase, I’m assuming that you’re referring to a “creator” something along the lines of the Christian ________ (maybe not though). Having faith or hope in the nature of this entity is entirely within your abilities, and may make you a very happy camper indeed. If you are willing to admit that this faith is completely non-heuristic, and are not substituting this faith for the pursuit of knowledge, I have no quarrel or advice for you whatsoever. Plus, no R/S/P debates allowed on BITOG anyway. Have to follow the rules!