Re: Moral vs Hierarchical obligations

	Duration: 07:26 minutes Upload Time: 2008-02-18 17:48:51 User: brainpolice2
Tags: Anarchism | Positive | Negative | Rights | Obligations  Description: If it's explicitly consented to, it is anarchism.
Comments
PuppyHate  2008-02-20 11:03:34 You're kidding me. So you're saying that any interaction between a person and an object is theft and the initiation of force until proven otherwise? Let me ask you something else, how do you determine when an action is the initiation of force or not? __________________________________________________
LibertyIsNotGiven  2008-02-20 08:02:53 **"Any interaction between a person and an object is not stealing or the initiation of force on its own." This has been explained to you repeatedly. Depriving someone the result of his labor (e.g. theft) is an initiation of force. It can be no more clear than that. I would say the burden of proof is yours to demonstrate why you have a universal claim on everyone else's property. __________________________________________________
T850CSM101a1676  2008-02-19 19:32:46 Isn't this kinda how Switzerland works anyway? __________________________________________________
PuppyHate  2008-02-19 19:08:34 The post over this one was supposed to be the first post in this response but it didn't post the first time I typed it... The order was supposed to be 1. "any interaction..." then 2. "Since 'property rights'... Anyway, hopefully that wont confuse anyone. __________________________________________________
PuppyHate  2008-02-19 19:05:56 You have to look at the intent, if the arson or vandalism is done purely to cause misery then it's aggression. If taking an object is done for no other reason than to cause misery then it could be aggression. If someone takes food to fend off starvation then the intent clearly isn't to harm someone, therefore its not aggression. __________________________________________________