Daily Anarchist Forum
December 09, 2019, 04:05:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Is threatening the President a crime?  (Read 13513 times)
State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2013, 07:33:17 AM »

Crime in general is a purely human construct. Libertarian definitions of crime are just the least subjective and usually the most equitable.
The initiation of coercion is an objective act. The fact that we define it as a crime is subjective.



Making idle threats is one thing, giving orders to kill is another. I say that the mastermind of a murder is a murderer just like the thug who follows orders.

Should I ever run a defence firm, I'm going to treat the entire conspiracy as murderers of one form or another.


Quote
Now, if some douche bag comes along and breaks open your safe and discovers the letter, is it then a crime? Still no, I would say. The act of somebody else reading the letter does not constitute a violation of the N.A.P.

Destruction of property, and theft of property are crimes. Does it matter that the property stolen was a note? I don't think so as far as the criminality is concerned. Furthermore the Kopimist in me would say that intercepting and reading correspondence is immoral at the least, maybe it's  a crime too I haven't decided quite yet.

Then again the fighter in me says that intercepting the enemy's correspondence is just good business. So hmm... it's a question that's for sure. I'll be pondering it for some time I suspect.

Is it objective? I think that's a question Seth's trying to raise here.

What is coercion? Is it the physical harm of another person? Well, then there's no such thing as second-degree murder. Oh, is it more than that? Then what non-physical actions qualify as coercion? Where's the line?

I mean, when you get down to it all violence is is one group of atoms doing something to another group of atoms; at what level- atomic, molecular, cellular- does atoms effecting others become 'crime' or 'violence' or 'coercion'?

We need to get out of this Lockean/Christian mindset of objective truths. Everything is subjective, including coercion, crime, justice and morality. Not to say that they're not useful concepts; they are. But we need to realize they're just that, concepts.





Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2013, 12:49:49 PM »

Crime in general is a purely human construct. Libertarian definitions of crime are just the least subjective and usually the most equitable.
The initiation of coercion is an objective act. The fact that we define it as a crime is subjective.



Making idle threats is one thing, giving orders to kill is another. I say that the mastermind of a murder is a murderer just like the thug who follows orders.

Should I ever run a defence firm, I'm going to treat the entire conspiracy as murderers of one form or another.


Quote
Now, if some douche bag comes along and breaks open your safe and discovers the letter, is it then a crime? Still no, I would say. The act of somebody else reading the letter does not constitute a violation of the N.A.P.

Destruction of property, and theft of property are crimes. Does it matter that the property stolen was a note? I don't think so as far as the criminality is concerned. Furthermore the Kopimist in me would say that intercepting and reading correspondence is immoral at the least, maybe it's  a crime too I haven't decided quite yet.

Then again the fighter in me says that intercepting the enemy's correspondence is just good business. So hmm... it's a question that's for sure. I'll be pondering it for some time I suspect.

Is it objective? I think that's a question Seth's trying to raise here.

What is coercion? Is it the physical harm of another person? Well, then there's no such thing as second-degree murder. Oh, is it more than that? Then what non-physical actions qualify as coercion? Where's the line?

I mean, when you get down to it all violence is is one group of atoms doing something to another group of atoms; at what level- atomic, molecular, cellular- does atoms effecting others become 'crime' or 'violence' or 'coercion'?

We need to get out of this Lockean/Christian mindset of objective truths. Everything is subjective, including coercion, crime, justice and morality. Not to say that they're not useful concepts; they are. But we need to realize they're just that, concepts.







Whether or not someone has aggressed on another is an objective fact, words mean things or language is useless. What qualifies as aggression or coercion? l think that's a question for the dictionary.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2013, 03:22:01 PM »

Whether or not someone has aggressed on another is an objective fact, words mean things or language is useless. What qualifies as aggression or coercion? l think that's a question for the dictionary.
No.
Suppose there is an island, totally undisturbed by humans. Then one day, my grandfather plants a circle of apple trees on the land. He goes away. Your father (the only other person to wander onto this land) finds those trees 20 years later, and settles there. Now I come back to that land, having heard that my grandfather made an investment for the future. I go to claim what he left for me. But your family has already built there...
Can I fight you to take back my grandfather's trees? Are they his trees?
If we can't come up with an objective theory of property (we certainly CANNOT), then there's no way objectively describe aggression. This is exactly the problem that shows up in ancap vs ancom arguments. The meaning of aggression is different, and it all comes down to property.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2013, 03:26:10 PM »

Whether or not someone has aggressed on another is an objective fact, words mean things or language is useless. What qualifies as aggression or coercion? l think that's a question for the dictionary.
No.
Suppose there is an island, totally undisturbed by humans. Then one day, my grandfather plants a circle of apple trees on the land. He goes away. Your father (the only other person to wander onto this land) finds those trees 20 years later, and settles there. Now I come back to that land, having heard that my grandfather made an investment for the future. I go to claim what he left for me. But your family has already built there...
Can I fight you to take back my grandfather's trees? Are they his trees?
If we can't come up with an objective theory of property (we certainly CANNOT), then there's no way objectively describe aggression. This is exactly the problem that shows up in ancap vs ancom arguments. The meaning of aggression is different, and it all comes down to property.

No, in the ancom vs ancap arguments the meaning of aggression is different because the ancoms believe in positive rights. In other words in their minds forcing obligations on people isn't coercive whilst not forcing obligations on people is coercive. In other words they're backwards. Their view on property is because of the positive rights issue.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2013, 03:30:12 PM »

If we can't objectively define anything then words might as well not have meanings. In fact I'm calling myself a lolipop from now on because lolipop doesn't mean anything.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2013, 03:32:55 PM »

I mean shit by this line of reasoning murder isn't ethically abhorrent. So yeah it'll be okay for me to kill everyone who pisses me off.

I've always wanted to justify that and haven't been able to. It turns out I've been doing it wrong. I should've just discarded ethics because they don't mean anything from the begining.

Yeah, this gets silly really quick doesn't it?
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2013, 03:38:08 PM »

I'm not even saying that ethics are objective, because they aren't, because value is subjective. I am saying however that words mean things, or language wouldn't exist.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2013, 03:50:32 PM »

Words don't mean the same thing to everyone. Language isn't a perfect way of transmitting ideas, it's a fuzzy human to human interface. In some places it's less fuzzy than others.

Despite the fact that it isn't perfect, it's still useful.

Lettuce.

Well, sometimes.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2013, 03:55:43 PM »

Words don't mean the same thing to everyone. Language isn't a perfect way of transmitting ideas, it's a fuzzy human to human interface. In some places it's less fuzzy than others.

Despite the fact that it isn't perfect, it's still useful.

Lettuce.

Well, sometimes.

This is absolutely the case. Which is why it is imperative that we use words properly. The fact that words mean different things to different people is exactly the quality that the "liberals" used to gain false legitimacy and demonize capitalism.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2013, 04:58:04 PM »

We all have different programming languages. When somebody says the word capitalism I smile. When somebody else hears the word capitalism, they frown. When I think of capitalism, I think of voluntary trade and private property. When somebody else hears the word capitalism they think corporations and state granted limited liability.

Is there a right or wrong definition of capitalism? It's subjective.

And then you have debates over who owns what. When I homestead some land, do I own the view I created for myself as well? What if somebody build 10 miles away from my property, but totally fucks up the view?

It's things like the middle east and the never ending battles between the Israelis and the Palestinians that sort of show me that right and wrong are irrelevant. Life is just a gigantic pissing contest. We get along with whoever we want to get along with and the rest be damned.

We have a protocol of how to do things. The goal is to get that protocol as crystal clear as possible, and then get as many people to adhere to that protocol as we can.

I've come to believe that man's natural state is that of war with other men. Peace is not a natural state that devolves to war. War is the natural state that can only progress to peace.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2013, 06:03:59 PM »

Interesting Seth, I'm going to have to chew on that for a bit I think.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2013, 06:32:45 PM »

Words don't mean the same thing to everyone. Language isn't a perfect way of transmitting ideas, it's a fuzzy human to human interface. In some places it's less fuzzy than others.

Despite the fact that it isn't perfect, it's still useful.

Lettuce.

Well, sometimes.

This is absolutely the case. Which is why it is imperative that we use words properly. The fact that words mean different things to different people is exactly the quality that the "liberals" used to gain false legitimacy and demonize capitalism.
What is proper? When you hear a word, there are tons of associations happening in your mind that occur automatically, without any conscious thought. But the exact associations in another person's mind might not be the same. Like I said, this isn't something we can control. Seth's example of "capitalism" is a good one. The "aggression" example I gave earlier in the thread is another.

Definitions for words are built out of other words, so that doesn't solve the problem. You have to realize that words are abstract ideas, which have different concrete implementations in each person's mind. It's not something we can ever totally fix.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Hanzo
Full Member
***
Posts: 241


Deprived Ninja


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2013, 10:33:52 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY
« Last Edit: May 07, 2014, 07:56:31 PM by Seth King » Logged

What if it was a gift?
State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2013, 01:07:04 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY</a>

Yep.
Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2013, 02:27:49 PM »

That was funny.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!