Daily Anarchist Forum
May 24, 2019, 04:43:26 PM *
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] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Hypothetical  (Read 10280 times)
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2011, 08:22:45 AM »

Me or my friend? I'm the "pro-choice" guy in our debate, and he does seem to rely on the assumption that life starts at conception.

You are the one talking about evicting a 1 month old fetus. Since you state you both came up with this story I can only assume you believe a 1 month old-baby is life.
Logged
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2011, 08:25:08 AM »

It would indeed be slavery to force someone who agreed to building a house for you to build the house. According to me and Rothbard at least. It's a controversial opinion in Anarcho-Capitalist circles. The other controversial opinion is that promises can't be enforced

By this definition all contracts are slavery.  I think you need to assess your definition of slavery and contracts.

Contract breach does not always warrant forced labour. Breaking a labour contract means the guy whose house you agreed to build can 'sue' you for reparations/restitution. It does not mean he can violently force you to do whatever he wants (slavery).

Voluntary slavery contracts don't exists. Slavery implies unwillingness, voluntary the opposite. It is a contradiction in terms by their traditional definitions.

EDIT: you guys are responding way to fast......
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 08:26:42 AM by EddyK » Logged
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2011, 08:26:42 AM »

By this definition all contracts are slavery.  I think you need to assess your definition of slavery and contracts.

Untrue. I think that property is alienable, just as Rothbard did. However, labour is not alienable. I agree with Rothbard's theory on the "title transfer" system of contracts.

You are the one talking about evicting a 1 month old fetus. Since you state you both came up with this story I can only assume you believe a 1 month old-baby is life.

Well, I was catering to that assumption, to show that he was still wrong regardless.
Logged

Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 29, 2011, 08:28:07 AM »

It would indeed be slavery to force someone who agreed to building a house for you to build the house. According to me and Rothbard at least. It's a controversial opinion in Anarcho-Capitalist circles. The other controversial opinion is that promises can't be enforced

By this definition all contracts are slavery.  I think you need to assess your definition of slavery and contracts.

Contract breach does not always warrant forced labour. Breaking a labour contract means the guy whose house you agreed to build can 'sue' you for reparations/restitution. It does not mean he can violently force you to do whatever he wants (slavery).

Voluntary slavery contracts don't exists. Slavery implies unwillingness, voluntary the opposite. It is a contradiction in terms by their traditional definitions.

EDIT: you guys are responding way to fast......

Your correct that it doesn't require forced labor.  It does require force though in the form of reparations.  I should have made that clear before.   

I never intended to imply forced labor.  I am not sure how that got started actually.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 08:34:15 AM by Syock » Logged

Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 29, 2011, 08:33:41 AM »

Eddy- I think "voluntary slavery" is a useful - though imprecise - concept. It refers to someone who initially agreed to the enslavement, e.g., "I'll work for you for 50 years at room and board wage", and then decided later that it's not what they wanted. In that sense, you are right, it is not voluntary at all.

But the term is useful because certain Anarcho-Capitalists like Walter Block think voluntary slave contracts can be enforced.
Logged

Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2011, 08:41:31 AM »

Eddy- I think "voluntary slavery" is a useful - though imprecise - concept. It refers to someone who initially agreed to the enslavement, e.g., "I'll work for you for 50 years at room and board wage", and then decided later that it's not what they wanted. In that sense, you are right, it is not voluntary at all.

But the term is useful because certain Anarcho-Capitalists like Walter Block think voluntary slave contracts can be enforced.

It has been used as an example of how someone that murdered your dad etc and had no money could offer reparations.   Personally I think there are far better ways to go about getting reparations.  I wouldn't want someone around that didn't want to be there.  They would likely cause problems, possibly even be a threat. 
Logged

Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2011, 08:46:17 AM »

I support slavery in certain cases as punishment for crime. But it's not voluntary for the murderer; it's retaliative force.
Logged

Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 29, 2011, 08:52:40 AM »

"Voluntary slavery" is an old concept.  It goes all the way back to ancient times to pay off debt.  This is another example of where an opt out would have been a wise decision to add into the contract.  I would not expect a modern society to enforce it in the form of labor, but they would certainly owe reparations.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 09:28:43 AM by Syock » Logged

Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: December 29, 2011, 09:18:25 AM »

Your correct that it doesn't require forced labor.  It does require force though in the form of reparations.  I should have made that clear before.  

Depending on what you define as force. Not necessarily. The resolution **can** be completely peaceful and agreed upon by both parties. I find peaceful force to be contradictory, but that is using me definitions of those terms.

Quote
"Voluntary slavery"

I believe the commonly used term is "indentured servitude"

Quote
I support slavery in certain cases as punishment for crime. But it's not voluntary for the murderer; it's retaliative force.

It could be necessary in some cases, perhaps even the death penalty. But perhaps the murderer has something else to offer? Should the victims agree to it. Reparations are generally at the behest of the victim(s), although often 'restricted' by social conventions. But what is wrong with a "criminal" offering a certain reparation, even for a crime as serious as murder?

Remember that reparations for crime aren't always retaliative force. Regretful murderers might agree to certain reparations. 
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 09:25:44 AM by EddyK » Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 29, 2011, 09:21:31 AM »

Your correct that it doesn't require forced labor.  It does require force though in the form of reparations.  I should have made that clear before.  
Depending on what you define as force. Not necessarily. The resolution can be completely peaceful and agreed upon by both parties. I find peaceful force to be contradictory, but that is using me definitions of those terms.

I call it retaliatory force.  It can be quite peaceful in the form of no bloodshed, but it is something that must be done, it isn't acceptable if someone steals from you.


Allowing the old guy to stay on your property is also not labor.  Were talking about property law at that point.  If I rent an apartment, as long as I don't breech contract, it is acceptable for me to stay there for the duration of the contract.  Unless there is an opt out for the owner. heheh
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 09:26:58 AM by Syock » Logged

Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: December 29, 2011, 09:27:28 AM »

I call it retaliatory force.  It can be quite peaceful, but it is something that must be done, it isn't acceptable if someone steals from you.

It's an issue of semantics then. But we mean the same thing, although using different terms.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2011, 09:32:59 AM »

It's an issue of semantics then. But we mean the same thing, although using different terms.

Indeed we are.  It seems we lost Rothbardian to offline requirements right as this was picking up. 
Logged

helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2011, 10:03:19 AM »

This is begging the question.  This moral dilema is constructed to give the owner no moral choice.  The scenario is so incredibly absurd that it can not be instructive of what moral choices are appropriate. 

but ill play along......

At the moment that the homeless man is discovered, space aliens arrive and whisk him back off to his home planet of Xelnu 5 and offer an appology and 10000 intergalactic credits as payment for the property owners troubles.

Morals are only useful for guiding social cooperation and in this case there is no moral outcome because the possibility of social cooperation has been constructed out of the possible outcomes.
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: December 29, 2011, 10:30:59 AM »

in this case there is no moral outcome

Depending on who's moral laws? What is a "moral outcome"? Isn't morality subjective?

Assuming you mean the NAP:
According to (my interpretation of) the NAP eviction here would be perfectly moral. Considering just the NAP and no other moral laws!*

* My morality extend well beyond the NAP.
Logged
nhwulf
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2011, 12:02:26 PM »

As I would understand a lottery, it represent s the chance of winner vs. not winning. The implication of not winning also costing more than was invested seems more like gambling to me. Either way, when one enters into such agreement he/she ultimately agrees to the terms as stated. If they are unclear, or easily interpreted into various conflicting defenitions, one should really think twice about the consequence of thier actions/decisions. In any lottery or bet, the "ticket holder" has stated a desire to take the outcome of the game. Recievership of the winnings is explicit at the time of ticket purchase. What one does with those winnings is entirely up to them. That decision will be made according to the winners ethical, moral stand and general philosophy regarding the circumstance they find themselves in.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  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!