Citizenship Test

[Kerberos]

NOT true. "Violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing" fits ALL of the things you claimed weren't force.

Actually it still doesn't fit for exampel trespassing, since trespassing isn't in any way “violence, compulsion or constraint” as long as you didn't need to break into the property in question. Even diregarding that however that's not the definition you use, since your definition only applies to property, not all things, since that would make almost any activity force.

And how DARE you accuse me of making a circular argument when all I was doing was correcting your insane accusation!

Because it is circular. Saying that you have property rights, because you can exercise them in the absence of force, and then defining force as a violation of property rights is blatantly circular reasoning. Your argument for property rights presuppose property rights and is thus isn’t logically valid.

 

[shanek]

Actually it still doesn't fit for exampel trespassing,

Yes, it does—trespassing is constraint against what you can do on your own property.

Even diregarding that however that's not the definition you use, since your definition only applies to property, not all things, since that would make almost any activity force.

Another blatant strawman. I made myself more than clear above.

Because it is circular. Saying that you have property rights, because you can exercise them in the absence of force, and then defining force as a violation of property rights

Except that I DON'T define force that way. Once again, you choose intellectual dishonesty instead of proper reasoned discourse.

 

[Kerberos]

Except that I DON'T define force that way.

yes you do, let's look few lines up, you respond to my claim that trespassing isn't force with this:

Yes, it does—trespassing is constraint against what you can do on your own property .

Thus your argument that trespassing is force, rests exclusively on a pre-existing concept of property rights, without property rights you have no argument for why trespassing is force and without defining force explicitly in relation to property rights, you have no argument for natural property rights.

Once again, you choose intellectual dishonesty instead of proper reasoned discourse.

You wouldn't know reasoned discourse if it bit you in the nose, or intellectual honesty for that matter.

 

[shanek]

yes you do,

NO I DON'T. I define force pretty much as that dictionary definition you cited and I quoted. So knock it off with the strawman already.

Thus your argument that trespassing is force, rests exclusively on a pre-existing concept of property rights,

Heh, nice maneuvering. It's based on the concept of property OWNERSHIP. The RIGHTS come from the ability to use your property without interference.

[personal abuse deleted]

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by shanek
Nature hasn't "decided" anything. It just is. ... [Nature is e]verything about you; the way you're put together, how tall you are, how strong you are, how smart you are, etc. It's also everything about the world around you. This gives you abilities, things that you can do in the absence of force. ... We know what force is. ... Stop being obtuse.

I wasn't being obtuse. Well, not intentionally, anyway. I don't know what force is.

I don't see how my height or my strength or my intelligence or anything else in nature provides a definition of "force." There's the physics definition of "force," of course, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're not talking about what people can do, but what they ought to do. Even though I can hit people or steal from them or trespass on their property, I ought not to, according to you. Where in nature do you find the concept of ought? Animals do whatever they can do. They do not own property.

 

[shanek]

I wasn't being obtuse. Well, not intentionally, anyway. I don't know what force is.

Well, how about, "violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing"?

[qoute]I don't see how my height or my strength or my intelligence or anything else in nature provides a definition of "force."[/quote]

It doesn't; I'm just saying that those things are part of your nature. I can't lift a 10,000 pound rock. That doesn't mean that my right to lift 10,000 pound rocks is being violated. It's just a limitation of my strength. But I also have a brain, too, a brain that can understand the principles of leverage, mechanization, hydraulics, etc., things that would certainly enable me to lift that rock if I so chose to do so.

The rights become violated when someone else uses force to prevent me from inventing, building, or using the device that allows me to lift the rock.

We're not talking about what people can do, but what they ought to do. Even though I can hit people or steal from them or trespass on their property, I ought not to, according to you.

Well, because those are all acts of force. Rights you exercise in the absence of force. By partaking in those acts, you are preventing someone else from exercising his rights.

Animals do whatever they can do. They do not own property.

Any animal behaviorist will contradict that. Many kinds of animals, including most mammals, mark out and enforce their territory.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, because those are all acts of force.

Yes, but why does that make them wrong?

 

[UserGoogol]

Well, I guess you could set up a scientifically controlled experiment where it is impossible for people to initiate force against each other, and then see what they can do and what they can't. What you'd learn beyond just thinking about it I have no idea.

There's nothing natural about not initiating force. The assumption that "people have a right to not have force initiated upon them" is not at all found in nature, but is instead comes from the good sense of realizing it's a nice thing to have around.

 

[shanek]

Yes, but why does that make them wrong?

They're only wrong if they're initiated. Using force in defense or for justice is quite cool. That kind of force preserves rights; the initiation of force is what violates them.

 

[SlippyToad]

I would hope that you got the question about the capital correct. Citizens should know the state capitals.

Which reminds me. Here's a question that surprises some people: How do the citizens of Kentucky pronounce the name of their state capital: "LOO-ee-vil" or "LOO-uh-vil"?

Neither. The capital of Kentucky is Frankfort.

Two people were in a restraunt, arguing over how to say "Louisville." Finally in frustration one of them went up to the girl at the counter and said: "My wife and I want to settle this argument about how you prounounce something. So can you please, very clearly and slowly, say the name of the place we are?

The girl, flummoxed, said: "BUR-GER-KING."

 

[Kerberos]

NO I DON'T. I define force pretty much as that dictionary definition you cited and I quoted. So knock it off with the strawman already.

You know it should be fairly easy to avoid contradictiong yourself on a 6 sentence post, but alas no. You do not define force as the dictionary does, you admit that right here:

Heh, nice maneuvering. It's based on the concept of property OWNERSHIP. The RIGHTS come from the ability to use your property without interference.

"it's based on the concept of property OWNERSHIP" what is "it" if not your definition of force? Unfortunately the dictionary doesn't mention property or ownership in any way. Congratulations a contradiction in a six sentence post.

BTW the distinction between defining force in relation to property rights or property ownership is totally inconsequential. You premise is that people have a right not to have force used against them. By defining force as a violation of property ownership, you this premise becomes "people have a right not to have their property violated" and what is your conclusion? You conclusion is that "people have a right not to have their property violated" - 100% circular logic.

 

[shanek]

"it's based on the concept of property OWNERSHIP" what is "it" if not your definition of force?

The argument is based on it. YOU said "Thus your argument that trespassing is force, rests exclusively on a pre-existing concept of property rights," I responded DIRECTLY to that, saying, "Heh, nice maneuvering. It's based on the concept of property OWNERSHIP." "It's" clearly refers to my argument AND YOU KNOW IT. It's just more of the pathetic dishonesty you and your ilk resort to in order to try to avoid the actual argument.

 

[Kerberos]

The argument is based on it. YOU said "Thus your argument that trespassing is force, rests exclusively on a pre-existing concept of property rights," I responded DIRECTLY to that, saying, "Heh, nice maneuvering. It's based on the concept of property OWNERSHIP." "It's" clearly refers to my argument AND YOU KNOW IT. It's just more of the pathetic dishonesty you and your ilk resort to in order to try to avoid the actual argument.

What a load of BS. The only way an argument can be based on something is if it's a premise, and the only premise of your "argument" is non-initiation of force, and the only way property ownership can enter that premise, is by artificially introducing it into the definition of force. Thus if your argument rests on property ownership that's because your definition of force rest on it, and if your argument doesn't rest on property ownership, then it doesn't result in property rights - so either your argument is circular, or else your conclusion simply doesn't follow from your premises.

 

[shanek]

What a load of BS. The only way an argument can be based on something is if it's a premise, and the only premise of your "argument" is non-initiation of force, and the only way property ownership can enter that premise, is by artificially introducing it into the definition of force. Thus if your argument rests on property ownership that's because your definition of force rest on it, and if your argument doesn't rest on property ownership, then it doesn't result in property rights - so either your argument is circular, or else your conclusion simply doesn't follow from your premises.

What a smooth way of talking around the fact that you've been shown to be dishonest yet again...