unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'

[henry quirk]

What is the principle in play here?

A man belongs to himself; his life, liberty, property are his; he is his own.

Should it be: Upon [SUSPICION ... or does it need PROOF?] that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, you are [REQUIRED ... or just ENTITLED?] to [SHUN/KILL/ROB?] him, because otherwise his crimes have a transitory quality and now you are a slaver who must be killed, or shunned or robbed?

You need proof: suspicion is reason to investigate. No different than now.

if Stan is found to be kidnapping children from the playground, and his wife is found to knowingly, willingly have assisted him, either by drivin' the abduction van, or simply by feedin' him and takin' care of him as she does nuthin' to stop him or report him, is she not his aide, his abetter?

What happens now is she'll stand trial with him.

What happens in the Free Zone is she'll stand trial with him.

China -- that's where we started with this line -- ought be tried.

Nations and individuals who abet China ought be tried.

Convicted, now or the Free Zone, Stan and Mrs. Stan will go to jail (and, perhaps, in the Free Zone, both might be off'd).

Convicted, by the Free Zone, China would face war or lack of trade and transaction. Now, today, as every nation and many mega corps are in bed with China, the best we can hope for is a houseplant who craps himself dronin' on about cultural differences.

As I say: you get your knickers in a twist about chicken love while a legit slaver-state exists.

I'm depressed now...you depress me.

REQUIRED ... or just ENTITLED?

If you knew what Stan was doin', and did nuthin', you're aidin'.

Morally, you have an obligation to do sumthin' (even if you just call your local PD, or [in the Free Zone] Constabulary).

[FlashDangerpants]

So...

Anyone who knows that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, has a duty to [SHUN/KILL/ROB?] him, failure to do so is considered participation in the original crime and shares in the guilt.

Accurate?

[henry quirk]

Scott,

I am my first, best, property, as you are your first, best, property.

Property is also what you fairly, voluntarily, transact for and with.

It's also the product of your labor.

I write the novel. The paper I freely transacted for, as I did the pencil, pen, typewriter, or processor. (or, as the fictional DeSade in Quills, mebbe I created my own parchment, ink, and pen).

The whole chain of property is mine: the paper, the instrument, the creative work.

I grow apples: I bought the land, the tools,the saplings, mebbe even hired help. The land is mine, as are the tools, as are the trees, as is the produce (as is the debt should I fail to make produce). My hired hands are entitled to whatever mutually agreed upon compensation we've contracted for.

[henry quirk]

So...

Anyone who knows that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, has a duty to [SHUN/KILL/ROB?] him, failure to do so is considered participation in the original crime and shares in the guilt.

Accurate?

Morally, you have an obligation to do sumthin' (even if you just call your local PD, or [in the Free Zone] Constabulary).

[henry quirk]

scott,

Do you mean...

(1) Each person is born independent of a mind and body from all others and we have a biological predisposition to act exclusively in favor of our OWN internal desires without the concern for others' opinions against them.

nope

I mean what I wrote: a man (any man, every man) belongs to himself (and no other).

I am mine own; you are your own; flash is his own.

"Liberty" is not able to be absolute though because the reflexive capacity of acheiving your freedom often requires taking it away from another.

If you don't violate my life, my liberty, my property: you can do as you like (flash, I'm sure, will sell, rent, or mebbe give you one of his chickens, if that's your thing [the details of the transaction are between you guys]; but don't takin' one without permission, cuz that be theft [and -- for the record -- his kids are not on the market; each is a person, each is his own; children are not, cannot be, property]).

[FlashDangerpants]

Anyone who knows that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, has a duty to call the cops, but they also have a duty to not transact with said felon, failure to do so is considered participation in the original crime and shares in the guilt.

Accurate now?

[Scott Mayers]

Scott,

I am my first, best, property, as you are your first, best, property.

Property is also what you fairly, voluntarily, transact for and with.

It's also the product of your labor.

I write the novel. The paper I freely transacted for, as I did the pencil, pen, typewriter, or processor. (or, as the fictional DeSade in Quills, mebbe I created my own parchment, ink, and pen).

The whole chain of property is mine: the paper, the instrument, the creative work.

I grow apples: I bought the land, the tools,the saplings, mebbe even hired help. The land is mine, as are the tools, as are the trees, as is the produce (as is the debt should I fail to make produce). My hired hands are entitled to whatever mutually agreed upon compensation we've contracted for.

If 'property' is included though, this removes the value of liberty with respect to those who have zero or more often negative value in such ideals. What about inheritance also? Should a King not have the 'right' to own all the lands and pass this on regardless of worth to others of his own choosing?

The fairness is lacking if you include the term, "property" that you had opted to in your definition. If inheritance is logically 'fair', it should have to include the negative....debts of those who pass it on. If you bias it to only a right to pass on beneficial inheritance, then why should debts be permitted to be passed onto the whole while the benefits of it would NOT under the libertarian ideal?

For Each Person as a class of society, what 'property' do each of them have equally distributed other than one's mere body? Freedom to movement is lost when a clever 'owner', like the railroad company ones, can own passageways and portals. How is this not enslaving those isolated within the boundaries of the owner even if they do not own the land in between?

Edit: Altered the incorrect term, "values" to "ideals" [in green above]

[henry quirk]

Now, let's look at an example where callin' the cops just don't cut it.

There was the college coach, Sandusky, I believe he was named. He turned out to be a big pedo. In one instance, an asst coach walked in on Sandusky sodomizin' a ten year old boy. The asst coach did nuthin'. He left Sandusky to his rape and didn't even mention what he'd seen till several hours later, and then only to his dad.

I've no idea what penalty the asst coach faced in the now, but -- as I see it -- he's as guilty of violatin' that child as Sandusky. He had an obligation, a moral duty, to stop that rape, then call the cops.

He did neither.

Simply: you can't recognize your own ownness and ignore it in others.

[henry quirk]

Anyone who knows that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, has a duty to call the cops, but they also have a duty to not transact with said felon, failure to do so is considered participation in the original crime and shares in the guilt.

Accurate now?

if he's a felon: his keister is in-slam...won't be doin' much transactin' from there

[Scott Mayers]

scott,

Do you mean...

(1) Each person is born independent of a mind and body from all others and we have a biological predisposition to act exclusively in favor of our OWN internal desires without the concern for others' opinions against them.

nope

I mean what I wrote: a man (any man, every man) belongs to himself (and no other).

I am mine own; you are your own; flash is his own.

"Liberty" is not able to be absolute though because the reflexive capacity of acheiving your freedom often requires taking it away from another.

If you don't violate my life, my liberty, my property: you can do as you like (flash, I'm sure, will sell, rent, or mebbe give you one of his chickens, if that's your thing [the details of the transaction are between you guys]; but don't takin' one without permission, cuz that be theft [and -- for the record -- his kids are not on the market; each is a person, each is his own; children are not, cannot be, property]).

Your definition is absurdly fuzzy and not able to be negotiable to all people. I offered a clear defintion. The "definitions" of 'property' itself is an ARTIFICIAL one and more likely to be abused by those asserting what POWER rights they have. Also, given your ideal is to do away with government, how can any definition of what one 'owns' mean anything except to the one who has the biggest guns? It is NOT natural to 'own' property in nature without the animal itself required to defend it WITHOUT resort to weapons. [Certainly if you think it is 'fair' to own unequally, then without a system of and by the people who grants you such fortune as a 'legal owner', and no one other than the wealthy to create the laws, enforce, and then adjudicate, the 'freedom' to own by nature's standards is limited to your literal physical capacities no different than a single wolf among a pack attempting to dominate their 'territory'.]

There is no 'moral' standard to nature outside of our artificial construct by the acceptance of ALL the people to rule equally.

[FlashDangerpants]

Simply: you can't recognize your own ownness and ignore it in others.

And that is wrong because that would be ... hypocrisy?

[FlashDangerpants]

Anyone who knows that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, has a duty to call the cops, but they also have a duty to not transact with said felon, failure to do so is considered participation in the original crime and shares in the guilt.

Accurate now?

if he's a felon: his keister is in-slam...won't be doin' much transactin' from there

Point taken, although your three branches of state were a minimal constabulary, a militia and a court of last resort. Do you have prisons? I kinda assumed your punishment options would be the ones from ye oldie times .

Anyway, couple more updates...
Anyone who knows that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, has a duty to interrupt any crime in progress, call the cops, and they also have a duty to not transact with said naughty person, failure to do so is considered participation in the original crime and shares in the guilt.

[henry quirk]

Scott,

What about inheritance also?

This is a gift, which I or you can bestow on who we like. Once given, a gift becomes property of the receiver.

Should a King not have the 'right' to own all the lands and pass this on regardless of worth to others of his own choosing?

Free men have no king.

debts of those who pass it on

here's the thing about gifts: no one has to accept them

joe wants me to inherit, wants to gift me with, his orchard: if that gift is accompanied by sizable debt, I ain't takin' it

beware the strings attached to gifts

For Each Person as a class of society, what 'property' do each of them have equally distributed other than one's mere body?

none

Freedom to movement is lost when a clever 'owner', like the railroad company ones, can own passageways and portals. How is this not enslaving those isolated within the boundaries of the owner even if they do not own the land in between?

in the here & now with private property everywhere, how are such circumstances handled?

I'm out and about everyday, in a land of privately held properties: I experience no overt restrictions on goin' where I need and want to go.

[henry quirk]

slow down, guys: I can't keep up (and I ain't doin' this for the next two hours)

[henry quirk]

I kinda assumed your punishment options would be the ones from ye oldie times .

you assumed right, kimosabe: jail, the stocks, tar & feathers, hanging, firin' squad, tossed overboard, the possibilityes are endless

Anyone who knows that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, has a duty to interrupt any crime in progress, call the cops, and they also have a duty to not transact with said naughty person, failure to do so is considered participation in the original crime and shares in the guilt.

you're tryin' to codify what the court of last resort will decide

for example: ethel is 97, gets around with a walker...it ain't commonsensical that she could physically intervene in a rape or theft or even murder...she can, though, yell and scream and raise a ruckus....she can call the cops

much of what you're tryin' to pin down in the 3rd line gets determined as application of the 3rd in the court

three branches of state were a minimal constabulary, a militia and a court of last resort

4 branches of the Zone (there is no state): you forgot the border patrol