Plz help me with Ayn Rand's property right vs starvation debate

[David Ottinger]

I'm sorry to make you repeat yourself. For some reason I have a problem with solving the question with your analogical reasoning. Your attacking my premises that the starving man has (or had) indeed a choice. What I'm getting at is: if he only has the choice of forcefully taking food, it cannot be evil.

 

Could you agree with this more precise premises? And can you agree with the conclusion?

 

Humans need food, water, oxygen, shelter, and many other survival needs to be fulfilled constantly and daily to sustain their bodies.  This is a fact of life.  So, this part of your premise is true.  However, the problem with your premise is that you go on further to assume circumstance, specifically unfortunate circumstances, can grant one the right to initiate force against another in order to fulfill a need, that need specifically being survival.  But, you have provided no reason to accept that this fact of life, i.e. the survival needs, grants one property rights. 

 

 

Due to your re-assertion of your premise, you are acting as if we do not understand you.   Yet, you have by your actions refused to answer the important philosophical questions I and many others have asked thus far. 

 

 

This absence of choice you assert exists because life imposes demands upon your body is a false representation of reality.  More importantly, because you are alive, does not mean you are owed life.  If you think otherwise, then from whom are you owed life?

 

 

All these questions serve to inform you that there are contradiction within your premise.  It's on you to discover them and think things through.  We cannot do the thinking for you. i.e. It's on you to answer these questions. 

[Libertyblues]

I'm sorry to make you repeat yourself. For some reason I have a problem with solving the question with your analogical reasoning. Your attacking my premises that the starving man has (or had) indeed a choice. What I'm getting at is: if he only has the choice of forcefully taking food, it cannot be evil.

 

Could you agree with this more precise premises? And can you agree with the conclusion?

 

Ok guys, what's with the (-2) Ratings! Do you think the statement is not true - or do you simply not like the truth? If you don't agree, rebut the premises!

 

Mods, can I have immunity regarding the statement: "if he only has the choice of forcefully taking food, it cannot be evil."?

 

Is there something like immunity for true statements?

[Libertyblues]

Hello guys,

 

Before delving more into the property rights problem I need help with. In the recent FDR radio show "Dusty P3n!s Syndrome" Stef said "with a gun to your head you don't have a moral choice, whe the you go left or right "(at 2:08:30).

 

So in Stef's universal ethics the ability of choice is crucial for being able to act moral. This brings me back to my earlier argument. A starving person has no choice but to initiate force to pluck the apple, so it can't be immoral.

 

Before talking about the implications of this and property rights outside the body, do you guys now agree with my argument?

 

Again here I'm only trying to establish a premises for further argumentation, I don't see why (-2) ratings are justified..

[AncapFTW]

Ok guys, what's with the (-2) Ratings! Do you think the statement is not true - or do you simply not like the truth? If you don't agree, rebut the premises!

 

Mods, can I have immunity regarding the statement: "if he only has the choice of forcefully taking food, it cannot be evil."?

 

Is there something like immunity for true statements?

No, there isn't as far as I know, and you haven't yet proven that it is true, so it wouldn't apply if their was.  How did he get into this situation?  Was it his fault or was it forced on him?  If it was forced on him, then I don't see a problem with stealing from the person(s) that forced it on him.  If he caused it himself (say he spent all of his money for the last week on booze), then he put himself into that situation and others shouldn't be subject to violence to fix his problems.

[Torero]

What I'm getting at is: if he only has the choice of forcefully taking food, it cannot be evil.

 

Could you agree with this more precise premises? And can you agree with the conclusion?

 

What's wrong with peaceful negotiation? Why assume force just from the start on?

 

A homeless starving person is in need of food and has abilities (cleaning, making music, handcraft, translating Swahili, guarding children, whatever) that he can use to swap food for?

 

Win-win, peaceful and the best outcome for both parties.

[Libertyblues]

What's wrong with peaceful negotiation? Why assume force just from the start on?

 

A homeless starving person is in need of food and has abilities (cleaning, making music, handcraft, translating Swahili, guarding children, whatever) that he can use to swap food for?

 

Win-win, peaceful and the best outcome for both parties.

I totally prefer peaceful negotiation, but I'm trying to understand the metaethical problem here..

[Libertyblues]

No, there isn't as far as I know, and you haven't yet proven that it is true, so it wouldn't apply if their was. How did he get into this situation? Was it his fault or was it forced on him? If it was forced on him, then I don't see a problem with stealing from the person(s) that forced it on him. If he caused it himself (say he spent all of his money for the last week on booze), then he put himself into that situation and others shouldn't be subject to violence to fix his problems.

The reason why I don't care about how he got there is that I can't tell whether he's telling the truth or not. My conclusion so far is that it's moral to defend your apple to insure your own survival - and moral to steal it because the starving man has no choice.

[Worlok]

The reason why I don't care about how he got there is that I can't tell whether he's telling the truth or not. My conclusion so far is that it's moral to defend your apple to insure your own survival - and moral to steal it because the starving man has no choice.

 

I'll create a situation for you that I put forth in another thread.

 

Completely libertarian, no government society. You live on a plot of land that you own. Your land is completely surrounded (as almost invariably it would be) by property owned and lived on by others. The next town is 100 miles across a desert with no life. For the benefit of an individual and certainly to those around you, an object is and needs to be built (let's say for scientific purposes) on your land. If you sell your land or allow it to be built on, you will be compensated extremely well and said said object to be constructed will save thousands of lives (just bear with the made up scientific purposes) and benefit the community as a whole. 

 

If you sell the land or sell rights to build on your property, all is well. Instead you decide that everybody can go to tell. In response, everybody decides that, no, you can go to hell. Nobody will let you onto their property, so you can't get to town to buy food. Even if they would, nobody in town will sell you food or do any business with you at all. You don't have the capability to get to the next town on your own. Nobody will have anything to do with you or allow you use of their property for travel or any other purpose unless you allow this object to be built on your property or sell the property. 

 

You are left with two options. 1. Allow construction and use (you absolutely refuse this option) 2. You starve to death or die in some other manner. 

 

In this situation, you have to come to some agreement or steal to survive. Nobody owes you anything. In fact, you are a dick and everybody should hate you. The only moral decision that anybody has to make is your own decision on the construction.

 

 

Here is a separate situation that does't leave you with the incredibly obvious only situation. You live in the same society as the previous example. Except you didn't do anything wrong. You just have an incredibly unpleasant personality that nobody can stand and because they all hate you for this, nobody will do business with you. You are not allowed travel on anybody else's property. You just suck and so everybody is going to ignore you and you are going to starve and die. 

 

You still have a lot of options. Sexual favors, changing your behavior, inflicting self harm for the amusement of others, etc. 

 

 

In a third and final situation, you live in the same society. Now, because everybody else are just jerks and hate you for no reason and refuse to do business with you because they think that it would be hilarious if your starve to death or kill yourself. Not only that, but if you come onto their property (let's say they all have uber security, guard dogs, and sniper towers) they will shoot you. 

 

Your only option becomes not only theft, but use of force, even murder, metal gear style. You gotta kill somebody to get to the other side of property or get to food to steal in the first place. You and the other properties are both on a kill or be killed situation. You can stay on your property and die or initiate force. In fact, you would have to kill several guards to get to the food. 

 

 

All three scenarios are degenerative. They each get consecutively worse. You can come to two types of conclusions. 1. your life is more important than the lives of ten others or it isn't. 2. you have a right to other people's property or you don't. Separately, how realistic is it that the entire society will hate you for no reason and you can't appease them or offer some kind of service?

[AncapFTW]

The reason why I don't care about how he got there is that I can't tell whether he's telling the truth or not. My conclusion so far is that it's moral to defend your apple to insure your own survival - and moral to steal it because the starving man has no choice.

So, if I am a complete asshole to everyone and no one wants to deal with me, it's moral to steal from others to get what I want from them?  It's moral to rape because I'm extremely horny and no woman will willingly sleep with me? 

[Libertyblues]

So, if I am a complete asshole to everyone and no one wants to deal with me, it's moral to steal from others to get what I want from them?  It's moral to rape because I'm extremely horny and no woman will willingly sleep with me? 

You got it bacward. What I'm saying is, until there is enough evidence that you are not a complete asshole - you'll be shot if you get too close to someone without their consent.

 

I feel like people are not reading what I'm writing and just reply to what they think they are reading. Or am I not writing what I'm thinking? Now I'm confused.

[AncapFTW]

You got it bacward. What I'm saying is, until there is enough evidence that you are not a complete asshole - you'll be shot if you get too close to someone without their consent.

 

I feel like people are not reading what I'm writing and just reply to what they think they are reading. Or am I not writing what I'm thinking? Now I'm confused.

"The reason why I don't care about how he got there is that I can't tell whether he's telling the truth or not. My conclusion so far is that it's moral to defend your apple to insure your own survival - and moral to steal it because the starving man has no choice."

 

You specifically said that because you couldn't be sure if the guy was lying about being in the situation due to violence against him or because he brought it on himself, you didn't care how he got there and it was ok for him to steal.  No, not just ok, but moral, ie. good.  So now, because you can't be 100% certain that it was immoral for him to still, it was now moral.

 

Be honest with us, please.  Are you just trolling?  The previous post doesn't even make sense, and you ask why we can't understand what you're saying.  Why would I be shot because no one can prove I'm a complete asshole?  Or are you saying that people can't choose who they will and won't interact with?

[Libertyblues]

"The reason why I don't care about how he got there is that I can't tell whether he's telling the truth or not. My conclusion so far is that it's moral to defend your apple to insure your own survival - and moral to steal it because the starving man has no choice."

 

You specifically said that because you couldn't be sure if the guy was lying about being in the situation due to violence against him or because he brought it on himself, you didn't care how he got there and it was ok for him to steal. No, not just ok, but moral, ie. good. So now, because you can't be 100% certain that it was immoral for him to still, it was now moral.

 

Be honest with us, please. Are you just trolling? The previous post doesn't even make sense, and you ask why we can't understand what you're saying. Why would I be shot because no one can prove I'm a complete asshole? Or are you saying that people can't choose who they will and won't interact with?

OK thanks for insulting me.

 

Oh and thanks for twisting my words. I didn't say: "because you can't be 100% certain that it was immoral for him to still, it was now moral" or "that someone else has to prove you're not an arsewhole". I said:"What I'm saying is, until there is enough evidence that you are not a complete asshole - you'll be shot if you get too close to someone without their consent"

 

Have you ever tried close reading by any chance? Stop trolling me before you've tried that please.

 

This is my threat by the way, I might be a troll magnet but I'm staying right here in my threat.

[Libertyblues]

You got it bacward. What I'm saying is, until there is enough evidence that you are not a complete asshole - you'll be shot if you get too close to someone without their consent.

 

I feel like people are not reading what I'm writing and just reply to what they think they are reading. Or am I not writing what I'm thinking? Now I'm confused.

by the way, what part in this post doesn't make sense? If you are an ancap, as your user name suggests, it should make perfect sense to you - as an ancap you don't even care about the first part of the sentence, you have the right to shoot the guy if he doesn't back off your property.

[tz1]

We need sex too. So if we're particularly starved for physical intimacy, do we get to rape to satisfy that need?

We - our bodies, not genetically - physically die if we don't have sex?  Or do I have the wrong idea of your definition of need?

Those in wheel-chairs that are paralyzed so can't seem to be able to live for several decades and don't die related to complications of this lack.

The more common statement is a case of double effect - it could be an unexpected blizzard and you need to shelter in a cabin in a remote area where you can't ask permission.

I would say you can break in, and when you can return, find the owner and make restitution - because the owner isn't there to give you permission or set a rental fee or whatever, you may proceed as if settled only because it is a threat to life.

The second case is both harder and stranger.  Rarely are you going to be on an island where only two people exist, one has a huge abundance and surplus of food, the other is starving without any access.

Normally there will be multiple people to ask for food or even wild game or plants available.

Another case missed is if the starving person has plenty to exchange with, but the person with the food just doesn't want to part with it.

A better example might be if you will die without a transplant which would be trivially invasive to the donor, but only one person is a tissue match.

[AncapFTW]

by the way, what part in this post doesn't make sense? If you are an ancap, as your user name suggests, it should make perfect sense to you - as an ancap you don't even care about the first part of the sentence, you have the right to shoot the guy if he doesn't back off your property.

All of it.  It's as if you were writing in a foreign language.

[Libertyblues]

I like the blizzard example. Let's say the hobo just runs off without mending the window he broke - if I were the owner I'd see it as an aesthetic moral problem and get a DRO to search for the guy. He'll have a DRO debt which would make it harder for him to get contracts in the future.

[LibertarianSocialist]

I like the blizzard example. Let's say the hobo just runs off without mending the window he broke - if I were the owner I'd see it as an aesthetic moral problem and get a DRO to search for the guy. He'll have a DRO debt which would make it harder for him to get contracts in the future.

I still don't get why you insist on clinging to artificial social constructs like morality? If you want to eat the apple, and you can get away with it, why not? Why would the man support the institutions that would see him starve to death? That is a very irrational slave mentality. If Ayn Rand was a true egoist, she would concede the 'right' action was the one he most desired, and that 'right' as a concept exists distinctly within the mind of each individual only, and not on some 'higher plane'. Again, there exists no 'natural rights' only 'I want' which can be seen through by physical force.

 

Why do you care what Ayn Rand thinks and wants? What do YOU think and want?

[LovePrevails]

The way I understand it now, once someone is bound to starve to death he has the right to initiate force to get food, doesn't he? Ayn Rand deduces the right to act from having the right to live. Problem I have is that I've only heard Stef say that these people only have charity to take care of them..

 

 

It's a flase dichotomy to say either starve to death or steal

[vahleeb]

Lionblue, let me try and adress the original problem as well as provide you with a brief explanation of why I think the discussion went out of control so fast.

 

In your original post you purposefully ask for a Randian explanation to this moral conundrum that you believe to have found by following the letter of her philosophy. I will have to point out, that at some point a fellow boardsman is telling you the answer is in your original post (there's a bolded out piece in a quote), but you don't accept this answer and I understand why.

 

But what I put forth to you is that most people here have moved past the Randian philosophy and cannot argue with you in the confines of that framework. The reason for it is that most people here believe that morality and ethics must be universal and Rand's morality and ethics do not pass this test. It's very likely that this is the exact point you are trying to make, but have just framed it in a way that doesn't convey this message. I suggest that, perhaps, if you want to remain within the confines of Randian philosophy then to take the question to a board that is filled with members who subscribe to her philosphy to the letter. This is not, and the effect is that you are asking a question in chinese, getting an aswer in japonese and then both sides get frustrated over the lack of communication.

 

I'd like to make it clear, though, that I am not advocating for discarding all of the Randian philosophy out of hand. She has given us the best and most recent tools (Steph excluded) for exposing the evil of socialism and for me, personally, her novels were a stepping stone on the path to freedom.