-----Original Message-----
From: Michael S. Lorrey <retroman@together.net>
To: extropians@extropy.com <extropians@extropy.com>
Date: 14 January 1999 16:35
Subject: Re: Property and life
>Samael wrote:
>
>> In other words, I'd tell you that the police would get you, and you
didn't
>> want to kill me.
>
>Ha, thats funny. Say I'm a criminal holding you up. Since I have a silencer
on
>my gun, I just decided to blow your kneecap off to show you I meant
business,
>and nobody heard a thing, so I'm obviously not phased by your yap about
'the
>police are gonna get me'. What are you gonna do now?
In order to do what? We are talking about whether something is right or wrong and how to define morality. Not advance self defence techniques. You were paying attention weren't you?
>> Might doesn't make right. Might gets its own way unless its stopped by
>> other might.
>
>Please stop contradicting yourself, in concurrent sentences, no less.
So, as far as your concerned, if someone gets their own way, they are by definition right?
>> Social conduct isn't arbitrary. Certain actions are sociable and certain
>> aren't. But some actions are anti-social and this is perfectly
reasonable
>> (some libertarians/anarchists don't even believe in society, so they can
>> hardly be expected to follow social conventions, can they?).
>
>Who decides?
Usually social construction become apparent through interaction with a group. Some groups codify these instructions, some don't. These rules generally evolve over time as individual points come up which don't fit the rules. You have interacted with a group before, haven't you?
Oh, and "who decides" was my point. It doesn't matter who decides, you don't have to pay attention to them anyway. You can have your opinion, they can have their opinion and neither of them is absolute. I thought you were arguing for objectivism?
>> Social rules are usually fairly simple - don't lie, don't attack each
other,
>> etc. But they are no use when the person you are dealing with is
antisocial
>> and ignores the conventions you expect them to.
>
>Of course. Its extremely rude of me to carry a concealed firearm which you
never
>know about until the moment you decide to rip me off. Of course, since you
are
>only redistributing wealth which I obviously did not earn (because in your
>opinion it is too much money), then your behavior is socially acceptable
while
>mine is not.
Socially acceptable to which social group?
>Subjectivism is the antithesis of civilized behavior and a free society.
Weren't you just questioning who decided the rules? Either we have rules or we don't. If we don't, then there are no rules (including property rights, self-determination rights, etc.). If we do, then they have to be defined by a person/group/whatever. Which one is it?
Samael