Since you already know about what's ANCAP, I'm not gonna copy/paste the short explanation here.
So:
Universally if you need or want something and you can't afford it, you can ask the owner to lend it for free, or if you could pay later, or you could ask a friend, or you could make a fund raiser, or whatever.
Stealing is a non justifiable act, breaking the Non Aggrsion Principle because it's assault.
Can Stealing never bring any good (meaning that it makes a group of people as a whole worse off)?
No. There ABSOLUTELY are situations where stealing something to quick-fix a problem that can't be postponed is not only the best, but even the ONLY action that can be taken (obviously later on whoever stole must face the consequences of such action, which it's not given that it should be a punishment; the Justice system is always so fixated on punishment...), but this is the EXCEPTION to the rule that, in reality, thieves don't do it just to stay alive.
In your example you failed to describe many aspects of the world where it takes place, leaving thus an incomplete context.
So, I'm gonna assume that it's in feudal Europe, where, as with any other government, the citizens are slaves of the Political class and their lives, labor and its fruits is instead "property" (unjustified because stolen) of the Politicians.
Should a slave steal from its master, even kill the master, if it means freedom? Yes, because the mere act of owning slaves is aggression.
Was the farmer justified in that scenario you described?
Yes, because he was a slave to his Politician.
Does this mean that the farmer had no fault for the famine?
You didn't give data for that, so:
>if it wasn't his fault at all, then ok.
>if it was the result of his actions, then at least he had to excuse himself and learn from his own mistakes.
"You never decided to be yourself, but you are and still remain yourself regardless if you could ever decide so."
This means that, regardless of what anyone decides, we're our Nature shaped by our Nurture. The universe is a Fatalistic body, where Laplace's Demon could work.
The Law is described in its own structure, Logic, using Logic to extract Laws from First Principles.
Nobody has the ability to create, destroy or change Laws.
Life is predicted and expected by its own making (by the characteristics of the universe itself).
Yeah, obviously we'd expect to find life in the universe where life exists (because we are here), but what this means is that Life itself is an aspect of the universe, and that Life itself as a whole has a goal: persistence.
It doesn't matter how it's achieved, just that the goal is pursued, and the "victors" or whatever you wanna call it are those tendrils of life that manage to keep on living, as long as possible, to reach eternity.
"Something something heat death" we don't know that, we can just make this prediction early on because of the data we own right now.
Anyways, returning on the topic of Law & Order:
One either accepts the fact that The Law is extrapolated from First Principles by using Logic, or admits that, after all the reasons they could ever give, their belief boils down to "might makes right", where the legitimacy of a "law" (arbitration) is described by the ability to do harm of the entity imposing it.
Consequentialism and Kantianism are both flawed Philosophies because they're made from the Top Down (from previously-owned beliefs, trying to build a foundation) instead than from the Bottom Up (from observation of the world, using Science to create the data needed as base for any beliefs).
Yes, there are shortcomings to ANCAP, but these shortcomings are present in ALL other Political Philosophies that may ever exist in this universe.
To point out what may not be allowed under ANCAP, declaring it a "moral failure" or whatever, and then use it as a justification to move to a worse system is Illogical and thus WRONG.
Yes, as said before even under ANCAP Stealing is not an ABSOLUTE wrong, but it's still wrong. Why?
Mainly because of the N.A.P., but if you want to reject it out of Illogical reasons, it's also wrong because if Stealing was the norm then everyone would steal from each other instead of trading or working for things.
Now, I could say more, but I believe that here there's everything needed for this topic. I hope to get a response and that YouTube doesn't just shadowban this comment or automatically delete it (yes, it happens even with comments that aren't just gross insults).
Isaac Clarke
Comment backup from the video https://youtu.be/rv-R3K01sTc on the 25-03-2023.
ANCAP here.
Since you already know about what's ANCAP, I'm not gonna copy/paste the short explanation here.
So:
Universally if you need or want something and you can't afford it, you can ask the owner to lend it for free, or if you could pay later, or you could ask a friend, or you could make a fund raiser, or whatever.
Stealing is a non justifiable act, breaking the Non Aggrsion Principle because it's assault.
Can Stealing never bring any good (meaning that it makes a group of people as a whole worse off)?
No. There ABSOLUTELY are situations where stealing something to quick-fix a problem that can't be postponed is not only the best, but even the ONLY action that can be taken (obviously later on whoever stole must face the consequences of such action, which it's not given that it should be a punishment; the Justice system is always so fixated on punishment...), but this is the EXCEPTION to the rule that, in reality, thieves don't do it just to stay alive.
In your example you failed to describe many aspects of the world where it takes place, leaving thus an incomplete context.
So, I'm gonna assume that it's in feudal Europe, where, as with any other government, the citizens are slaves of the Political class and their lives, labor and its fruits is instead "property" (unjustified because stolen) of the Politicians.
Should a slave steal from its master, even kill the master, if it means freedom? Yes, because the mere act of owning slaves is aggression.
Was the farmer justified in that scenario you described?
Yes, because he was a slave to his Politician.
Does this mean that the farmer had no fault for the famine?
You didn't give data for that, so:
>if it wasn't his fault at all, then ok.
>if it was the result of his actions, then at least he had to excuse himself and learn from his own mistakes.
"You never decided to be yourself, but you are and still remain yourself regardless if you could ever decide so."
This means that, regardless of what anyone decides, we're our Nature shaped by our Nurture. The universe is a Fatalistic body, where Laplace's Demon could work.
The Law is described in its own structure, Logic, using Logic to extract Laws from First Principles.
Nobody has the ability to create, destroy or change Laws.
Life is predicted and expected by its own making (by the characteristics of the universe itself).
Yeah, obviously we'd expect to find life in the universe where life exists (because we are here), but what this means is that Life itself is an aspect of the universe, and that Life itself as a whole has a goal: persistence.
It doesn't matter how it's achieved, just that the goal is pursued, and the "victors" or whatever you wanna call it are those tendrils of life that manage to keep on living, as long as possible, to reach eternity.
"Something something heat death" we don't know that, we can just make this prediction early on because of the data we own right now.
Anyways, returning on the topic of Law & Order:
One either accepts the fact that The Law is extrapolated from First Principles by using Logic, or admits that, after all the reasons they could ever give, their belief boils down to "might makes right", where the legitimacy of a "law" (arbitration) is described by the ability to do harm of the entity imposing it.
Consequentialism and Kantianism are both flawed Philosophies because they're made from the Top Down (from previously-owned beliefs, trying to build a foundation) instead than from the Bottom Up (from observation of the world, using Science to create the data needed as base for any beliefs).
Yes, there are shortcomings to ANCAP, but these shortcomings are present in ALL other Political Philosophies that may ever exist in this universe.
To point out what may not be allowed under ANCAP, declaring it a "moral failure" or whatever, and then use it as a justification to move to a worse system is Illogical and thus WRONG.
Yes, as said before even under ANCAP Stealing is not an ABSOLUTE wrong, but it's still wrong. Why?
Mainly because of the N.A.P., but if you want to reject it out of Illogical reasons, it's also wrong because if Stealing was the norm then everyone would steal from each other instead of trading or working for things.
Now, I could say more, but I believe that here there's everything needed for this topic. I hope to get a response and that YouTube doesn't just shadowban this comment or automatically delete it (yes, it happens even with comments that aren't just gross insults).
I wish no ill intent.
2 years ago | [YT] | 0