how property rights work
Current time: 12-17-2017, 12:35 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: MrBones
Last Post: MrBones
Replies: 38
Views: 17615

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
how property rights work
03-14-2012, 10:13 AM
Post: #31
RE: how property rights work
Much thanks again, MrBones, for both the dialog and the information (especially in link form). I've read about a third of the Savages/Truly Noble article and am looking forward to some time to finish it. Thanks for kindly correcting my askew assumption about you regarding anarcho-primitivism.

You've mentioned a user WhiteIndian several times. Does he have a regular blog/website/forum he's sharing his thoughts/dialog on, that you know of? [WhiteIndian isn't Jason Godesky...?!? Enquiring Minds need to know... haha] Cool

I found myself this morning with thoughts along the lines of [as an open question to all here]: will I have to come to terms with thinking of 'Property' as a 'necessary evil'? In other words, social life is just inherently/'naturally' messy (to put it cordially) to not accept some aspects of Property, in which ultimately some one's equity interest/claim is inevitably damaged... ?
Is nonUtopian thinking, to calmly accept that contemporary, modern, and/or civilized association requires elements of Property-think (Property-valuing)?
But if so, how might this allowance of "necessary evil" (aka 'practicality'?) differ ultimately from 'restrained' (or "proper") Government' ("minarchy")?
Is it possible to live strictly by asking/considering: "Is it voluntary?" Because ultimately, civilization simply can't naturally (as it "is") accomplish that purity, that ideal? Thus the question of "Is it voluntary?" can only be an ideal, ultimately being utopian-ish, thus ultimately will require essential, to great inequity by some (one)?
Does asking, and thus seeking what is mutually voluntary melt down when it comes to the reality of 'living' socially, where there slips in some element of coercion?
Is subtle coercion inherent (where the 'victor' and the 'concedent', along with all observers, to the "compromise", for Society's sake, tends to simply not see it as such)? Is coercion (a) necessary (evil), when life simply 'is' what it is?

[Image: anon.gif]


ps: MrBones, your username, ever since I first 'heard' it (via my eyes), has me mentally blinking my ears for a refocus; Sleepy I keep thinking, it should be DrBones... as I hear Captain Kirk, addressing Doc McCoy when I read it... Dammit Jim! Big Grin

--NonSpock2ihere
pss: for your consideration, if you've not happened across it already; my usage of the word religion is: a mental state wherein a concept presented by men is taken by others by faith, and believed in to the extent that they are willing to live and give their lives for the belief.
To what extent it is "binding", is of course, a matter of opinion, belief, and/or faith as well (literal vs spiritual etc). Thus religion doesn't have to carry the aspect of enforcement (though it too-often surely does). [I shared some thoughts on it, particularly relevant to this forum, here if you'd like to check it out (there's also a link in that post back to my original post on the matter] I welcome your thoughts on it.

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-14-2012, 11:05 AM (This post was last modified: 03-14-2012 11:32 AM by MrBones.)
Post: #32
RE: how property rights work
(03-14-2012 10:13 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Much thanks again, MrBones, for both the dialog and the information (especially in link form). I've read about a third of the Savages/Truly Noble article and am looking forward to some time to finish it. Thanks for kindly correcting my askew assumption about you regarding anarcho-primitivism.

Hey, no problem! You've given me a 68 page tread to look at. I still have some catching up to do Big Grin

(03-14-2012 10:13 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  You've mentioned a user WhiteIndian several times. Does he have a regular blog/website/forum he's sharing his thoughts/dialog on, that you know of? [WhiteIndian isn't Jason Godesky...?!? Enquiring Minds need to know... haha] Cool

Well, fwiw, WhiteIndian blew my mind. I was minding my own business reading strike-the-root like old folks and their morning newspaper, when BAM! As far as I remember I had some contact with Derrick Jensen prior to being infected by WhiteIndian's point of view, but wasn't hooked. It was something interesting but when Derrick started telling his audience about his questions to the trees and streams I told to myself: this guy has a great provider! At first WhiteIndian sounded ok, a little to cocky and arrogant, but seeing the reaction of the natives of strike-the-root I started to pay attention and ended up reading a lot of stuff about primitivism since. Unfortunately the guys in charge of the site removed WI's point of view (I assume that considering he stopped posting abruptly and his Profile cannot be accessed anymore) from the discussions there (but his posts remain, which is great). What I'm trying to say is that I have no idea who he is (it doesn't seem it might be Jason Godesky, unless he's a schizo or I'm a really bad character judge).

(03-14-2012 10:13 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  I found myself this morning with thoughts along the lines of [as an open question to all here]: will I have to come to terms with thinking of 'Property' as a 'necessary evil'? In other words, social life is just inherently/'naturally' messy (to put it cordially) to not accept some aspects of Property, in which ultimately some one's equity interest/claim is inevitably damaged... ?
Is nonUtopian thinking, to calmly accept that contemporary, modern, and/or civilized association requires elements of Property-think (Property-valuing)?
But if so, how might this allowance of "necessary evil" (aka 'practicality'?) differ ultimately from 'restrained' (or "proper") Government' ("minarchy")?
Is it possible to live strictly by asking/considering: "Is it voluntary?" Because ultimately, civilization simply can't naturally (as it "is") accomplish that purity, that ideal? Thus the question of "Is it voluntary?" can only be an ideal, ultimately being utopian-ish, thus ultimately will require essential, to great inequity by some (one)?
Does asking, and thus seeking what is mutually voluntary melt down when it comes to the reality of 'living' socially, where there slips in some element of coercion?
Is subtle coercion inherent (where the 'victor' and the 'concedent', along with all observers, to the "compromise", for Society's sake, tends to simply not see it as such)? Is coercion (a) necessary (evil), when life simply 'is' what it is?

Maybe my own point of view can assist you in some way. I consider myself indoctrinated, by school, peers, media and unfortunately my own family. What I'm doing now is trying to find out WTH is really going on and what's up with the indoctrination. That's why I engage in this sort of discussions: first and foremost to better myself. Some concepts are really embeded in us, because the indoctrination started when we where children. The simple fact we are continuously searching for reasons to justify the status-quo means, in my mind, that the system is not working.

(03-14-2012 10:13 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  [Image: anon.gif]




ps: MrBones, your username, ever since I first 'heard' it (via my eyes), has me mentally blinking my ears for a refocus; Sleepy I keep thinking, it should be DrBones... as I hear Captain Kirk, addressing Doc McCoy when I read it... Dammit Jim! Big Grin

--NonSpock2ihere

If I'm reading that correctly, I have some explaining to do. No, I'm not WhiteIndian, I'm not even a native english speaker Big Grin. As for the username, I have no idea. Probably my subconscious knows better than me.

(03-14-2012 10:13 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  pss: for your consideration, if you've not happened across it already; my usage of the word religion is: a mental state wherein a concept presented by men is taken by others by faith, and believed in to the extent that they are willing to live and give their lives for the belief.
To what extent it is "binding", is of course, a matter of opinion, belief, and/or faith as well (literal vs spiritual etc). Thus religion doesn't have to carry the aspect of enforcement (though it too-often surely does). [I shared some thoughts on it, particularly relevant to this forum, here if you'd like to check it out (there's also a link in that post back to my original post on the matter] I welcome your thoughts on it.

I'll sure have a look at those threads, but atm I'm all over the place.
To backtrack to the purpose of why I've created this thread, I've came across this article some time ago and I was puzzled. The author states that for claiming ownership it's enough to:
מדע אומלל Wrote:An actor can put an apple in his pocket, or he can erect a nice white picket fence (If the rivalrous resource is land).

This left me puzzled. What happens if I put the posts with 100m spacing in between? Is it the same as 2m spacing? As the quantity of resources needed, it's not the same, that means I can enclose more land with less effort. The implications are very unnerving: some people will be left without land (considering we start at some point in which most land is not claimed). The purpose of Argumentation Ethics is to justify property rights, and the purpose of property rights is to minimize conflict. How exactly is homesteading (in this ludicrous example of mine) acomplishing that? The non-owners will be forced to be the slaves of the owners, or they'll die (by malnutrition or violence).

Another issue that I have with this mentality is the non-moral agents. If someone disagrees with the non-agression principle, he's a non-moral agent. This is also true if someone disagrees with the property rights, because property rights are an extension of one's body so we revert to the previous case. What about wildlife? Is a tiger a non-moral agent? He wants to live too. I want to live, so the choice is obvious, the tiger goes. Is that enough to justify the eradication of the tiger? What about rats, crows, roaches, etc. In this paradigm they are no more than objects, some nice, some despicable. The argumentation is mind boggling: since dolphins don't assert their rights to the ocean, they have no rights. They are too dumb anyway. It's not that we are unable to comprehend their language. It's not that maybe we are the dumb species (at least we're the only species that destroys everything, including us).

Sorry for ranting. Waiting for critiques Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-14-2012, 12:08 PM
Post: #33
RE: how property rights work
(03-14-2012 11:05 AM)MrBones Wrote:  Another issue that I have with this mentality is the non-moral agents. If someone disagrees with the non-agression principle, he's a non-moral agent. This is also true if someone disagrees with the property rights, because property rights are an extension of one's body so we revert to the previous case. What about wildlife? Is a tiger a non-moral agent? He wants to live too. I want to live, so the choice is obvious, the tiger goes. Is that enough to justify the eradication of the tiger? What about rats, crows, roaches, etc. In this paradigm they are no more than objects, some nice, some despicable. The argumentation is mind boggling: since dolphins don't assert their rights to the ocean, they have no rights. They are too dumb anyway. It's not that we are unable to comprehend their language. It's not that maybe we are the dumb species (at least we're the only species that destroys everything, including us).

Sorry for ranting. Waiting for critiques Big Grin

One of the best rants I've read in a long time. Keep it up.

As to moral Vs. non-moral agent (I love the way you phrase it) I pretty much feel morality is a human construct which can be chosen or not. If one chooses to operate within that construct then there are certain rules. If one chooses to operate outside of that construct then there are other rules and those other rules seem to be: eat or be eaten. The issue of conflict between these modes is simple, a moral agent need not worry about his morality when dealing with a non-moral agent, his first concern should be in accord with his opponent - survival.

This may be likened to the idea that a governmental agent is operating at all times on a basis of threatening your life to get compliance with his, or her, wishes. Therefore no consideration whatsoever is due such a person as they are predators and your very life is in danger as long as they are around.

Next. As to property rights in land, I don't see it as a given, as something which is concrete. Life is fluid. Possession of land needs to be as well. This of course makes things much more complicated than simply claiming something and considering it to BE so for all time, but so what? Who said life was simple? The amount of land owned by one person in a small population is not the same as the amount of land owned by that person in a large population. Others may not have "rights" but they are equally alive and do not have less right to access to life than you do. This is especially vivid when that particular piece of land you may "own" might have the only water for miles around. Just because you found it first does not make you so special that you get to exclude others from it. Not if you operate on a moral basis, an empathically based view of others. If you do NOT operate on such a basis, then fine, anyone who has the power to kill you is just as deserving, by your rules, of controlling that water source, so don't come complaining to me about fairness.

- NonE

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-14-2012, 03:21 PM (This post was last modified: 03-15-2012 10:46 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #34
RE: how property rights work
(03-14-2012 11:05 AM)MrBones Wrote:  Maybe my own point of view can assist you in some way. I consider myself indoctrinated, by school, peers, media and unfortunately my own family. What I'm doing now is trying to find out WTH is really going on and what's up with the indoctrination. That's why I engage in this sort of discussions: first and foremost to better myself. Some concepts are really embeded in us, because the indoctrination started when we where children. The simple fact we are continuously searching for reasons to justify the status-quo means, in my mind, that the system is not working.

I can personally, sooo relate to this.
And I think it was Worblux who once noted somewhere on the forum, paraphrasing, that for so many, the indoctrinations become tightly intertwined with who we 'are' (or believe we are/see ourselves, etc), we tend to easily see anything other than perpetuating the status quo/indoctrination as a personal threat, and react accordingly. I add to that, the possibility that one tends to do that same reaction even to one's 'self'. Which makes for some complex, horrific, intimidating and bizarre times (in front of the introspective mirror, mirror, on the wall).

It boggles my mind to think how much different some of current philosophical problems would be if a.) the time I spent learning indoctrination specifics had been spent on logic and reasoning, and b.) I'd had the time spent unknowing what I knew that just wasn't so to spend on reasoning logically consistently.

Quote:
(03-14-2012 10:13 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  ps: MrBones, your username, ever since I first 'heard' it (via my eyes), has me mentally blinking my ears for a refocus; Sleepy I keep thinking, it should be DrBones... as I hear Captain Kirk, addressing Doc McCoy when I read it... Dammit Jim! Big Grin
--NonSpock2ihere

If I'm reading that correctly, I have some explaining to do. No, I'm not WhiteIndian, I'm not even a native english speaker Big Grin.

Apologies, I honestly hadn't had any thought of you being WhiteIndian, actually. (tho now that you mention it, I probably should have! haha, j/k) All I intended was to share how the specific link of two "signals" I saw were coming around. The two being, a.) "Mr" and "Dr", as abbreviations for Mister and Doctor, and b.) "Bones'' vs "Doc" McCoy aka to Capt Kirk as "Bones" --all of that coming from familiarity with the ole original tv show, Star Trek and it's characters.

Quote:As for the username, I have no idea. Probably my subconscious knows better than me.

You were sent her by the Klingons to bewilder and befuddle me!!
[Image: avatar5890430nj3.gif] lol j/k.
[note to self: you really should consider asking MrBones if he knows anything about the tv show Star Trek..]

Quote:
(03-14-2012 10:13 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  ...religion is: a mental state wherein a concept presented by men is taken by others by faith, and believed in to the extent that they are willing to live and give their lives for the belief.
I'll sure have a look at those threads, but atm I'm all over the place.

If I might ask meanwhile, do you find any initial rub with that definition?
I ask simply (or mostly) because you are a newcomer here, and frankly, for a week or so, beginning 3 weeks back, it was a bit of a touchy topic for some here. Where part of the concern was over what impact it might have on newcomers.

Quote:'To backtrack to the purpose of why I've created this thread, I've came across this article some time ago and I was puzzled. The author states that for claiming ownership it's enough to:
[quote]
מדע אומלל Wrote:An actor can put an apple in his pocket, or he can erect a nice white picket fence (If the rivalrous resource is land).
This left me puzzled

That quote, out of context more than likely being why, came across as a near koan for me initially. Akin to the "what is the sound of one hand clapping?". haha. Or at least as to how I was trying to make it via my mind's eye (further reflection, and you writing about it, put some context to it for me, and the puzzle pieces disappeared)
I think both the terms "pocket" and "fence" are interesting to pause and give consideration to, too (not to be confused with a "tutu" --or maybe, it is?! considering NonE is around...). The word pocket is perhaps less of a pointer than the word fence is. But it's possible the both 'signal' the same thing, contextually? Key point here being: to signal; and thus signaling.
Which easily enuff, hopefully, lends to The Sign, of the "No Trespassing" variety? What are these, ultimately, signaling to others, but also to ones self?

We are such signaling creatures. As most animals are, I suppose/propose. [and I nose NonEntity kinda sorta loathes the song, but just for refrain's sake Buddy]: Sign, sign, every where a sign...
In more ways than we tend to see. Just as a triangle shape and octagon shape traffic 'signal', so do "white picket fences" and "pockets"...? What do the last forms signal? I'll offer, that ultimately, they signal: "OR ELSE!" [the bonus trick is of course the generate the word "defense" (not to be confused -necessarily- with de`fence); almost magical in some contexts?]
[Image: aman54l.jpg]
ps: I luv how the author you quoted 'signaled' via the word "actor"! (and speaking of indoctriNationing, us central north americans, with our Hollywoody, can easily run with the word actor! see a certain someone running with "DrBones"...? "Dammit, Jim!!"

Oh, and the individual you quoted, is that name in Hebrew? Or what language is that (if you know, of course)?

Quote:The non-owners will be forced to be the slaves of the owners, or they'll die (by malnutrition or violence).

Spot on. I've read some very provocative and challenging writings over the past couple of years by authors exploring this aspect. [fwiw, I think Thomas Paine was 'dancing' all over this aspect in his "Agrarian" treatise (I think it's titled)]

Quote:Sorry for ranting.

haha! Son, if that's ranting, you'll have noooo problems 'round these here cyber@fenced pastures (hopefully to remain "free ranges")! Rant on, rant on.


ps: totally personal curiosity, but if you'd care to share, what is your native language?

[Image: e6d86334-7920-4bd2-b204-d05e4a5b5c46.jpg]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2012, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 03-15-2012 10:57 AM by MrBones.)
Post: #35
RE: how property rights work
(03-14-2012 12:08 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  One of the best rants I've read in a long time. Keep it up.

As to moral Vs. non-moral agent (I love the way you phrase it) I pretty much feel morality is a human construct which can be chosen or not. If one chooses to operate within that construct then there are certain rules. If one chooses to operate outside of that construct then there are other rules and those other rules seem to be: eat or be eaten. The issue of conflict between these modes is simple, a moral agent need not worry about his morality when dealing with a non-moral agent, his first concern should be in accord with his opponent - survival.

This may be likened to the idea that a governmental agent is operating at all times on a basis of threatening your life to get compliance with his, or her, wishes. Therefore no consideration whatsoever is due such a person as they are predators and your very life is in danger as long as they are around.

I think I've expressed myself inaccurately. The message that I wanted to convey was: some people take property rights as a given (especially when they don't exist even now :huhSmile and are ready to make some new holes in anyone who "doesn't get it". The fancy rhetoric behind an inhumane act is (in this case): non-moral agent. This is total BS since no one has a monopoly on morality (I'm not saying that morality is a hollow notion, just that some guy's subjective morality is no better than some other guy's subjective morality). As I've stated earlier, property rights are a tool to minimize conflict (in fact they are a tool for opression, but that's not the point), but when this dude is marking his argumentative antagonist as a non-moral agent, he is simply saying: "hey, if you don't agree with me on the property rights issue, you can't be reasoned with, so get out of my face, or else...", which totally contradics the objective of property rights in the first place.

I totally agree with you that a government agent has his own agenda, which he may even call moral (subjective again) and most of the times his agenda is in blatant oposition to your wellbeing, and there is little evading from such a person possible since he has a lot of buddies ready to jump in. In this case I would agree that extreme measures are the only measures available. But to say such an individual transgresses on your existence in the same way another individual would do if he simply ignored your
מדע אומלל Wrote:white picket fence
to sustain his basic needs without infringing on your basic needs, is monstrous.

Above I'm using "your", "his" and "he" in an impersonal manner, as a placeholder for the appropriate individual in the context.

(03-14-2012 12:08 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Next. As to property rights in land, I don't see it as a given, as something which is concrete. Life is fluid. Possession of land needs to be as well. This of course makes things much more complicated than simply claiming something and considering it to BE so for all time, but so what? Who said life was simple? The amount of land owned by one person in a small population is not the same as the amount of land owned by that person in a large population. Others may not have "rights" but they are equally alive and do not have less right to access to life than you do. This is especially vivid when that particular piece of land you may "own" might have the only water for miles around. Just because you found it first does not make you so special that you get to exclude others from it. Not if you operate on a moral basis, an empathically based view of others. If you do NOT operate on such a basis, then fine, anyone who has the power to kill you is just as deserving, by your rules, of controlling that water source, so don't come complaining to me about fairness.

- NonE

No objections here...
(03-14-2012 03:21 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  It boggles my mind to think how much different some of current philosophical problems would be if a.) the time I spent learning indoctrination specifics had been spent on logic and reasoning, and b.) I'd had the time spent unknowing what I knew that just wasn't so to spend on reasoning logically consistently.

Even spending your childhood running after a rubber ball in the field with your mates is far superior than being slowly "moronized" by inept teachers that make children jump through hoops for good grades because the children's parents expect good grades.

(03-14-2012 03:21 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Apologies, I honestly hadn't had any thought of you being WhiteIndian, actually. (tho now that you mention it, I probably should have! haha, j/k) All I intended was to share how the specific link of two "signals" I saw were coming around. The two being, a.) "Mr" and "Dr", as abbreviations for Mister and Doctor, and b.) "Bones'' vs "Doc" McCoy aka to Capt Kirk as "Bones" --all of that coming from familiarity with the ole original tv show, Star Trek and it's characters.

No apologies needed but it's nice to interact with someone who doesn't throw virtual bricks at you for saying something that doesn't suit their world view. I appreciate that.

(03-14-2012 03:21 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  You were sent her by the Klingons to bewilder and befuddle me!!
[Image: avatar5890430nj3.gif] lol j/k.
[note to self: you really should consider asking MrBones if he knows anything about the tv show Star Trek..]
<edited>
[Image: e6d86334-7920-4bd2-b204-d05e4a5b5c46.jpg]

About the cultural reference, I had no idea McCoy had a nick "Bones". And yeah, that picture is finally helping me figure out why the boys in Star Trek are wearing jumpsuits Confused

(03-14-2012 03:21 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
(03-14-2012 10:13 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  ...religion is: a mental state wherein a concept presented by men is taken by others by faith, and believed in to the extent that they are willing to live and give their lives for the belief.

If I might ask meanwhile, do you find any initial rub with that definition?
I ask simply (or mostly) because you are a newcomer here, and frankly, for a week or so, beginning 3 weeks back, it was a bit of a touchy topic for some here. Where part of the concern was over what impact it might have on newcomers.

I'm a non-agressive atheist (as opossed to Richard Dawkins). I would say your definition is clearly describing the substance of religion, while mine is describing the form of religion, or how it's manifesting itself. I'm biased on that approach since most people I know that declare themselves to be religious are in fact superstitious (orthodox christians devourers of horoscopes, the occult and other New Age BS).

(03-14-2012 03:21 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  We are such signaling creatures.
<edited>
I'll offer, that ultimately, they signal: "OR ELSE!" [the bonus trick is of course the generate the word "defense" (not to be confused -necessarily- with de`fence); almost magical in some contexts?]
<edited>
Oh, and the individual you quoted, is that name in Hebrew? Or what language is that (if you know, of course)?

I've borrowed your "or else..." in the previous post Big Grin
Yeah, it's magical alright, when reason gets mixed up with mysticism. This reminds me of Pax Romana: let's just ruin everyone before they have a chance to do it to us.
Scroogle translate says it's hebrew, I've just stumbled on that guy's blog because of Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics, which I'm planning to write about in the next post.

(03-14-2012 03:21 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  ps: totally personal curiosity, but if you'd care to share, what is your native language?

It's romanian.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2012, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 03-15-2012 11:13 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #36
RE: how property rights work
(03-15-2012 10:16 AM)MrBones Wrote:  ...he is simply saying: "hey, if you don't agree with me on the property rights issue, you can't be reasoned with, so get out of my face, or else...", which totally contradics the objective of property rights in the first place.

And perhaps also contradicts a (genuinely) voluntary society as well. ?

And reveals a lingering religious dogma/doctrine (clouded by the magic of defining words/terms)?

(whether we might want to make it "so get out of my place", well... ok, my face says the same to those with ears to see how big a face can be...)



[fwiw, I wrote somewhere in the infamous "Private Property" thread, that ultimately 'Natural Law' (aka 'gravity') only establishes private property in land as the maximum of approx. "two feet" aka your left and your right foot; observation of course, takes it from there to the avg 6 ft needed when Muther Nature, by Law anoints one with sleep (and how many feet one'll want when She "anoints" one with diarrhea... well, doG only nose...); butt back to those basics, the other aspect of this 'Natural Law' is that indeed, we're (generally) also anointed with the cognitive capacity to move those 2 feet=approx 4'; unlike say a tree; extrapolation, aka reasoning with logical consistency seems to be the next 'Natural Law' --or not (aka the State of war by degree decree... aka "private property claim"? aka each one's "OR ELSE!" ?)]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2012, 11:46 AM
Post: #37
RE: how property rights work
This is in short what Argumentation Ethics (AE) is all about:

Source
BlazingTruth Wrote:a. The Axiom of Argumentation: Humans argue.
b. Argumentation requires that those involved in the debate must be alive and affirming or preserving life.
c. Argumentation requires that to deny the value of affirming or preserving life during argumentation is self-contradictory, so the opposite assertion, that life should be affirmed or preserved, is therefore axiomatic.
d. If Argumentation requires that life should be affirmed or preserved, then that which affirms or preserves life, like being able to own that which you originally appropriate (mutually excludable resources like food, water and shelter), must be axiomatic by Modus Tollens.
e. Argumentation requires that property rights theory can only be justified if it systematizes how to avoid violence / conflicts over mutually excludable resources and, conversely, a property rights theory that attempts to justify violence / conflict over mutually excludable resources is self-contradictory and therefore invalid.
f. Argumentation requires that property rights theory use an objective link between a particular person and a particular mutually excludable resource in order to eliminate conflicting valid claims, and therefore avoid violence / conflict over mutually excludable resources.
g. Argumentation requires that property rights theory use the first use / homesteading principle because that is the only means to establish the objective link between each person and his mutually excludable resource, thereby avoiding conflict.

My only objection is with premise d: this is a non sequitur because if we asume that the 2 parties (at least) involved in the argumentation don't have enough scarce resources to continue to both exist in the near future, arugmentation is pointless anyway, there is no means to avoid conflict, unless one of the involved decides to self sacrifice (which would mean that argumentation is not required since there is no conflict). If the resources are scarce on the long run, argumentation is a means to split the resources, but it doesn't require ownership of the resources consumed. As I've stated earlier, property rights don't exist in the present, which would mean, if this premise were true, we would all be dead by now. To better illustrate this last point, we all pay to exist. In the way the current system works, if you don't work for a living you are condemned to sleep in the sewer, eat from the trash and/or beg for food. Even agents of the state work for a living, from the lowly to the top, for maintaing the status quo and the smooth functioning of their parasitism. This paying means we are all tennants, we don't own, we borrow, so what we consume to continue to exist belongs to someone else, but they are kind enough to let us consume their resources for a modest fee (the only true scarce resource each of us truly posses, and the most valuable of them all: our time).

Premise e already limits property rights to abundant resources, so the homesteading principle (as it is used by mainstream libertarians) looks shaky at this point. If you have more than what you need, this premise becomes invalid if you refuse someone in need to offer something you have in abundance (and is not readily available outside your property), so your property rights on the conflicted resources become void (according to this syllogism).

Premise g is a little vague since it doesn't define how homesteading works. But since it can only be applied to mutually excludable resources, I have no issues with it.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2012, 12:37 PM
Post: #38
RE: how property rights work
(03-15-2012 11:46 AM)MrBones Wrote:  Premise g is a little vague since it doesn't define how homesteading works. But since it can only be applied to mutually excludable resources, I have no issues with it.

If my brain were capable of functioning I'd be making a coherent reply to your post. Sigh. Oh well. But at least let me point to the last statement (shown above) and ask you this, do you not have any issues with one person "homesteading" the only water hole in the area?

And also let me state that I'm enjoying the thoughtfulness you are bringing to the table here at Marc's Bistro and Philosophical Buffet.

- NonEntirelyHere

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2012, 01:40 PM (This post was last modified: 03-15-2012 02:23 PM by MrBones.)
Post: #39
RE: how property rights work
(03-15-2012 12:37 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(03-15-2012 11:46 AM)MrBones Wrote:  Premise g is a little vague since it doesn't define how homesteading works. But since it can only be applied to mutually excludable resources, I have no issues with it.

<edited>do you not have any issues with one person "homesteading" the only water hole in the area?

I do have a problem in this case, but I consider it non aplicable to premise g since it's not a mutually excludable resource. This is what I understand mutually excludable resource to be: any resource that can be shared in a way that avoids conflict. For instance, sharing an apple on an empty stomach wouldn't cut it. It much too little to be of any use to any of the parties in its entirety, let alone split in 2, 3, etc. In this case, if only one apple stands between life and death, conflict is unavoidable. If the resource is an apple tree, I would consider that mutually excludable because there is so much apples one can eat without getting sick. The immediate need for food is satisfied by an apple tree (if it's not barren). Urgency of the need is important. If you need it NOW, argumentation is pointless, no one in a real situation would ask you for permission, just like a drowning man would cling to anyone nearby trying to save himself (even if that means drowining someone who can save himself).

This doesn't mean my understanding of the notion is the same as Hoppe's, in which case what I'm saying is irrelevant.

(03-15-2012 12:37 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  And also let me state that I'm enjoying the thoughtfulness you are bringing to the table here at Marc's Bistro and Philosophical Buffet.

It's a good place to be, the joy is mutual Big Grin
Just realised that my above explanation doesn't really explain anything whithout some considerations: by water hole I have in mind access to water, not the water itself. Declaring property to the means to a resource means everyone else will be denied access to that resource. What I wanted next to say in my example about apples, is that by "apple tree" I was refering to the harvest of the tree, the multitude of fruits in the tree, not the tree itself. You can't "homestead" the tree, consequently claim property over it and leave free access to it's harvest to passer-by's, both at the same time.

In my previous post the example was virtually identical to the water hole situation, that's why I needed to clarify things.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)