Jackson LaRose: wilderness:It's sitting in the shed. I'm not physically restraining it. It is standing up, leaning against the wall. Somebody could sneak in there right now and take it and I would never know as it is even out of my view at the moment. But you have still made an effort (albeit slighter than locking it in a vault) to prevent that from happening. You are still trying (somewhat) to prevent the item from being taken. It is still in your control.
wilderness:It's sitting in the shed. I'm not physically restraining it. It is standing up, leaning against the wall. Somebody could sneak in there right now and take it and I would never know as it is even out of my view at the moment.
But you have still made an effort (albeit slighter than locking it in a vault) to prevent that from happening. You are still trying (somewhat) to prevent the item from being taken. It is still in your control.
No. It's in the shed at the moment because it is snowing outside and I don't want the weather to ebb and flow (cold and hot) to damage the wood, plus the water damage to the wood (snow) and steel (rust). Sometimes I leave it out front, like my jeep is right now (though I can't see it at all). It's not in my physical possession nor physically am I controlling it. Nor am I owning it in the physical sense of power. Yet to all of these in the abstract sense, yes, I do possess a rake, control (I don't know if that is possible abstractly), and I do own a rake - all in the abstract sense. Now ethically that also a whole other story, but it is yes to each one again.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:Therefore I still own the rake even when somebody else takes control of it physically. How does the fact that you can put a rake in a shed prove that you can still own something after another acting individual has taken physical possession of it. You said therefore, so I assumed you were using a former statement to qualify this one.
wilderness:Therefore I still own the rake even when somebody else takes control of it physically.
How does the fact that you can put a rake in a shed prove that you can still own something after another acting individual has taken physical possession of it. You said therefore, so I assumed you were using a former statement to qualify this one.
As the story went, somebody came to my front door and asked to borrow the rake, but I was cooking lunch at the time and the shed is out back, therefore I didn't have physical possession of the rake but I do have (possess) a rake in the abstract sense.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:Slight difference but they overlap on occasion as one could be used as the definition of the other. The slight difference is when I read "own" I see control emphasized a bit more. So when you put the rake in the shed, you no longer own it.
wilderness:Slight difference but they overlap on occasion as one could be used as the definition of the other. The slight difference is when I read "own" I see control emphasized a bit more.
So when you put the rake in the shed, you no longer own it.
I see what you are asking, so, I can see that own also has the quality of being identified with somebody, but that still isn't ethically speaking.
Jackson LaRose:Also, when you lend out your rake, you no longer own it. Is that fair to say, using your definition?
Three qualifiers first. 1- I own it as it has the "quality of being identified with somebody (me)"(as I said above) 2 - It is also now identified with a second person (the one who borrowed the rake) 3 - Both 1 and 2 denote control and use. I use it and so does the borrow, but at this time the borrower is using the rake. 4 - I know I said three only, but 4 is concerning the fact that I could make ethical propositions for each of these events but I have been refraining from that for the most part unless otherwise said so.
I hope I didn't miss anything as it's getting a bit complicated with these qualifiers don't want to have to pull out any graphs! I might need them to understand the jibberish I'm writing. lol j/k
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:People choose to do what is impossible a lot, like bad economics. Such Keynesian brands don't follow logically from premises but people bang their heads on the wall every day at the Fed. trying to do the impossible. Spend ones way out of a recession! Illogical. Yeah, I guess I can see that. But from a determinist stand point there are things we can't choose, like when we get a song stuck in our heads. I know it's a crappy example, but I'm not too well versed in determinism to give better ones.
wilderness:People choose to do what is impossible a lot, like bad economics. Such Keynesian brands don't follow logically from premises but people bang their heads on the wall every day at the Fed. trying to do the impossible. Spend ones way out of a recession! Illogical.
Yeah, I guess I can see that. But from a determinist stand point there are things we can't choose, like when we get a song stuck in our heads. I know it's a crappy example, but I'm not too well versed in determinism to give better ones.
ok
filc:So how does your definition apply when matter is not scarce, time is not scarce, and we need not occupy matter and time to satisfy needs or desires? In that situation would your definition still stand?
My definition of what? Property? Well, I think the concept of property is bologna anyways, so I'm not quite sure what you are driving at. But yeah, as a description of the concept, it would still stand. We have the word "nothing", but I've never truly experienced "nothing". The concept still exists, though.
filc:Also can you answer my question about the selling of someone else's property without their consent?
Yeah, sorry about that buddy. Now let's see here, you mean this one?
filc:Can I sell someone else's property without their consent and while not violating their rights?
What rights?
Jackson LaRose: Property: 1. a. Something owned; a possession. b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property. c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
Property:
1.
a. Something owned; a possession.
b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
a is not ethical.
b is not ethical
c is an effort at an ethical proposition though flawed but I don't want Stranger coming in here arguing about copyrights, etc...
If I can sparse out two none ethical definitions from a dictionary source without referring to theory and intellectual principles then I think that's not too shabby.
wilderness:I see what you are asking, so, I can see that own also has the quality of being identified with somebody, but that still isn't ethically speaking.
If ownership is now a matter of abstract possession, the moment the rake left that possession, once someone took it (borrowed is an ethical statement) from your control (however abstract) why would the item continue to be identified with you, unless ownership implied possession beyond the physical?
wilderness:a is not ethical.
Now you are relying on your personal interpretation of the word "own". To me, a, b, and c are ethical definitions.
So that's 3 to 1 for "property", and 4 to 2 for "ownership" and "property" in my book
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:a is not ethical. Now you are relying on your personal interpretation of the word "own". To me, a, b, and c are ethical definitions.
It's always a personal interpretation, ie. human action is axiomatic.
Jackson LaRose:So that's 3 to 1 for "property", and 4 to 2 for "ownership" and "property" in my book
lol... too bad semantics isn't an intellectual argument about a theory or whatnot.
wilderness:It's always a personal interpretation, ie. human action is axiomatic.
Hey, can't argue with that.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:I see what you are asking, so, I can see that own also has the quality of being identified with somebody, but that still isn't ethically speaking. If ownership is now a matter of abstract possession,
If ownership is now a matter of abstract possession,
I believe you may be thinking too narrowly. To confine a word to only one definition is to lose out on the terms ability to point out various complex variables. For instance, when I say snow so much can come to mind all dealing with the one term snow: cold, white, black (when ash mixes with it), soft, ice, geometric designs, etc.... But mind you I only said one word: snow.
Jackson LaRose:the moment the rake left that possession, once someone took it (borrowed is an ethical statement)
true. borrowed is. good point.
Jackson LaRose:from your control (however abstract) why would the item continue to be identified with you, unless ownership implied possession beyond the physical?
Because the rake was taken from me.
Jackson LaRose:My definition of what? Property? Well, I think the concept of property is bologna anyways, so I'm not quite sure what you are driving at. But yeah, as a description of the concept, it would still stand. We have the word "nothing", but I've never truly experienced "nothing". The concept still exists, though.
So if objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and we did not need to employ objects over time to satisfy needs what would your definition apply to?
Jackson LaRose: filc:Also can you answer my question about the selling of someone else's property without their consent? Yeah, sorry about that buddy. Now let's see here, you mean this one? filc:Can I sell someone else's property without their consent and while not violating their rights? What rights?
I'm asking vaguely, using YOUR definition of property. What can you tell me about the above question. I don't believe it is that cryptic. You say that ethics and rights are inherent to property, now you appear to be weaseling out of a related question? Are you just confused or evasive? Forgive me if I am too forward with my accusation but my previous experiences with you have been most unpleasant.
wilderness:Because the rake was taken from me.
Why does that matter? If you no longer possess the rake, you no longer own it.
filc:So if objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and we did not need to employ objects over time to satisfy needs what would your definition apply to?
Some strange, "what if" concept, sort of like "the Eighth Dimension", or "the devil", or "unicorn". Just because something can be conceptualized, doesn't mean it actually has to exist.
filc:now you appear to be weaseling out of a related question?
How is it weaseling if I think the concepts of rights, ethics, and property are all equally bull-crappy?
filc:Forgive me if I am too forward with my accusation but my previous experiences with you have been most unpleasant.
So why we keep corresponding, if you don't like it (at least a little)?
Jackson LaRose:Some strange, "what if" concept, sort of like "the Eighth Dimension", or "the devil", or "unicorn". Just because something can be conceptualized, doesn't mean it actually has to exist.
Whether it's capable of being true or not is besids the point. IT shows that it's concept is not arbitrary. It's the same for the definition of gravity. If there was no gravity, if large bodies of mass did not attract other bodies of mass we w ould not have that definition . Whether it's a fairy tale notion or not is irrelevent. That is the fundamental point of defining objectional things. The observation that we see. In the absence there of, we have no definiotion, no tangible object to build from.
And in all that you still evaded my question. Try agian.
Jackson LaRose:How is it weaseling if I think the concepts of rights, ethics, and property are all equally bull-crappy?
Ahh ok so I was confused. Since you conflate property with rights, and you are an ethical/moral nihilist you likewise wish to abandon the concept of property.
What would you use in it's place?
You however cannot denounce rights. They, like property, will exist in one form or another and arguing as such will bring you into a semantical debate again as shown above. You have to explain to us why murdering someone would be right or wrong, without it being an ethical argument. Or do you not care about murder? Do you yourself not care to be murdered? And if you answer that how is it not an ethical response?
Here's some more quotes to point out some things:
".... and every man having a property in his own person..." [Elisha Williams; 1744] That one to point out that there is a tradition based on definitions that are old. So I'm not, nor was Rothbard, defining property in a different way than it had been.
"every person owns his own physical body as well as all nature-given goods" [Hoppe]
"...every man has a property in his own person." [John Locke]
"As long as an individual remains isolated, then, there is no problem whatever about how far his property-his ownership-extends; as a rational being with free will, it extends over his own body, and it extends further over the material goods which he transforms with his labor." [Rothbard] Now he says "no problem" because he then goes on to resolve the ethical issue when another person shows up. That's what ethics inquiries: interpersonal relations.
filc:If there was no gravity, if large bodies of mass did not attract other bodies of mass we w ould not have that definition .
So I think you are saying that concepts need to exist before they are defined? I disagree with that.
filc:That is the fundamental point of defining objectional things. The observation that we see. In the absence there of, we have no definiotion, no tangible object to build from.
Again, what about stuff that is made up?
filc:And in all that you still evaded my question. Try agian.
What was the question?
Oh yeah. It would apply to matter that individuals decided to attach rights to. How would your definition work?
filc:you are an ethical/moral nihilist you likewise wish to abandon the concept of property.
Ideally, I'd like to abandon all concepts, but it's really hard.
filc:What would you use in it's place?
Hmm, probably nothing.
filc:You however cannot denounce rights.
Why not?
filc:You have to explain to us why murdering someone would be right or wrong, without it being an ethical argument.
I don't think it's right or wrong, it just is.
filc:Or do you not care about murder?
I guess it depends.
filc:Do you yourself not care to be murdered?
No, I'd rather not be.
filc:And if you answer that how is it not an ethical response?
Why does it have to be?
wilderness:That's what ethics inquiries: interpersonal relations.
This is an important point. As even Crusoe must shelter his tools by placing them outside of the rain. He is exhibiting ownership of property by these actions but ethics never are involved, as he is alone on the island.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:Because the rake was taken from me. Why does that matter? If you no longer possess the rake, you no longer own it.
I possess a rake still. I still have one. Somebody took it from me, but I'll go and take it back.
There is always the question of "who" is performing the action. Human action isn't abstract it is based on all individuals that have names, ie. wilderness, Jackson, filc, etc.... So call it Jackson action if you want (nice ring to it...lol), but the "who" is identifying who took the action.
filc: wilderness:That's what ethics inquiries: interpersonal relations. This is an important point. As even Crusoe must shelter his tools by placing them outside of the rain. He is exhibiting ownership of property by these actions but ethics never are involved, as he is alone on the island.
Not from an aristotilean point of view - even explicitly non-interpersonal contexts involve ethics by that account, simply in terms of prudence for survival and flourishing.
Jackson LaRose:Again, what about stuff that is made up?
Whats made up about the fact that we live in a scarce world, of scarce time, and seek to employ scarce objects over time to satisfy our desires?
Jackson LaRose:So I think you are saying that concepts need to exist before they are defined? I disagree with that.
Sorry I must have confused you. I mean that in the absence of gravity, the definition would be meaningless. In the absence of scarcity, property would be meaningless. Rights have nothing to do with it at that point.
Jackson LaRose: filc:So if objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and we did not need to employ objects over time to satisfy needs what would your definition apply to? Oh yeah. It would apply to matter that individuals decided to attach rights to. How would your definition work?
But if individuals assign a right to an object it implies that it is scarce, and that the individual seeks to employ or occupy that object for some felt desire. So you are just now back to the definition of property. And we are back to the fact that you just take issue with the simple word, yet cannot refute the reality that is. That is, we live in a world whith scarce objects, scarce time, and the need to occupy scarce objects over time to satisfy needs or desires.
Jackson LaRose:Ideally, I'd like to abandon all concepts, but it's really hard.
What good would that do anything? Of what harm is a concept? Was the concept of flight, which ultimately lead to the success of the wright brothers a bad concept? Is the concept of high speed transportation a bad concept?
Also, Do you not see that you are making an ethical statement when you say that you want to abandon concepts?
Jackson LaRose: filc:Or do you not care about murder? I guess it depends.
Well the depends implies that you have a concept which applies in context. What would it depend on?
Jackson LaRose: filc:And if you answer that how is it not an ethical response? Why does it have to be?
Why is black black? Why is the sky blue? Why are we stuck dealing with the facts of reality? Calling the sky red does not actually make it red. It does not change the color of the sky.
Semantically changing the name or playing mind tricks with yourself to ignore the state of reality does not change it so. Pretending that you are not making value judgements in the above responses does not change the fact that you do indeed make value judgement, in nearly everything that you do there is a value judgement.
You cannot the ignore praxeological structure of man, nor can you break the praxeological structure of yourself. All you've done is pretended to ignore it.
If you truly did not care, had no ethical quarrel as such than you would not be here on this forum discussing with us.
People always conceive (conceptualize) the world. That can't be changed as long as you are human. It is impossible. That, as well, is beyond our power.
Brainpolice: filc: wilderness:That's what ethics inquiries: interpersonal relations. This is an important point. As even Crusoe must shelter his tools by placing them outside of the rain. He is exhibiting ownership of property by these actions but ethics never are involved, as he is alone on the island. Not from an aristotilean point of view - even explicitly non-interpersonal contexts involve ethics by that account, simply in terms of prudence for survival and flourishing.
I thought about that after I posted. Where does virtue and excellence in ones own doing fit into an ethical framework? It may, but that is beside the point of what filc mentioned about placing tools outside of the rain, etc... Point well taken. I believe I was wrong on the definition of ethics by limiting it too narrowly.
filc:...in nearly everything that you do there is a value judgement.
Are the exceptions involuntarily actions, ie. breathing, heartbeat, etc...? Which differs from human action which all of such is a value judgment correct?
wilderness:Are the exceptions involuntarily actions, ie. breathing, heartbeat, etc...? Which differs from human action which all of such is a value judgment correct?
Precisely!
filc:He is exhibiting ownership of property
It depends on your understanding of the terms "ownership" and "property".
wilderness:I possess a rake still.
How can that be? You no longer physically posses it directly, no longer even in the abstract sense. It is directly possessed by another individual, so according to your own definition:
Jackson LaRose:If by you "own" you are simply saying "physically posses", than I would agree that the use is non-ethical.
wilderness:That's what I mean. Great. We agree.
I don't see how you can claim possession anymore.
wilderness:Somebody took it from me, but I'll go and take it back.
I don't see how this applies to "ownership" by your definition.
wilderness:There is always the question of "who" is performing the action. Human action isn't abstract it is based on all individuals that have names, ie. wilderness, Jackson, filc, etc.... So call it Jackson action if you want (nice ring to it...lol), but the "who" is identifying who took the action.
I don't understand how this applies to our discussion.
Jackson LaRose: filc:He is exhibiting ownership of property It depends on your understanding of the terms "ownership" and "property".
Well at the very least he is exhibiting possession or control over a scarce object, over time, to satisfy his end. What you decide to call it in the end is irrelevant. You can choose to ignore the word property, you can pretend it doesn't exist, but you can never escape the praxeological nature of man, or the praxeological nature of yourself.
The truth is you, yourself, have ends that need to be met. To get to those ends you must employ scarce goods to do so. The toddler realizes this as well. Sorry these truths are so disturbing for you.
Because one of the tenants of property is human action, the occupation or employment of the object. The physical activity, the possession there in.
filc:Whats made up about the fact that we live in a scarce world, of scarce time, and seek to employ scarce objects over time to satisfy our desires?
Nothing.
filc:I mean that in the absence of gravity, the definition would be meaningless. In the absence of scarcity, property would be meaningless.
Is the definition of a unicorn meaningless?
filc:But if individuals assign a right to an object it implies that it is scarce
Not necessarily.
filc:What good would that do anything?
Hey man, I don't judge your goals.
filc:Also, Do you not see that you are making an ethical statement when you say that you want to abandon concepts?
No, I don't see that. I'm not making a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of holding concepts.
filc:What would it depend on?
I dunno, I haven't really thought about it.
filc:Why is black black? Why is the sky blue?
That's how your brain interprets its perceived phenomena, I suppose.
filc:Semantically changing the name or playing mind tricks with yourself to ignore the state of reality does not change it so.
I'm sorry, I'm incapable of perceiving "true" reality (if there is such a thing), so I'd have to abstain from making a judgment here.
filc:If you truly did not care, had no ethical quarrel as such than you would not be here on this forum discussing with us.
I'm just trying to challenge my held opinions and beliefs, in an attempt to annihilate them.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:I possess a rake still. How can that be? You no longer physically posses it directly, no longer even in the abstract sense. It is directly possessed by another individual, so according to your own definition: Jackson LaRose:If by you "own" you are simply saying "physically posses", than I would agree that the use is non-ethical. wilderness:That's what I mean. Great. We agree. I don't see how you can claim possession anymore.
Because I said in a previous post, too, that I can possess a rake if it is in my shed (which means I don't physically possess it, I don't physically have it in my hands - it's in the shed). So even if another person has the rake I still possess it just like I possess the rake if it is in the shed and out of my physical hands. The other person now possesses the rake in their hands. We both possess the rake at this point. I possess it because it is in their hands which is the same as saying I possess it cause it is in the shed. In both instances I don't physically possess the rake but I have (possess) a rake. The other person might try to stop me from getting the rake back but that would be an ethical issue.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:Somebody took it from me, but I'll go and take it back. I don't see how this applies to "ownership" by your definition.
When I take it back, I control/own the rake. Consider this the last post, not that it hasn't been fun, but your not keeping up with all the definitions that you've asked of me and that I've posted already. So if you really wanted to know all these definitions to learn them you would know I already stated own=control; and it's easy to understand that take back incorporates control. It is a goal of mine to walk to the rake that is in the hands of another person and take it back. The goal of walking to the rake is praxeological as I use the means of my property (body) to get from here to there, etc....
Semantics is not an intellectual argument. Of course it's good to learn the definitions of others but beyond moderation of such a use it becomes unnecessarily sacrificial of what is intellectually stimulating especially when semantic expeditions become repetitive. Nothing against you. My time is prioritized and when something gets too repetitive it takes away from the time I could be using to learn something new. It's not cost effective. Plus I like unique experiences full of new splashy, colorful insights, not that you don't offer that but the discussion has dried up and I could simply start linking you back to previous posts we had already agreed upon when it had to these definitions. Time to refresh the old hum-drum.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:There is always the question of "who" is performing the action. Human action isn't abstract it is based on all individuals that have names, ie. wilderness, Jackson, filc, etc.... So call it Jackson action if you want (nice ring to it...lol), but the "who" is identifying who took the action. I don't understand how this applies to our discussion.
Because the previous responses were this:
me does matter. Jackson does matter. filc does matter. When it comes to who is taking the action, to name who it is provides the point of reference as to who is taking the action. The rake was taken from me. I go take the rake back. Why did I take the rake back? Because it is my rake. I have a rake it simply was in the hands of another person, as simple as a rake not physically in my possession in the shed is my rake too. It doesn't need to be physically possessed to be my rake. I identify with the rake as being mine. I own it. I have it. It is in the shed or in the hands of another person.
if the other person identifies the rake as being theirs as they own it too for they wielded and possessed it for a given amount of time, but to ask who's rake it properly, even if it means they want to fight over it, that would be an ethical question that they either reason about or fight about (both are ethical stances) which is a whole other topic of discussion that I have consistently refrained from addressing unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Have a good day! Lots of snow falling here so got some wood cuttin', snow shovelin', and good reading to do today, I think I'll be reading some Mises and Rothbard today. Have fun.
wilderness:Because I said in a previous post, too, that I can possess a rake if it is in my shed (which means I don't physically possess it, I don't physically have it in my hands - it's in the shed).
Again, I would argue that it is still in your possession, since you have restrained it in your shed. You did not just leave it in the street, or across state lines.
wilderness:So even if another person has the rake I still possess it just like I possess the rake if it is in the shed and out of my physical hands.
So two individuals can possess the rake simultaneously? Another acting individual physically possessing a rake is equivalent to putting it in a shed?
wilderness:The other person now possesses the rake in their hands. We both possess the rake at this point. I possess it because it is in their hands which is the same as saying I possess it cause it is in the shed.
I don't see how this makes any sense. Is the rake non-rival?
wilderness:In both instances I don't physically possess the rake but I have (possess) a rake.
I don't understand how this works using your chosen definition of the word own, or possess.
wilderness:and it's easy to understand that take back incorporates control.
Why is this so obvious? To me the phrase "take back" implies that you have lost control of said object at some point.
Control:
4. To reduce or prevent the spread of: control insects; controlled the fire by dousing it with water
wilderness:It is a goal of mine to walk to the rake that is in the hands of another person and take it back
"Taking it back" is an ethical action. Even though you lost physical control of it, you believe you still have a right to regain control of the object.
wilderness:Plus I like unique experiences full of new splashy, colorful insights, not that you don't offer that but the discussion has dried up and I could simply start linking you back to previous posts we had already agreed upon when it had to these definitions.
Your argument is terrible. First, let's look at these agreed upon definitons:
OK, sounds reasonable, so now where are you pulling this garbage from?
wilderness:Yet to all of these in the abstract sense, yes, I do possess a rake, control (I don't know if that is possible abstractly), and I do own a rake - all in the abstract sense
You seem to be directly contradicting yourself here. And then it gets even more egregious:
wilderness:So even if another person has the rake I still possess it just like I possess the rake if it is in the shed and out of my physical hands. The other person now possesses the rake in their hands. We both possess the rake at this point.
This makes absolutely no sense outside of an ethical framework, based on your own definition of terms. How can the same rake be two places at once?
wilderness:me does matter. Jackson does matter. filc does matter.
This is an ethical statement of the highest order.
wilderness:The rake was taken from me. I go take the rake back. Why did I take the rake back? Because it is my rake.
Why is it still yours?
wilderness:It doesn't need to be physically possessed to be my rake.
According to your own definition of "own", it does.
wilderness:I identify with the rake as being mine.
That seems completely arbitrary without some ethical reasoning.
wilderness:I own it.
Not by your definition, you don't.
wilderness:It is in the shed or in the hands of another person.
Again, I don't see how these two equate. Is the shed an acting entity?
wilderness:Have fun.
Good Luck.
Since we are going in circles, and we are pretty much OT I wanted to start a new thread. A question specifically raised to Jackson.
The post is here