Jackson LaRose: OK, but I bet you aren't going to like it. I don't know whether or not hunger exists. I think I've experienced it before, that's about all I can say.
OK, but I bet you aren't going to like it.
I don't know whether or not hunger exists. I think I've experienced it before, that's about all I can say.
There we go. Jackson LaRose: "I don't know whether or not hunger exists."
"was that so hard?"
Where do I begin and where does social condiitioning end?
Social conditioning is not an atomic fact - how do you talk about social conditioning as "something in itself" - yet there is something that types, communicates, and contextuals. At root the atomic primitive force that can be put in a logical sequence of an inescapable social science.
Economics does not give a flying fig what the "I" is - it can'. In a science it is ultra social by nature. that's the point. It is a process and a science that assumes extreme empiricism, and where the facts lie as they are... that's it. You skeptic out of any science you want - biology and physics are just as shakey whan you ask "what a cell is" or "what an atom is".
Other than that all I see is a 1st grade grammer question.
What gets rejeced is that there is no way to put "community", "Ohio", or anything else as a primitive force. Ohio doesn't do anything, it is the result of intersubjective custom and a legal term. And if Ohio, Community, o Social conditioning could do something - we would treat it as everything else in the market process... A primitive force / atomic fact that acts all and all unto itself, for itself, and in it's in it's own intrest as it happens/ manifest (at every point every manifestation is unique and it's own force) and no different from anything else we talk about - so nothing changes... Even if "community" was it is logically an equal proposition to anything else that can be asserted, no more or less.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Methodological individualism, tho it is a valid way to view groups, cannot alone explain the actions of groups. See:
http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf
And seriously, you're talking to me about a first grade grammar issue, with that grammar? Yes, it is a grammar issue. That's been my point the whole time.
It is a process and a science that assumes extreme empiricism, and where the facts lie as they are... that's it.
Uh, no? Wasn't it Mises that said something to the effect of "observable data cannot overwrite economic law?"
You skeptic out of any science you want - biology and physics are just as shakey whan you ask "what a cell is" or "what an atom is".
Ya, that's kinda what Heisenberg was saying.
Ohio doesn't do anything, it is the result of intersubjective custom and a legal term
Ohio still exists, and if I break Ohio law, I go to Ohio courts. This is the problem with taking MI too far; people are far too quick to act as if, because groups don't act, groups don't exist. Sorry, but they do, and the cumalitive effect of the individual actors alone cannot sufficiently explain the group.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
that you are a metaphysical materialist? How do you resolve this alleged belief with your belief that "groups" of people have characteristics that all characteristics of all members of said group cannot account for?
If it happens, it happens. Just because the effects are unseen doesn't mean they don't exist; consider Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
(You know... a few years ago "metaphysical materialist" would have seemed a contradiciton in terms to me . That word "metaphysics" has been severly disused in popular discourse.)
JJ,
No, it was not hard, but as I said,
Jackson LaRose:I don't have enough information to answer your question in a meaningful way
If you feel "I don't know" is meaningful enough for you, then good. It doesn't do much for conversation, though.
Malachai,
Plane of existence? Hm, I'd have to say, "the sum of my perception over the time of my consciousness". True, John's opinion may not shed light on mine, but I'll warn you, I'm not sure I believe the physical world is anything!
Laotzu del Zinn:I'm not going to engage in us talking past each other all day.
Then don't. But I don't see how we're necessarily talking past each other.
Laotzu del Zinn:Private, in the sense of property, to me means monopoly control based on title. Property is naturally exclusionary.
A group can monopolize control (i.e. exclude outsiders from it), now can't it?
Laotzu del Zinn:Private property is monopoly control of property; and no private property can ever be truly private (except maybe on Crusoe's imaginary island, before anybody else shows up).
Please prove this - if you can. If you refuse, I'll conclude that you wrote this as just a more sophisticated form of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "NOT LISTENING! NOT LISTENING!"
Laotzu del Zinn:This whole "I'm just going to make up my own definitions" thing is largely the reason I stopped posting here for a while. It turns into neverending obfuscation and talking past each other.
I feel I can only translate the above as "I can't stand people pointing out logical inconsistencies in my positions and I refuse to even entertain others' semantics when they're different from mine."
Laotzu del Zinn:"I/me/my/mine" Those words don't make sense to me. Where do I begin and where does social condiitioning end? Am I the same I that existed 5 seconds ago? Why do "I" belive many of the same things as my parents and friends? Why does empathy ignite the same regions in the brain as those ignited in the person facing the problem; meaning is empathy any different than experiencing hardship? I'm not flat out denying the I, as such. What I am denying that "I" is a an accurate description of the mind/body phenomena Being experiences.
I'm not flat out denying the I, as such. What I am denying that "I" is a an accurate description of the mind/body phenomena Being experiences.
How is "social conditioning" (whatever that's supposed to mean) not a part of you? Just because it didn't ultimately originate from you doesn't mean it's not a part of you. Otherwise, by your reasoning, none of us actually exist, because none of us is sui generis. In fact, there's no part of us (physically speaking) that didn't come from something/somewhere else.
What I fail to see is how this obviates the notion of "individual human being" as a concept that people can hold in their minds.
Laotzu del Zinn:I possess and control things, and at any moment if I use them "incorrectly" they can be taken away, legitimately.... not just by a theif. I may or may not have created it, and I definitely didn't create the things that created it. It has been a long process of individual actions, which has collectively allowed me to possess and control these things. It has been entrusted to me by society, the abstract reflection of individual wills, for good use and safekeeping; as defined by whatever community that is. I'm expected to keep it safe and refrain from using it to harm others.
What makes it "incorrect"? What makes it "legitimate"? Can you describe this process? Can you describe this "society" or "community"? Being so vague doesn't help your credibility one bit, IMHO.
Laotzu del Zinn:What community? Whatever community. What oversight? Whatever oversight that takes place within that community. For Ohioans, Ohio, Americans, America, etc, etc. In any society there will be certain rules you cannot use your self or property to break, or you will suffer some kind of negative consequence.
In your view, how is one society/community delineated from another? How do you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate oversight? Again with the weasely vagueness.
Laotzu del Zinn:I brought up Heisenberg not for whether he agreed with me or you... and I don't see why you thought that had anything to do with it..? I brought up the quote to illustrate that semantics are important. How you describe things defines how you understand them.
Wow, it seems that we even define "semantics" differently. My own definition is "the mapping between words (i.e. sound-forms) and mental concepts". What's yours? You'll notice that, under my definition of "semantics", your statement "how you describe things defines how you understand them" makes no sense, as the concepts stay the same no matter what words are used to label them.
Laotzu del Zinn:(If you think I was insincere, that is no matter to me. I wasn't. And I said, if you can't accept that, leave it alone. I do care; but I don't care if you think I care or not. This is the last I will speak on the issue as you obviously don't want people taking an interest in your well-being.)
Any stated concern or interest about my well-being, sincere or otherwise, has no place in this thread as far as I'm concerned. If you honestly cared about my well-being, I think you would've already gone ahead and PMed me instead of bringing it up publicly like you have. That's why I see this "concern" as just an attempt to "get under my skin".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Laotzu del Zinn:No I'm pretty sure he is using it to illustrate a point that things can exist in other places than the physical world. Are you paying attention, or just don't like me because I'm me?
I do believe I am paying attention. When John James asked Jackson LaRose whether hunger exists, I took it as him asking whether the mind (i.e. the nervous system) receives signals from the body (i.e. outside of the nervous system) that it interprets along the lines of "need to eat something". John James can correct me on this if I'm mistaken, and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Laotzu del Zinn:Hence why I said "there is no platonic world of ideals." Please stop inferring my position for me; it's intrusive and annoying.
Cry me a river.
Laotzu del Zinn:This is the problem with taking MI too far; people are far too quick to act as if, because groups don't act, groups don't exist. Sorry, but they do, and the cumalitive effect of the individual actors alone cannot sufficiently explain the group.
You fundamentally misunderstand (or it deliberately misrepresent?) methodological individualism, it seems. Groups can only be said to exist insofar as individuals believe in them. That is to say, groups only exist as concepts in the minds of individuals.
Yes. And that is something entirely different than public access.
Please prove this
Self-evident, bro. If you live in a society, you will be subject to some form of regulation.
Omg you inferred my position and got it right, for once! Good for you
You can hold it as a concept if you wish. I find it to be dated and insufficient.
Whatever rules you have to live under in the society you live in. Whatever norms you are subject to in whatever society you live in. It's called the law, and other various social norms; sociology 101. The society/community is a group of people who directly or indirectly effect each other through their actions; sociology 101.
I'm not worried if you think I'm credible. I certainly don't think you are. Still love ya tho
In your view, how is one society/community delineated from another? How do you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate oversight? .
Sometimes they intermingle, but generally it is pretty apprarent where one community begins and another ends. Catholics at St Williams are a different community than Protestants at "New Bible Fellowship." Il/legitimate is distinguised by the established legal and social norms of any given society; sociology 101.
Semantics:
See what I mean about making your own definitions up? That is in no way MY problem. I think what you are defining as semantics is (incoherent) probably closer to syntax.
I'll not speak on your anger any more. Your life is your concern.
You should join me, it would make you feel better. Or keep flaming me and find yourself ignored. It doesn't really matter to me. I love ya, and care about ya; but not so much I'm going to let your negativity ruin my day
Strike 2. Keep flaming and become ignored.
As I said, MI is a good way to look at groups. But the individual actions alone of its members are insufficient to describe the group; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you don't like my criticism of MI, that's fine. But please, get some self-respect and stop inferring onto me what you want me to be. That's not very libertarian, dare I say.
Laotzu del Zinn:Yes. And that is something entirely different than public access.
But earlier you talked about "community control". Now you're changing your tune? Tsk, tsk, tsk... not very consistent of you, is it? Then again, when has a pesky thing like consistency ever stopped you?
Laotzu del Zinn:Self-evident, bro. If you live in a society, you will be subject to some form of regulation. NOT LISTENING! NOT LISTENING! LALALALALALALALA!
Try again. What are you afraid of?
Laotzu del Zinn:You can hold it as a concept if you wish. I find it to be dated and insufficient.
Yet you contradict yourself at every turn. That apparently doesn't matter to you, though, given your psychopathic embrace with self-serving inconsistency.
Laotzu del Zinn:Whatever rules you have to live under in the society you live in. Whatever norms you are subject to in whatever society you live in. It's called the law, and other various social norms; sociology 101. The society/community is a group of people who directly or indirectly effect each other through their actions; sociology 101.
Another nice non-response. Try again. But if you're not going to take this seriously, then why should I?
Laotzu del Zinn:I'm not worried if you think I'm credible. I certainly don't think you are. Still love ya tho
Am I supposed to be intimidated by this? Come on, you should know better. At the very least, try harder.
Laotzu del Zinn:Sometimes they intermingle, but generally it is pretty apprarent where one community begins and another ends. Catholics at St Williams are a different community than Protestants at "New Bible Fellowship." Il/legitimate is distinguised by the established legal and social norms of any given society; sociology 101.
You'd fit right in with the Supreme Court judge who refused to define "obscenity" and simply said "I know it when I see it". We don't need no steenkin' consistency/explanations/definitions/logic!
Laotzu del Zinn:Semantics: 1. The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. 2. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff". See what I mean about making your own definitions up? That is in no way MY problem. I think what you are defining as semantics is (incoherent) probably closer to syntax.
1. The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
2. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff".
You "make your own definitions up" just as much as I do. The fact that they may be in agreement with anyone else's also-necessarily-made-up definitions is irrelevant.
As far as I'm concerned, you've proven my point, perhaps without even being aware of it. Oh well, too bad for you I guess!
Laotzu del Zinn:I'll not speak on your anger any more. Your life is your concern.
But oops, you just did again! Oh you must think you're so clever...
Laotzu del Zinn: You should join me, it would make you feel better. Or keep flaming me and find yourself ignored.
Go ahead. Make my day. I'm not intimidated in the slightest, understand?
Laotzu del Zinn:It doesn't really matter to me. I love ya, and care about ya; but not so much I'm going to let your negativity ruin my day
Too late.
Laotzu del Zinn:Strike 2. Keep flaming and become ignored.
Right, still not intimidated. Even if you ignore me, I'll still respond to your posts - every single one of them.
Laotzu del Zinn:As I said, MI is a good way to look at groups. But the individual actions alone of its members are insufficient to describe the group; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you don't like my criticism of MI, that's fine. But please, get some self-respect and stop inferring onto me what you want me to be. That's not very libertarian, dare I say.
At this point, I don't think I'm inferring onto you what I want you to be. I'm inferring what you are. If that bothers you, see if I care. And more importantly, see if I'll stop.
Correct, he did this in discussion with me too:
Nobody owns anything, other than what society allows them to.
Then I told him:
There is no literal, collective "society." Society is merely the interactions between various individuals and naught more. Society cannot "do" or "allow" or "determine" anything: "it" cannot act. Rothbard proves this as a fact on pages 2-3 of Man, Economy, and State.
And he had the audacity to tell me:
Hey, why don't you step out of MI 101, and into 201 where we realize that, valid as MI is, it does not make non-existent grouping. Yes, society is the abstract expression of individual will; your property is still only as valid as those individual actors, known as society, allow it to be.
I'm not going to quote you, at all in my response as the entirety of your post is you couching your questions in blatant flaming of me. So I'll just make my point;
You are always going to be subject to community controls, if you live in a society. Some societie's prohibit murder, theievery, rape, some even prohibit being raped. Some societies prohibit speaking against the authority, prostitution, pornography. Some societies punish these harshly, like cutting off the hand of a theif, others not so harsh, like making the theif pay a fine.
All societies are different, with different rules, regulations, and norms. It is absolutely absurd for you to act as if they aren't. You accuse me of "trolling" because I asked you about your day (even finding me saying "I love you" as "intimidating." ) and yet you demand ONE answer to a question of which you must know there are a multitude? And then you blatantly flame me incessantly? Do you even know what trolling is?
It is very telling that you think nobody (outside the echo chamber) agreeing with your definition of something as "irrelevant." Definitions are only as good as the people telling and hearing them. If one side is using the established definition of something, while someone else is just making up definitions, I doubt any kind of productive conversation can come from that; it will be, as it has been, an endless thread of obfuscation.
But you're not going to listen to me anyway. You're just going to read this and think up a new way to flame me and try to anger me. It won't work; I have discipline and self-respect. I find these tactics amusing. You can keep at it if it makes you feel better. That's all that really matters anyway.
Love ,
Laotzu
Laotzu del Zinn:You are always going to be subject to community controls, if you live in a society. Some societie's prohibit murder, theievery, rape, some even prohibit being raped. Some societies prohibit speaking against the authority, prostitution, pornography. Some societies punish these harshly, like cutting off the hand of a theif, others not so harsh, like making the theif pay a fine.
Since you won't bother even beginning to explain what you actually mean by the word "society", let alone provide a systemic exposition of your reasoning in this regard, why should I even bother with addressing the above? I mean, it's just a bunch of bare assertions. Are you really arguing with me? Or are you arguing with yourself?
Laotzu del Zinn:All societies are different, with different rules, regulations, and norms. It is absolutely absurd for you to act as if they aren't. You accuse me of "trolling" because I asked you about your day (even finding me saying "I love you" as "intimidating." ) and yet you demand ONE answer to a question of which you must know there are a multitude? And then you blatantly flame me incessantly? Do you even know what trolling is?
I didn't find you saying "I love you" as intimidating. I regarded it - among other things - as an attempt at intimidation or "getting under my skin". Obviously, if I consider it a mere attempt, that means it didn't work.
"All societies are different..." means absolutely nothing to me, since I have no idea what you mean by "society". If you're man enough to actually provide your definition for that word, then we can actually get started for once.
Laotzu del Zinn:It is very telling that you think nobody (outside the echo chamber [sic]) agreeing with your definition of something as "irrelevant." Definitions are only as good as the people telling and hearing them. If one side is using the established definition of something, while someone else is just making up definitions, I doubt any kind of productive conversation can come from that; it will be, as it has been, an endless thread of obfuscation.
I can only read this as an attempt to bully me into using your definitions - your implicit definitions! - which only reveals your own narrow-mindedness in refusing to entertain other people's possibly different semantics. I'd be perfectly happy to entertain yours if you'd simply lay them out for me. But no, you won't even do that at this point, now will you? Thus it seems obvious to me that I've struck quite a nerve.
Laotzu del Zinn:But you're not going to listen to me anyway. You're just going to read this and think up a new way to flame me and try to anger me. It won't work; I have discipline and self-respect. I find these tactics amusing. You can keep at it if it makes you feel better. That's all that really matters anyway.
No, I think you're already angered. Hence this post of yours that I'm responding to. From my point of view, you're simply trying to "up the ante" in attempting to "get the better of me". I really don't think it'll work - because I won't let it.
Jackson LaRose: Malachai, Plane of existence? Hm, I'd have to say, "the sum of my perception over the time of my consciousness". True, John's opinion may not shed light on mine, but I'll warn you, I'm not sure I believe the physical world is anything!
is there, then, a non-physical world that you have not experienced and contrasting this with? Or is the word "physical" unnecessary, since the physical world now includes whatever ghosts one might meet? If you do not believe that the physical world is anything, then why speak of it at all? Or if your statement was intended more literally than conversationally, could you please explain further? If the physical world may not be "anything," could it be "something?" or were you suggesting that it might be "no thing"?
RothbardsDisciple: Correct, he did this in discussion with me too: Nobody owns anything, other than what society allows them to. Then I told him: There is no literal, collective "society." Society is merely the interactions between various individuals and naught more. Society cannot "do" or "allow" or "determine" anything: "it" cannot act. Rothbard proves this as a fact on pages 2-3 ofMan, Economy, and State. And he had the audacity to tell me: Hey, why don't you step out of MI 101, and into 201 where we realize that, valid as MI is, it does not make non-existent grouping. Yes, society is the abstract expression of individual will; your property is still only as valid as those individual actors, known as society, allow it to be.
There is no literal, collective "society." Society is merely the interactions between various individuals and naught more. Society cannot "do" or "allow" or "determine" anything: "it" cannot act. Rothbard proves this as a fact on pages 2-3 ofMan, Economy, and State.
Yes, that's his way of trying to obfuscate the point. Basically he was telling you "What you just said doesn't matter or make a difference one bit." But it does matter, because it brings awareness. If one is aware that there exists no mystical spirit called "society", he can keep his focus trained on individuals and the beliefs they hold. His resistance there is telling - he obviously doesn't want his beliefs challenged. The majority of his posting indicates this. It boils down to nothing more than sophisticated forms of him sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming that he's not listening.
if the effects are wholly unseen, then how are you aware of them to ascribe a cause? Additionally, this may answer a question but it doesnt answer my question. Which is disappointing, because I really want to know how a materialist can believe that groups of people have some essential characteristic that is not found in a survey of all of said group's members. I agree that "metaphysics" has been abused of late. This probably has to do with the ascendance of materialism and the corresponding lack of discourse on metaphysics as differentiated from physics.
I have already linked a paper which discusses the effects of groups that cannot be ascribed to the actions of the individuals within it alone. Consider also the mind; are there not endless debates on whether the body can wholly explain the phenomenon of "mind?" Consider also, as I said, dark matter; we have added up (what we think is) the entirety of mass in the universe, and yet that cannot wholly explain the amount of gravity in the universe (this is a little different, because Dark Matter could be ascribed to an unknown cause, like a parrelell universe. But the principle is still the same; the group cannot wholly be defined by its invdividual parts).
Along with the previous linked paper, here is some further reading:
http://171.67.193.20/entries/methodological-individualism/#6
Autolykos:It boils down to nothing more than sophisticated forms of him sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming that he's not listening.
Yeah, then he called me a fundamentalist and cut off the conversation. And I was even talking about how I agreed with one of his points when he ended the conversation. =/
Do you see anyting specifically wrong with it? Or is it just wrong because you find it "audacious?"
Individuals act, and these actions have seen and unseen effects on other individuals surrounding them. There are common threads that tie certain people together, whether or not they believe the group to exist; such as hunter-gatherers who live within statist societies, don't consider themselves a part of it, and yet are still subject to its laws.
Laotzu del Zinn:Individuals act, and these actions have seen and unseen effects on other individuals surrounding them. There are common threads that tie certain people together, whether or not they believe the group to exist; such as hunter-gatherers who live within statist societies, don't consider themselves a part of it, and yet are still subject to its laws.
You keep repeating this point as thought it were some fundamental insight. Why do you keep assuming that we somehow don't "get it"? The only thing I can think of is that this is your way of trying to tell us to "sit down and shut up". Sorry, but I won't.
I never denied that Individuals can influence each other, which you seem to be implying. But societies cannot "act." It is literally an impossibility.
Now, yes, sometimes we can use metaphors such as, "The State commits constant atrocities." But the State is not actually "acting." I am merely using a metaphor for the various individuals considered as the State.
If you told me, "The State does not literally exist!," I would not deny it, but explain how I am simply accounting for the actions of various specific Individuals.
e you won't bother even beginning to explain what you actually mean by the word "society", let alone provide a systemic exposition of your reasoning in this regard
Except I did, numerous times. It's none of my business why you refuse to accept that I even said it.
I regarded it - among other things - as an attempt at intimidation or "getting under my skin
Well I don't know why. I was sincere, and I still am. But if you don't want my help, all you have to do is say "I don't want/need your help." There's no reason to start incessantly flaming me because of it.
"All societies are different..." means absolutely nothing to me, since I have no idea what you mean by "society". If you're man enough to actually provide your definition for that word, then we can actually get started for once
1) This is flaming. I am surprised it is allowed on these forums. It certainly does not create productive conversation, that's for sure.
2) You can think whatever you want of me; judgement says more about the judger than the judgee.
3) I have provided definitions for society: Groups of people that share common goals, etc and which individual actions of its members effect each other, in both seen and unseen ways. If you want a better definition, I am basically using this one:
The dictionary definition; which I try to use as often as possible, as it is supposed to make conversation easier (and does with most people). I have layed this definition out multiple times in this thread, and if I am not mistaken in another conversation we had a year or two ago. It is your problem, not mine, that you refuse to accept this fact.
can only read this as an attempt to bully me into using your definitions - your implicit definitions! - which only reveals your own narrow-mindedness in refusing to entertain other people's possibly different semantics. I'd be perfectly happy to entertain yours if you'd simply lay them out for me. But no, you won't even do that at this point, now will you? Thus it seems obvious to me that I've struck quite a nerve
It wasn't. And you haven't. Tho it is funny that you are trying to "strike a nerve" with me, and at the same time accusing ME of being a troll....
No, I think you're already angered
If me getting angry will make you feel better, I will gladly do that. Tho I should warn you that it will not make you feel any better in the long run. RAGJLEINFIEND! RAAAAAAAAAGE! YOU GET UNDER MY SKIN SO BAD!!!!!!!!
Nah, jk. It's the internet bro. I could really care less what some faceless stranger thinks of me
Much love ,
You've answered your own question. It's like an apple; a bunch of cells, really. But we can call the aggregate of its individual cells an apple, because its easier to do so than the alternative.
You've answered your own question.
Never asked a question. I already understood this point, but I was merely pointing out that you were collectivizing to justify aggression against private property.
"Oh, I'm a communist, I don't believe in property LOLZ."
Laotzu del Zinn:Nah, jk. It's the internet bro. I could really care less what some faceless stranger thinks of me
Except you do. The fact that you keep signing off with references to love betrays you there. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't even bother with that.
I'll address the rest of your post later.
Auto, I can see that nothing productive will come from discussing with you; you will only take any response I have as evidence of you trolling and/or flaming me succesfully (do you realize you've admitted to trolling me?). I love ya bro. But I cannot be an enabler for your depression. Accept the light and become a beacon for it
Never asked a question. I already understood this point, but I was merely pointing out that you were collectivizing to justify aggression against private property
Was I? Perhaps you would like to elaborate?
What I was doing was pointing out that, for simplicity we can aggregate the actions of individuals together and call it a group. If you live in a society, the aggregate of individual actors involved, you will be subject to regulations by that society, the aggregate of individual actors involved. You, an individual, are only allowed to have and/or use property deemed fit by the individuals which you effect, or which have effects upon you.
If you and I are a society, for example, and you put a gun to my head, I will regulate that decision by taking it away from you. Because:
If various individuals act to outlaw private property (not that it can ever be actually outlawed), would you support that? Would you support their aggression against me?
If various individuals tell me that I cannot advance payment to labourers to till my fields and claim the product for which I paid said labourers, would you support that?
Would you support confiscating my property, which is derived from the fact that I have mixed my labour with the land? Would you support confiscating the factory I built, or paid others to build?
EDIT- My point, in short, is simply that you seem to be stating others can choose to aggress upon me. They are not allowed to, for that would be criminal activity.
And nice Ninja-ness. =)
Honestly, it depends on the circumstance. The outright banning of private property, from within a propertied society, can be very nebulous and open to corruption. Who is to decide what property to outlaw? It will most likely be the "vanguard party" or some such class enforcer. I hope this doesn't seem like a cop out. If you want specific examples I would say:
1) A factory with strong negative community and environmental effects in which the workers strike and are repressed for it, I would support the expropriation of (again depending on the circumstance, but this would be nearly universally true for me)
2) A factory which uplifts the community, is environmentally aware, and treats its workers well, I would see no reason to expropriate.
Tho I do not, and never will, rule out the need for violent revolution, I think it will be far more efficient, less prone to collapse, and less prone to tyranny, if we evolve to socialism.
If you have means to leave the community, yes. If not.. probably not.
On the first one, probably not. You created the value, and are entitlted to the fruits of your labor (within reason). That's what socialism is all about.
On the second one, probably. It depends upon the specific circumstance. But as long as you can leave the community, yes I would support the confiscation of your factory (within reason) and handing it over to the workers.
I don't find forceful confiscation necessary in most cases tho. I think abundance created by capitalism will lead us to socialism far faster than aggressive imposing of it upon society. What I support is working class grabbing the reigns of power (that's the 99%, so to say) and staving off the re-emergence of a ruling class. How the working class chooses to do that is their prerogative; I will make recomendations. But I would just be another class enforcer if I imposed my minority view on everyone else.
Laotzu del Zinn:Auto, I can see that nothing productive will come from discussing with you; you will only take any response I have as evidence of you trolling and/or flaming me succesfully (do you realize you've admitted to trolling me?). I love ya bro. But I cannot be an enabler for your depression. Accept the light and become a beacon for it
Oh please, do point out where exactly I admitted to trolling you (I haven't been, FYI). And what in the world is this "light" you're talking about?
You betray your own exasperation here, and I accept your concession on all points.
Laotzu del Zinn:If you and I are a society, for example, and you put a gun to my head, I will regulate that decision by taking it away from you. Because:
Dude, do you really think anyone is going to buy this? I mean, really. What's your point with this? An obvious attempt to paint yourself as all-powerful... which only fails due to its absurdity. You really are a troll, and a fail one at that.
A factory with strong negative community and environmental effects in which the workers strike and are repressed for it.
I don't see any aggression there...How has the factory owner initiated force against the workers? If he had stolen the factory from the workers, yes, I would support that they could take it back. But, simply, that's not the case.
Aggression, in brief, includes assault, theft, and slavery. I do not see how the factory owner in your scenario has committed any such act, necessarily. Where there is an initiation of force, counter-force can be use in proportional measure. So, like I said, I only support the usage of force in proportional retaliation to one of the three categories of aggression.
I would support the confiscation of your factory (within reason) and handing it over to the workers.
Have I initiated Force against the labourers in some way? I could just as arbitrarily state, "if my labourers do not work to their full potential or treat me like shit, creating a strong negative comminity, I will call in my goons to seize their house and all their property." Would that be justified?
On the second one, probably.
How have I aggressed upon anyone by paying others to build me a factory?