job86:I mean that one can't carve out premises in morality or ethics (such as rights to own property) without having it founded in arbitrary reasoning. I can say that I think that every individual has the right to own property but I can’t prove it in a deductive chain of reasoning unless I start out with a totally subjective premise.
So the right to own yourself is subjective? Are you already a slave, or just in wait for the right slave master?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
malgratloprekindle: liberty student:Where is it a theocracy? Where do the priests run things? Islam was giving rights to women when the Christian west would not allow them to own property or vote, and burned them at the stake as witches. Google "Sharia Law". liberty student:The Islamic countries were not hit hard by the credit crisis, why? Because they have a concept of sound banking, and reject the western ponzi schemes that the Heritage Institute likes to think makes us wealthy and free. Real wealth is property ownership. So what separates their banking from ours? Do they use a full reserve system? If so, does anyone know how I can (legally) get my money into one of their banks? And of the different countries, which ones are the best run; such that the money isn't stolen from me (it never hurts to be safe...)
liberty student:Where is it a theocracy? Where do the priests run things? Islam was giving rights to women when the Christian west would not allow them to own property or vote, and burned them at the stake as witches.
Islam was giving rights to women when the Christian west would not allow them to own property or vote, and burned them at the stake as witches.
Google "Sharia Law".
liberty student:The Islamic countries were not hit hard by the credit crisis, why? Because they have a concept of sound banking, and reject the western ponzi schemes that the Heritage Institute likes to think makes us wealthy and free. Real wealth is property ownership.
So what separates their banking from ours? Do they use a full reserve system?
If so, does anyone know how I can (legally) get my money into one of their banks? And of the different countries, which ones are the best run; such that the money isn't stolen from me (it never hurts to be safe...)
5 days later and not a single source, or reply.
Given the picture here: http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm and the above, I think I've made my point. :3 ("Islamofascism" is another good one. They may have been good with human rights, science, and the like ages ago, but certainly not today! What's more, even though the preists don't formally control their governments, the fact that their religion is what their laws (economic, social, personal) are based on, makes it an theocratic/islamic republic. And given that they're in the third world, says either: That Capitalism can fail, or that they're NOT capitalist. I'm taking it's the latter.)
As I stated before, a large amount of the problems there are because the USA plays police of the world so much, supporting brutal regimes and inciting violence and prolonging conflicts.
Anarchist Cain: So you are claiming that one cannot study and evalutate human interaction without starting on a false premise?
So you are claiming that one cannot study and evalutate human interaction without starting on a false premise?
I'm saying that one can't rank or measure the moral Normal 0 21 false false false SV X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 appropriateness in actions without starting on a arbitrary premise.
Anarchist Cain:The fact is there can never be such an environment. We would cease to be humans. I am a big fan of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction.
Yes, much like a totally free society is an utopia. A society in which every individual respects the propertyrights of all other individuals all the time is most likely an utopia much like the "perfect state" example. That said I would prefer the "free society" utopia based on a totally subjective moral framework. If one where to have another moral framework I can't disprive his stance unless I use pure pragmatic arguments... such as "it would never work".
Harry Felker: So the right to own yourself is subjective? Are you already a slave, or just in wait for the right slave master?
Just because I don't like a certain action or condition doesn't mean that I automatically have the moral highground on the subject. I can't for instance prove that charity is morally more favourable than enslavement. If both of us agree on common premises we can look into the act of of enslaving is consistent with those. But that require that we borth agree on common subjective premises. One can also argue in favour of charity on pragmatic terms but one can't say that this or that action has an higher inherent, provable moral virtue than another action.
job86: Harry Felker: So the right to own yourself is subjective? Are you already a slave, or just in wait for the right slave master? Just because I don't like a certain action or condition doesn't mean that I automatically have the moral highground on the subject. I can't for instance prove that charity is morally more favourable than enslavement. If both of us agree on common premises we can look into the act of of enslaving is consistent with those. But that require that we borth agree on common subjective premises. One can also argue in favour of charity on pragmatic terms but one can't say that this or that action has an higher inherent, provable moral virtue than another action.
Since property ownership (what we were talking about) is subjective, you must think self ownership is as well, since you are property (your own in SO), and self ownership comes from property rights, just as all property ownership does. Since the effect is subjective, would it be wrong to assume you believe the cause of this effect is subjective?
This is about slavery and freedom, please keep to the parameters...
self ownership comes from property rights
And there it is, right out there in the open: the faulty premise that the principle of individual sovereignty comes after property rights (which implies the reductio that one loses their rights as soon as they enter someone else's property), as opposed to the correct view that property rights derive from and are conditional upon respect for individual sovereignty.
Property Rights comes from Self Ownership, if memory serves.
malgratloprekindle: Property Rights comes from Self Ownership, if memory serves.
Sorry I can correct that error, I am not at my "A" game at half past 4 in the morning....
The correction
Since property ownership (what we were talking about) is subjective, you must think self ownership is as well, since you are property (your own in SO), and Property rights is derived from self ownership, just as all property ownership does. Since the cause is subjective, would it be wrong to assume you believe the the effect of this cause is subjective?
Just because a person does not value self ownership does not automatically make slavery moral, this is where your argument fails, because even if 90% agree that the other 10% should be enslaved, the moral basis for slavery still does not exist. Self Ownership is not a consensus, it is not an axiom, it is a maxim, like gravity...
malgratloprekindle:5 days later and not a single source, or reply.
I was away from the forum.
I don't think you've made your point. I think you have repeated western statist and religious propaganda.
The reason why so many Islamic countries are third world, has a lot more to do with statism and western intervention, than it has to do with some failing of the Islamic notion of economy or property rights justice, and I think you have failed to make that case.
As far as Sharia Law, almost every western city has a mosque, where a non-Muslim can go and ask the Imam questions about Islam. I recommend you do so, and find out why civilized Muslims (most of the world's population) do not stone and behead people, nor do they expect it, as a matter of conflict resolution or breach of social conventions.
Anyway, I am done with this topic. It's up to you to research as honestly as you can to find the truth for yourself. I'm not a Muslim, and I am not going to invest a lot of time into defending it.
the truth is somewhere between LS and malga,
I understand that there is essentially a 'civil war' within Islam, so you will each find (metaphorical) soldiers for one side to be your base of evidence, and it will be easy to talk past each other. careful.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: the truth is somewhere between LS and malga, I understand that there is essentially a 'civil war' within Islam, so you will each find (metaphorical) soldiers for one side to be your base of evidence, and it will be easy to talk past each other. careful.
Well, to be fair, you're probably right.
I've heard from Confederal Socialist (odd name for a Market Anarchist, I know) and our LadyAttis on YouTube, that Somalia (large number of Muslims) while it does have some problems with mini states competing, overall, it's a very nice place with Islamic law only handling stuff about divorce and something else I'll have to rewatch LA's video to remember. So, despite my rather mean post before this (Sorry if I was rude to you, LibertyStudent. ^^; ), I do see (after some time) where you're both coming from.
malgratloprekindle:Appeal to ridicule.
It wasn't an appeal to ridicule. I'm not going to play the game of catering to your willful ignorance. I've given you multiple topics and ideas to research. If you fail to do so, I am not going to invest my time to do it for you. I have more profitable activities and discussions on my horizon, and you've given me no incentive to believe a reasonable discussion with you can bear fruit in the future.
Good luck.
@LS: Hence why I deleted that post. :P
liberty student:It wasn't an appeal to ridicule.
Why not?
liberty student:I'm not going to play the game of catering to your willful ignorance.
Uh huh.
liberty student:I've given you multiple topics and ideas to research.
"Read the Koran"? How about researching what actually goes on there? :P
liberty student:If you fail to do so, I am not going to invest my time to do it for you. I have more profitable activities and discussions on my horizon, and you've given me no incentive to believe a reasonable discussion with you can bear fruit in the future.
Whatever you say.
liberty student:Good luck.
Peace out homedawg.
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/66/2157.htm
i like how the very last spoken sentence is kinda like a punchline for libertarians. do'h!
Very interesting nirgrahamUK.
Speaking of economic powers, Singapore is up there (second on the economic freedom scale I showed too), and is Islamic, last time I checked.
My bad.
Thanks for the correction.
p.s. memri.org is great if middle east following is your thing. i dont do it now as much as i used to, but i can still recommend that site.
the individual is property rightly unto him or her own self, thus, property is the person. the human is being in and of themselves as their own individual property... also any labor of the person, and any tangible goods produced by the person are also rightly the property of the individual. Contracts with employers or partners involve exchanges for labor and produced goods for money usually.
job86:Can one ever justify the right of property ownership without any arbitrary reasoning?
You don't need reasoning really; if you come for my house, I'll kill you, or you'll kill me. This kind of situation occurs all the time here in Eastern Europe (usually amongst family members). Legal systems that respect and protect property rights always yield positive results relative to those systems that don't. Again, here in Montenegro there is no rule of law, contracts are practically worthless, and as such, we all carry weapons, many many weapons.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
liberty student: wilderness:He said my neighbor can take my land and nobody can stop him. I said I'll stop him. He said I'm not allowed to stop him and that there is no stealing. Welcome to the reductio of "occupancy and use". No one owns anything, all possession is temporary and transitory.
wilderness:He said my neighbor can take my land and nobody can stop him. I said I'll stop him. He said I'm not allowed to stop him and that there is no stealing.
Welcome to the reductio of "occupancy and use". No one owns anything, all possession is temporary and transitory.
That's *not* the "occupancy and use" position - it's actually the amoralist Max Stirner position (I.E. "I own what I can take"). It isn't even a reductio of the "occupancy and use" position because such a reductio is predicated on a misunderstanding of the position is - which is *not* that "perpetual use" is required. So no go.
I didn't say that Brainpolice... wrong quoting.
BP has never let small things like accuracy in sourcing get in the way of making a point.
Kinsella has recently been smashing the premise of occupancy and use on the Mises blog (and perhaps elsewhere).