Rooster: Do you not see the problem extrapolating from primitive tribes to a modern, necessarily impersonal economy? This history is really irrelevant unless you want to go back to living in the same primitive conditions. (I'm not getting into the debate about natural law, just the relevance of this empirical question for the anti-private property view)
Do you not see the problem extrapolating from primitive tribes to a modern, necessarily impersonal economy? This history is really irrelevant unless you want to go back to living in the same primitive conditions. (I'm not getting into the debate about natural law, just the relevance of this empirical question for the anti-private property view)
No, this matter allows us to discuss natural rights, and NO I don't want to return to such primitive society (this is not the Marxist ideal society). I will not take the ridiculous axiom that explain natural rights (life and liberty) by an non-natural one (property).
MarxistStudent:FOR GOD sake, why do you think you know my country history better than me?
Because you clearly demonstrate that you do not know your country's history.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
MarxistStudent:"Entre os indígenas não há classes sociais como a do homem branco. Todos têm os mesmo direitos e recebem o mesmo tratamento. A terra, por exemplo, pertence a todos e quando um índio caça, costuma dividir com os habitantes de sua tribo." form a history book, in english it means: "Amongs the indians there are no social class as there are in "white man's" society. All have the same rights and recieve the same treatment. Earth belongs to all, and when an indian hunts, he divides with the other indians of his tribe what he has achieved"
Comrade, that isn't proof, it sounds like sensationalism. My school told me a similar line about the native people living in a natural "eden" without property as well - lies. Please give the full report you said you could provide, further the fact that the indian only divides his kill with other tribemembers disputes the all have the same rights/treatment jabber.
MarxistStudent:Once the idea of property reffers to fruit of our labour, and they share such, they have no private property. Besides, as Rousseau demonstrates (on his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality) the firsth kind of property right is property over land, that also don't exist there
So are you refining your argument to private property over land now, as opposed to all property? If so - prove it, if not - prove it. I can provide data proving the existence of villages, you are going to have to prove how they dont constitute property.
MarxistStudent:Now, I don't know what do you want as an evidence, but I can't give you a time machine, for god sake!
Give the paper you said you had.
JackCuyler:The is quoting a pamphlet. The pamphlet is fiction. It was made up to tell incredible tales of far away places to Europeans who would never go there.
Many other documents comprove what is writen in this panflet.
JackCuyler: It is a rather silly claim to know a country's history better than another simply because you live there. Current events in your town, perhaps, but the history of the country?
We study it here, since we are 6 or 7 years old, it is perfectely logical that we know it better than a foreigner. What do you know of Brazil's history?
JackCuyler: Primitive does not equal natural.
Primitive does not equal natural.
The most primitive are the most natural because they have been less changed by external causes. such as other unnatural societies.
What is unnatural is your stupidity so far. You've not - by a long shot - proven that property is "unnatural" except to assert that humans in primitive societies lacked property, which is, sorry to say, pure garbage. Natural = within the the being's nature, not within some primitive state of subsistence. Learn English, learn what the concept is about, rather than regurgitating fallacies. As creatures evolve, adapt &c. so does their nature, so do the things within that nature. You adhere to some half-assed static concept that conflates natural with primitive, undisturbed &c. My how crankish.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
MarxistStudent: JackCuyler:The is quoting a pamphlet. The pamphlet is fiction. It was made up to tell incredible tales of far away places to Europeans who would never go there. Many other documents comprove what is writen in this panflet.
Awesome. However, they don't count as proof if they are using the pamphlet as a source.
MarxistStudent: JackCuyler: It is a rather silly claim to know a country's history better than another simply because you live there. Current events in your town, perhaps, but the history of the country? We study it here, since we are 6 or 7 years old, it is perfectely logical that we know it better than a foreigner. What do you know of Brazil's history?
And there are foreigners with doctorates specifically in Brazilian history who could teach every one of those classes. It's wonderful that you study history, and have been since you were young. Really. That has no bearing on the claim that you, as a Brazilian, know more about Brazil's history than any foreigner.
MarxistStudent:The most primitive are the most natural because they have been less changed by external causes. such as other unnatural societies.
Please define natural in the context you are using. i would argue that there is nothing unnatural, as everyone is part of nature. A skyscraper is no more unnatural than a bee hive.
Stephen Forde: I was only overly presumptuous as far as AC was concerned. You don't know your subject(s),...
I was only overly presumptuous as far as AC was concerned. You don't know your subject(s),...
You don't know unless you ask, but instead you said, " Maybe I know of it, but I doubt others who agree with you (wilderness, Anarchist Cain, ect) have even heard of it, let alone your opponents."
So if you weren't so arrogant you would have asked instead of making an unfounded assertion.
Stephen Forde: I don't think you've realized yet that many of the ppl you argue with on these forums have read far more than you and are more knowledgeable of the subjects that you defend.
I don't think you've realized yet that many of the ppl you argue with on these forums have read far more than you and are more knowledgeable of the subjects that you defend.
Arrogance. As if you know how much I've read or deliberated upon subjects. You even said before, "I would hope that I would know more if I study more and read more."
I passed that off as a general statement for any one person, but now I see your bloated with an ego that needs to be grounded with reality. You have no idea who I am to make any such statements.
MarxistStudent: ...when an indian hunts, he divides with the other indians of his tribe what he has achieved"
...when an indian hunts, he divides with the other indians of his tribe what he has achieved"
So he achieved something and shared it. How could he share something that he doesn't have to begin with?
MarxistStudent: JackCuyler: Primitive does not equal natural. The most primitive are the most natural because they have been less changed by external causes.
The most primitive are the most natural because they have been less changed by external causes.
And those "external causes" are of nature. If you want to discuss what's good and bad, then that's a whole other topic.
I have a book in portugues, what is it good for you?
Angurse: Comrade, that isn't proof, it sounds like sensationalism. My school told me a similar line about the native people living in a natural "eden" without property as well - lies. Please give the full report you said you could provide, further the fact that the indian only divides his kill with other tribemembers disputes the all have the same rights/treatment jabber.
I haven't been able to find any other document in english, here is another one in portuguese:
"A História dos Índios
A expressão descobrimento do Brasil; tornou-se comum nos livros de história. Ela se refere ao fato de os portugueses terem encontrado uma terra que era até então desconhecida dos europeus. Mas o Brasil não era uma terra desconhecida e sem donos! Ela era habitada e sua posse distribuída entre diversos grupos entre diversos grupos indígenas que a ocupavam! """"A idéia de posse e propriedade dos indígenas logicamente não é a mesma da dos portugueses, não tem o mesmo sentido o de propriedade privada. A posse era coletiva"""", isto é, não havia um pedaço de terra para cada um ou para cada família, as vastas regiões do Brasil eram ocupadas por nações e tribos. Havia limites mais ou menos estabelecidos, mas não definidos. As tribos mudavam de lugar de acordo com sua necessidade. A presença portuguesa foi então uma ocupação, pois julgavam os povos não civilizados como desprovidos dos direitos que eles europeus tinham. Os europeus se julgavam os donos da civilização e das leis, todos os outros povos deveriam portanto, reger-se pelas normas e leis vigentes na Europa (será que isso mudou hoje em dia ou respeitamos o modo de vida diferente de outras culturas?) Há cinco séculos, os portugueses chegaram ao litoral brasileiro, dando início ao processo de migração que se estenderia até o inicio do século XX, e pouco a pouco foram estabelecendo-se nas terras que eram ocupadas pelos povos indígenas. Com os índios civilizados e amigos os portugueses formaram uma nova etnia: os mamelucos."
If I may translate only the important part, """"The ideas the indians had of possession and property was different than the ones the Portuguese had, neither has the same sense of private property. The possession was collective"""" here it is. Either being enought for you or not I will not bring more evidence that thier society had no property, I will call it truth, and if you think it isn't please prove it (tip: you may try, but won't make it).
Angurse: So are you refining your argument to private property over land now, as opposed to all property? If so - prove it, if not - prove it. I can provide data proving the existence of villages, you are going to have to prove how they dont constitute property.
No, what I meant is Rousseau demonstrates that the firsth right of property ever stablished, was the property over land. The other ideas of property came after it.
Angurse:Give the paper you said you had.
I don't have a scanner, this last text I presented comes from http://www.colegioame.com.br/arq/A_Historia_dos_Indios_(HISTORIA_DO_BRASIL).doc, in portuguese so I guess you won't understand a thing either way. Any history book on brasilian indians can confirm that.
wilderness:And those "external causes" are of nature. If you want to discuss what's good and bad, then that's a whole other topic.
No they aren't. The portuguese weren't a "natural cause" that changed the indians society because they weren't natural. Do you think that technology is natural? It is artificial.
JackCuyler:Awesome. However, they don't count as proof if they are using the pamphlet as a source.
This is not helping... here is a document, the LAST one i will give to prove this, because your ceticism should not be my problem:
http://www.colegioame.com.br/arq/A_Historia_dos_Indios_(HISTORIA_DO_BRASIL).doc
JackCuyler: And there are foreigners with doctorates specifically in Brazilian history who could teach every one of those classes. It's wonderful that you study history, and have been since you were young. Really. That has no bearing on the claim that you, as a Brazilian, know more about Brazil's history than any foreigner.
Do you have the doctorate in Brazilian history? Either way a normal brazilian should know more of brazilian's history than a normal american, and a normal american should know more of the USA's history than a normal brazilian, this is called logic.
natural is something that is verified without any social (from unnatural societies) and human (unnatural human) intervention, the natural society would be the original one, collective, propertyless, without technology, state and government. the natural man would be the man that lives in a natural society.
MarxistStudent:Either way a normal brazilian should know more of brazilian's history than a normal american, and a normal american should know more of the USA's history than a normal brazilian, this is called logic.
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
MarxistStudent:natural is something that is verified without any social (from unnatural societies) and human (unnatural human) intervention, the natural society would be the original one, collective, propertyless, without technology, state and government. the natural man would be the man that lives in a natural society.
who would wish be such a wretch of a creature?. even your indian tribes suffered poverty, but not so great as that of the 'natural' person that you imagine.
Jon Irenicus:What is unnatural is your stupidity so far. You've not - by a long shot - proven that property is "unnatural" except to assert that humans in primitive societies lacked property, which is, sorry to say, pure garbage. Natural = within the the being's nature, not within some primitive state of subsistence. Learn English, learn what the concept is about, rather than regurgitating fallacies. As creatures evolve, adapt &c. so does their nature, so do the things within that nature. You adhere to some half-assed static concept that conflates natural with primitive, undisturbed &c. My how crankish.
Your lack of respect also seems very unnatural to me. the human "being's nature" has two parts: 1-fixed one (natural) 2- changable one (social), the firsth one is fixed (life and liberty) while the second (with or without property) comes from the society. the most primitive societies are the most natural ones, and we don't have property there, so the "natural human nature" what is trully within the being's nature IN nature does NOT include property.
MarxistStudent: wilderness:And those "external causes" are of nature. If you want to discuss what's good and bad, then that's a whole other topic. No they aren't. The portuguese weren't a "natural cause" that changed the indians society because they weren't natural. Do you think that technology is natural? It is artificial.
Yes. It is natural for technology, technology is not abnormal or a perversion. Material culture (any culture) is natural for each person because without it they would die. Even if Homo sapiens (doesn't have to have the added sapiens) pick up a rock or stick, their will is working through that material object. Their will is transferred into that object when in use. I shake a stick, the stick moves. It is mine, unless, I want to share that stick. I'm not arguing against sharing, but the physics of my will into a stick is obvious. The universe is natural. This is all nature. An object you deem "artificial" is still here in nature. It is still natural. Unless the object is a perversion of nature, something at odds and against nature, it is still a natural occurrence, but more categorically a disease, etc... Now you want to use the term "artificial". Fine. But it's your definition of "artificial" that asserts distortions. First you would need to understand what "natural" means in natural rights. Not in the way you are attempting to bring in another term "artificial", which this term isn't a term that correctly fits into the concept of natural as in natural rights. So it's not your term that I need to deny, it's the very definition and usage of that term, artificial, as you are inaccurately applying a term "artificial" that has nothing to do with the concept natural when it comes to natural rights. You are making a category error. As hashem said further up in the thread, property denotes material objects, including my body. Are you denying that a person can justly use a bucket?
@Stephen Forde,
Off the top of your head, what have you by Murray Rothbard? Maybe I haven't read more than you, but I think I've read enough by him to get a feel for the basis of his arguments.
For me, its:
The Ethics of Liberty 5 timesFor a New Liberty 6 timesWhat has Government Done to Our Money 2 timesThe Case for a 100% Gold Dollar 2 timesThe Case Against the FedThe first dozen pages from Economic Though Before Adam SmithThe first 10 chapters from the Concieved in Liberty volumesThe first 17 chapters of Man, Economy, StateAt least 7 articles by him at LRCEverything from the first page of his complete bibliography at Mises.org2 essays from Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays
I have read more by him that I can't think of off the top of my head, but the list is what I've read by him only.
hashem:The Ethics of Liberty 5 timesFor a New Liberty 6 times
Wow. I know they are interesting books to read...but geez.
MarxistStudent:If I may translate only the important part, """"The ideas the indians had of possession and property was different than the ones the Portuguese had, neither has the same sense of private property. The possession was collective"""" here it is. Either being enought for you or not I will not bring more evidence that thier society had no property, I will call it truth, and if you think it isn't please prove it (tip: you may try, but won't make it).
Hilarously, it shows (repeatedly) that they did have property.
"Mas o Brasil não era uma terra desconhecida e sem donos!"
MarxistStudent:No, what I meant is Rousseau demonstrates that the firsth right of property ever stablished, was the property over land. The other ideas of property came after it.
And this paper confirms it - native Brazilians established property rights over land! As well as weapons, tools, musical instruments, food, costumes, etc...
"A posse era coletiva, isto é, não havia um pedaço de terra para cada um ou para cada família, as vastas regiões do Brasil eram ocupadas por nações e tribos. Havia limites mais ou menos estabelecidos, mas não definidos."
Basically they lived in little communal villages much like the Indians of the southeast U.S. Nothing special, different than the European customs yes, but property and ownership rights where there nonetheless.
MarxistStudent:I don't have a scanner, this last text I presented comes from http://www.colegioame.com.br/arq/A_Historia_dos_Indios_(HISTORIA_DO_BRASIL).doc, in portuguese so I guess you won't understand a thing either way. Any history book on brasilian indians can confirm that.
Also, there isn't any author or citations listed, please provide some.
Ok I guess the debate I wanted to have with hashem is impossible here, due the natural huge amount of capitalists mostly anti-communist there are here (naturaly once this is Ludwig von Mises (a capitalist) institute), the debate I was trying to fo became impossible. To all capitalists want to have a debate I'd ask to send me a message at youtube "MarxistStudant" (sic, I typed wrong when registrating).
Now I will not present any other evidence, or response here (other than this one), so I will place here most my ideas about what we are talking, I will not answer any other replies here.
Natural: something is natural when it exists regardless of unnatural social forces (unnatural societies) or from unnatural human forces (unnatural human beings).
Rights: There are 3 kind of rights:
1 those that come from natural conditions - natural rights
2 those that come from social agreemnet - legitimate unnatural rights
3 those that come from force - illegitimate unnatural rights
Life and liberety are natural rights that do not require property, property can't give one life and liberty, it can only take them from a person.
property is either a legitimate unnatural rights or an illegitimate unnatural rights, depending on how it was stablished. It is not natural.
The state does not exist in nature, it only exists to protect property. State = institution that has monoploly over the legitimate* uses of force and violence, where legitimate is what the laws of the society call legal. The state may be legitimate or illegitimate depending on how it was stablished, by social agreement or force, but it CAN'T be natural.
Any society based on property needs a state (public or private one) in order to assure the unnatural right of property, source of almost ALL inequality as Rousseau demonstrates.
"The man is born good, society corrupts him" Greed, etc are NOT in human nature.
Human nature has two parts:
1 - Fixed one - genetical, natural
2 - Mutable one - social, natural or unnatural
If the human being live in a natural society, than he is natural, elseway he is unnatural because some of his caracteristics are unnatural.
Natural society: is the firsth society the homo sapiens sapies lived one, the one they naturaly had, the most primitive societies are the one that best represents the natural society, not being perfectelly natural either way.
note: The most primitive societies had no property, thus property is not natural
The axiom of self-ownership is a false one, being perfectelly replaced by the natural rights of life and liberty without the artificial right of property. The right of property is only explainable after property is stablished, there are no natural conditions that would lead to such stablishment. It is a right stablished either by social agreement or force, being legitimate or illegitimate but never natural.
I won't fight alone against all capitalist here, so if any want to disctuss this with me, I gave my youtube account and we can talk trought it. I wish you sincerly a good day/night, and remember you that I will not answer replies to this post.
Eric: hashem:The Ethics of Liberty 5 timesFor a New Liberty 6 times Wow. I know they are interesting books to read...but geez.
They're pretty good. I worked on a farm and listened to each one once a week for a little over a month. At first I wanted to find flaws in his logic, but the more I listened, the more I noticed every flaw was covered at some point. That's how I say with confidence that nobody here will come up with an original objection: they have already been sealed shut in the works of Rothbard. The conclusions are presented in these two books, with minimal evidence, but the foundations for them are not in these books, and Rothbard says that repeatedly. From him, the foundations are actually drawn out far more elaborately in his economic history volumes and in MES.
So I began listening to memorize the debate and learn how to form an logically consistent argument, and how to catch the fallacies in the arguments of statists and anti-natural-law mongers.
MarxistStudent:note: The most primitive societies had no property, thus property is not natural
Still waiting for the proof, comrade.
Note: If anyone wants to read an uncited paper without a given author that shows a little about the property rights and culture of ancient Brazil read http://www.colegioame.com.br/arq/A_Historia_dos_Indios_(HISTORIA_DO_BRASIL).doc,
MarxistStudent:Evidence that indians in my country had no private property:
MarxistStudent:Rights: There are 3 kind of rights:
MarxistStudent:Life and liberety are natural rights that do not require property
And remember: running away when you know you've been beaten is actually a good thing. Have a nice day licking your wounds.
MarxistStudent: E. R. Olovetto: Yes, following anarcho-communist ideas would lead to death/primitive existence. I don't think I agree with the idea that tribal societies really had no sense of private property, rather they agreed to live communally. If they truly didn't believe in private property, including self ownership, wouldn't they just refuse to defend themselves and their villages from invaders whatsoever? I would be interested in some evidence of that ever happening. Sure there are tons of instances in colonial America and Africa of tribes "giving up easily", but that isn't enough. I am not an anarcho-communist, my ideas don't lead to a primitive existence, I merely study primitive societies to understand natural rights. Self ownership is not based on property rights, it is based on life and liberty rights (natural ones), they didn't "ageed" to live communaly, this IS the natural way human beings live, as a collective group. So, once people have a tendency to defend their natural rights of life and liberty, it is easier to find a indian massacre in history than to find them "giving up easily".
E. R. Olovetto: Yes, following anarcho-communist ideas would lead to death/primitive existence. I don't think I agree with the idea that tribal societies really had no sense of private property, rather they agreed to live communally. If they truly didn't believe in private property, including self ownership, wouldn't they just refuse to defend themselves and their villages from invaders whatsoever? I would be interested in some evidence of that ever happening. Sure there are tons of instances in colonial America and Africa of tribes "giving up easily", but that isn't enough.
Yes, following anarcho-communist ideas would lead to death/primitive existence. I don't think I agree with the idea that tribal societies really had no sense of private property, rather they agreed to live communally. If they truly didn't believe in private property, including self ownership, wouldn't they just refuse to defend themselves and their villages from invaders whatsoever? I would be interested in some evidence of that ever happening. Sure there are tons of instances in colonial America and Africa of tribes "giving up easily", but that isn't enough.
I am not an anarcho-communist, my ideas don't lead to a primitive existence, I merely study primitive societies to understand natural rights. Self ownership is not based on property rights, it is based on life and liberty rights (natural ones), they didn't "ageed" to live communaly, this IS the natural way human beings live, as a collective group. So, once people have a tendency to defend their natural rights of life and liberty, it is easier to find a indian massacre in history than to find them "giving up easily".
I am not your comrade, saco. Your "proof" is no such thing. I don't debate that many primitive tribes live(d) communally but that they had a well formed theory against property rights. There was many a massacre because these communal, primitive groups defended themselves. They defended their collective property rights. Yes, this is the natural way and you have still added zero evidence for a tribe with a robust anti-property rights ethic. BTW, if you are not familiar with "giving up easily" you should research colonialism in Africa ~1850-1900.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Stephen Forde:Ad hominems have no place in an intelligent, academic discussion.
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument. Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
The ad hominem fallacy fallacy
hashem: Stephen Forde: hashem: Stephen Forde:What's the justification of the universalizeability principle? "[F]or in order to be able to claim a rule to be a "law" (just), it is necessary that such a rule be universally -- equally -- valid for everyone." Why? Universality is in the nature of laws and rules. They are always absolute and definite.
Stephen Forde: hashem: Stephen Forde:What's the justification of the universalizeability principle? "[F]or in order to be able to claim a rule to be a "law" (just), it is necessary that such a rule be universally -- equally -- valid for everyone." Why?
hashem: Stephen Forde:What's the justification of the universalizeability principle? "[F]or in order to be able to claim a rule to be a "law" (just), it is necessary that such a rule be universally -- equally -- valid for everyone."
Stephen Forde:What's the justification of the universalizeability principle?
"[F]or in order to be able to claim a rule to be a "law" (just), it is necessary that such a rule be universally -- equally -- valid for everyone."
Why?
Universality is in the nature of laws and rules. They are always absolute and definite.
Why? And I'm not trying to be obstinate. There are different rules for soldiers than for civilians. Different rules for public servants than for private citizens. How is universality in the nature laws and rules? Why does a claim have to be universal for it to be just?
hashem:So I began listening to memorize the debate and learn how to form an logically consistent argument, and how to catch the fallacies in the arguments of statists and anti-natural-law mongers.
I say this with all sincerity and friendship. You need to learn the art of rhetoric. How to open, negotiate and close. Not necessarily to compromise the truth, but to find a way to communicate it to different audiences, at different levels of understanding and resistance.
It's great that you know your material and take knowing it very seriously. But communication is as much about how you say things, as what you have to say.
Stephen Forde:There are different rules for soldiers than for civilians. Different rules for public servants than for private citizens
you are obviously not thinking of justice. are you confusing state law with natural law?
hashem:When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right.
This sounds almost circular. The phrase "impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right" seems redundant. That simply means that "all rights are non-aggressive."
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
I think we can clear up some confusion over the necesscity of property in terms of its relations with liberty and life.
One: We can all concede that property implies some ability of usage. Example: There is a piece of corn. I can only eat that corn if it is mine or if someone owns that corn and gives it to me.
Two: Given that property implies this, one cannot live without property. Example: Since the corn must be mine to eat or given to me, I can only nourish myself through property. Therefore the institution of property is a life necessity.
Three: Given that it is a necessity, there needs to be some kind of working order or nature to its operation. However, like the corn explained before, can we operate say a printing press without liberty? And how are we to define liberty? Is it the ability to flourish without interference?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
bravo for noticing that words can be rearranged and that sometimes briefer statements can be formulated. actually in this case your shortening lessens the descriptive power of hashems statement.
@Liberty Student,
Yes I completely agree. I have never claimed to be great at presenting an argument attractively, and I'm certainly not the first person to desire the ability. But I am determined to learn (and to correct where necessary) my argument thoroughly. If people are willfully ignorant because they think my method is unattractive, then I guess that's something I will need to work on.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: hashem:When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right. This sounds almost circular. The phrase "impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right" seems redundant. That simply means that "all rights are non-aggressive."
I was describing the nature of rights. The important characteristic of a right is that it is wrong to use aggression to prevent someone from exercising it. This does not mean that "all rights are non-aggressive."
Stephen Forde:Why? And I'm not trying to be obstinate.
A law is necessarily absolute and true. Do you deny that? If so, then present your case. If all you can do is say is "why" then forget about any type of rational discussion. Three year olds do that.
If you are honestly interested in how the word law came to be defined, then go and learn. I don't claim to have all the answers and yet not present them like you do.
JackCuyler: please demonstrate the logical fallacy.
Well it started here when I was criticizing hashem's case for a Rothbardian private property ethic because it fails to mentioning any of Rothbard's crucial points. I also expressed doubt that others who often side with him in threads understood the crucial points.
wilderness then called me arrogant here. I challenged him to prove me wrong here. He refused to answer my challenge here and instead reiterated that I am arrogant here. So he is basically just calling me arrogant instead of responding to my points. That's what an ad hominem is. And he does it again here along with other snide remarks in response to my criticisms here, where he doesn't seem to understand MarxistStudent's points. Even if I am arrogant (and I don't see how), that has nothing to do with whether or not my arguments are correct. So I don't see its misuse and hope that I've demonstrated the fallacy to you.
I really wish people didn't take anything I say personally. I'd rather just get back to the topic @ hand.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Stephen Forde: wilderness then called me arrogant here. I challenged him to prove me wrong here. He refused to answer my challenge here and instead reiterated that I am arrogant here. So he is basically just calling me arrogant instead of responding to my points. That's what an ad hominem is.
wilderness then called me arrogant here. I challenged him to prove me wrong here. He refused to answer my challenge here and instead reiterated that I am arrogant here. So he is basically just calling me arrogant instead of responding to my points. That's what an ad hominem is.
just so you know, insulting someone is not ad hominem fallacy. as KoB tried to explain, only if wild said, you are arrogant therefore your argument in favour of X is unsound, would he then be making the ad hom fallacy. if he does not use the insult to cut against your argument then its not ad hom fallacy.