wilderness:own=control
So taxation is not theft.
scineram: wilderness:own=control So taxation is not theft.
lol... That's an ethical question and I wasn't talking about ethics (as my posts in this thread say word for word). [sorry I took that humorous, don't take offense, as it wasn't that I'm laughing at you personally, but laughing about the fact, in good spirit, that I've said word for word throughout this thread that I am not talking about ethics.]
filc:Ownership is the act of posessing.
It's more than that, it's the legal right to possession.
Wiki:Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate or intellectual property. Ownership involves multiple rights, collectively referred to as title, which may be separated and held by different parties.
So again, to assume an understanding of property, one has to assume understanding of the concept of ownership, therefore rights. I don't think all this conceptualization is necessary to become upset when something is taken from you.
wilderness: own=control
own=control
Own=rightful, or legal control
possession=control
Small, but important distinction.
wilderness:Do you control your choices?
Not entirely. We are all limited by our physical aspects.
wilderness:Brainpolice, like Jackson, are simply not liking the word "property". Their argument has nothing to do with the concept, but the word.
The word denotes a completely different concept, like the difference between "theft" and "donation"
wilderness:It has nothing to do with the concept property, nor the semantics
Then you are missing my point, at least.
wilderness:I suggest understanding the semantics and the concept of property when you talk with people who do talk about property.
Wiki:Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons. Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate or intellectual property. Ownership involves multiple rights, collectively referred to as title, which may be separated and held by different parties. Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting, or entitlements to be acted upon or not acted upon.
Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate or intellectual property. Ownership involves multiple rights, collectively referred to as title, which may be separated and held by different parties.
Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting, or entitlements to be acted upon or not acted upon.
I don't buy into the concept of rights, so as I understand the meaning of the word "property", I don't buy into that concept either.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness: own=control Own=rightful, or legal control possession=control Small, but important distinction.
By Budda! You might have gotten it.
But not fully. A thief can own a watch, but that doesn't mean the watch is rightfully the thief's. How would anybody know otherwise, unless, somebody thinks ethically about it the conclusion as to who's watch it rightfully is will not be resolved.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:Do you control your choices? Not entirely. We are all limited by our physical aspects.
There is a distinction between choice and power. There is a point at which its no longer a choice but rather about power. I can choose to fly, but it's not within my power to do so. But technology (being power related) can get me flying, but when it comes to my physical person solely (without the technology, biological attributes, ie. no wings, and power) I can't fly even if I choose too.
wilderness:By Budda! You might have gotten it.
So, I disagree in the normative and ethical connotations of words like "ownership", and "property"
wilderness:A thief can own a watch, but that doesn't mean the watch is rightfully the thief's
You have to assume that theft is a valid concept first, for that statement to apply.
wilderness:unless, somebody thinks ethically about it the conclusion as to who's watch it rightfully is will not be resolved.
Or, if either party has a gun.
wilderness:There is a distinction between choice and power. There is a point at which its no longer a choice but rather about power. I can choose to fly, but it's not within my power to do so. But technology (being power related) can get me flying, but when it comes to my physical person solely (without the technology, biological attributes, ie. no wings, and power) I can't fly even if I choose too.
So our choices are already somewhat limited. Not only that, but the determinist theories about not being able to choose what you think about entirely, that sort of thing.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:By Budda! You might have gotten it. So, I disagree in the normative and ethical connotations of words like "ownership", and "property"
Those connotations are of your making, not mine, I think that is clear. And if you disagree with those connotations of your making then that's your own mind sharing the disagreements with itself. Because the ethical connotations are not principles inherent in the words, connotations are semantics, not principles.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:A thief can own a watch, but that doesn't mean the watch is rightfully the thief's You have to assume that theft is a valid concept first, for that statement to apply.
true. A thief (ethical) owns (not ethical) a watch. I only pointed out the thief to portray how a person can own something and nobody would even know if in fact it was rightfully theirs. Yet since I named the person a thief it is obvious that what a person owns might not really be theirs, but how would one truly know this unless they introduce ethics into the inquiry.
A person can own something, but unless ethics is used then nobody will know if that something is rightfully theirs or not. The person simply owns it because they have it. Own and possession are the same in this context.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:There is a distinction between choice and power. There is a point at which its no longer a choice but rather about power. I can choose to fly, but it's not within my power to do so. But technology (being power related) can get me flying, but when it comes to my physical person solely (without the technology, biological attributes, ie. no wings, and power) I can't fly even if I choose too. So our choices are already somewhat limited.
So our choices are already somewhat limited.
Yes, because humans are not all-powerful, though, some may choose to be but just as it is logically impossible to do some things, it is always biologically impossible to some things no matter how much chooses otherwise. I choose to fly and jump off a ten story building. It's not going to happen. I don't have that kind of power, but I still made the choice.
Jackson LaRose: Not only that, but the determinist theories about not being able to choose what you think about entirely, that sort of thing.
Not only that, but the determinist theories about not being able to choose what you think about entirely, that sort of thing.
I'm not well-understood on any determinist theories.
Here's some quotes to point out that I'm not the only one thinking this way:
Rothbard Ethics of Liberty:
A - "The key to the theory of liberty is the establishment of the rights of private property for each individual's justified sphere of free action can only be set forth if his rights of property are analyzed and established. "Crime" can then be defined and properly analyzed as a violent invasion or aggression against the just property of another individual (including his property in his own person)."
---
B - "We may define anyone who aggresses against the person or other produced property of another as a criminal. A criminal is anyone who initiates violence against another man and his property: anyone who uses the coercive "political means" for the acquisition of goods and services.'
Now, however, critical problems arise; we are now indeed at the very heart of the entire problem of liberty, property, and violence in society. A crucial question-and one which has unfortunately been almost totally neglected by libertarian theorists-may be illustrated by the following examples:
Suppose we are walking down the street and we see a man, A, seizing B by the wrist and grabbing B's wristwatch. There is no question that A is here violating both the person and the property of B. Can we then simply infer from this scene that A is a criminal aggressor, and B his innocent victim?
Certainly not-for we don't know simply from our observation whether A is indeed a thief, or whether A is merely repossessing his own watch from B who had previously stolen it from him. In short, while the watch had undoubtedly been B's property until the moment of A's attack, we don't know whether or not A had been the legitimate owner at some earlier time, and had been robbed by B. Therefore, we do not yet know which one of the two men is the legitimate or just property owner. We can only find the answer through investigating the concrete data of the particular case, i.e., through "historical" inquiry.
Thus, we cannot simply say that the great axiomatic moral rule of the libertarian society is the protection of property rights, period. For the criminal has no natural right whatever to the retention of property that he has stolen; the aggressor has no right to claim any property that he has acquired by aggression. Therefore, we must modify or rather clarify the basic rule of the libertarian society to say that no one has the right to aggress against the legitimate or just property of another.
In short, we cannot simply talk of defense of "property rights" or of "private property" per se. For if we do so, we are in grave danger of defending the "property right" of a criminal aggressor-in fact, we logically must do so. We may therefore only speak of just property or legitimate property or perhaps "natural property."And this means that, in concrete cases, we must decide whether any single given act of violence is aggressive or defensive: e.g., whether it is a case of a criminal robbing a victim, or of a victim trying to repossess his property."
[Rothbard's emphasis (the bolding) not mine]
He has made a distinction between (1) property and owner AND (2) legitimate and just.
(1) is NOT per se ethical as legitimate and just are the adjectives to these nouns to qualify the nouns because the nouns property and owner can also can have the adjectives illegitimate and unjust placed in front of them.
(2) are ethical connotations
C- "It should be clear that for the libertarians to refute this stratagem they must take their stand on a theory of just versus unjust property." [again Rothbard's emphasis not mine]
And he spends more than one chapter emphasizing this point so it is not minor, indeed, he even states above this is the heart of the problem of qualifying property and says it is critical to understand this distinction.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:unless, somebody thinks ethically about it the conclusion as to who's watch it rightfully is will not be resolved. Or, if either party has a gun.
[I don't know if you edited this after I had already responded to your post, so, I'll do that here.]
I said "who's watch it rightfully is... not... resolved", so no, unless each party has a gun and it has been decided which one is the attacker and defender, having a gun is not an ethical consideration. But as I said above, who's watch it is rightfully, for that to be resolved, is an ethical consideration.
wilderness:A thief (ethical) owns (not ethical) a watch.
I would say we are using two different definitions of the word "own" to frame our points. If by you "own" you are simply saying "physically posses", than I would agree that the use is non-ethical. That seems like a limited definition of "own" because the term seems to imply that it is possible to "own" something, even though I am not currently "physically possessing" it.
wilderness:A person can own something, but unless ethics is used then nobody will know if that something is rightfully theirs or not. The person simply owns it because they have it. Own and possession are the same in this context.
That could be your interpretation, but I would disagree that "ownership" and "possession" are entirely analogous.
wilderness:I don't have that kind of power, but I still made the choice.
A choice to me implies a decision between (at least) two actions. If an action is impossible to actuate, I don't see how that would be considered a choice.
wilderness:I'm not well-understood on any determinist theories.
From what I understand (which is also quite limited), I'm more of a compatibilist than strictly determinist.
wilderness:There is no question that A is here violating both the person and the property of B.
I would contend the use of the word "property" here, by my understanding of the word.
wilderness:Certainly not-for we don't know simply from our observation whether A is indeed a thief, or whether A is merely repossessing his own watch from B who had previously stolen it from him.
Here, the question (as I'm sure you agree) turns into an ethical one. I highlighted where I think Rothbard shows that "owning" and "possessing" are distinct. Since the phrase implies that A can "own" the watch without "possessing" it. Therefore, it can also be said that the watch was never B's property at all, regardless of whether or not he managed to posses it for a while. This is why I feel the term "ownership" is so pregnant with ethical connotations.
As far as the rest goes, I understand what Rothbard is saying, I just tend to disagree with his use of the word "property" in much of the passage.
Jackson LaRose:It's more than that, it's the legal right to possession.
Arbitrary legal positivism has nothing to do with it.
Jackson LaRose:, one has to assume understanding of the concept of ownership
Ownership: possession: the act of having and controlling property
Again rights have nothing to do with it.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:A thief (ethical) owns (not ethical) a watch. I would say we are using two different definitions of the word "own" to frame our points.
I would say we are using two different definitions of the word "own" to frame our points.
That's what I told you awhile ago, and I'm glad we both have been able to achieve this understanding together.
Jackson LaRose:If by you "own" you are simply saying "physically posses", than I would agree that the use is non-ethical.
That's what I mean. Great. We agree.
Jackson LaRose:That seems like a limited definition of "own" because the term seems to imply that it is possible to "own" something, even though I am not currently "physically possessing" it.
Example: I have (possess) a rake that is in the shed. I'm cooking lunch right now, but if somebody needs to borrow it, then I can run out back and get it.
Example: I have (own) a rake.... (same example)
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:A person can own something, but unless ethics is used then nobody will know if that something is rightfully theirs or not. The person simply owns it because they have it. Own and possession are the same in this context. That could be your interpretation, but I would disagree that "ownership" and "possession" are entirely analogous.
That's fine, I mean this is semantics after all, but here's a dictionary definition to show I'm not the only one thinking this way:
own (n)
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:I don't have that kind of power, but I still made the choice. A choice to me implies a decision between (at least) two actions. If an action is impossible to actuate, I don't see how that would be considered a choice.
I jump off the roof choosing to fly or I choose not to fly and stay on the roof. Each one involves an action of choice.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:I'm not well-understood on any determinist theories. From what I understand (which is also quite limited), I'm more of a compatibilist than strictly determinist.
I'll check out the links. Thanks.
wilderness: Example: I have (possess) a rake that is in the shed. I'm cooking lunch right now, but if somebody needs to borrow it, then I can run out back and get it. Example: I have (own) a rake.... (same example)
Until you no longer posses it. By your definition (as I understand it) you have (albeit voluntarily) ceded ownership when the rake left your control (when you let the somebody take possession of it).
wilderness: That's fine, I mean this is semantics after all, but here's a dictionary definition to show I'm not the only one thinking this way: own (n) owned, own·ing, owns 1. a. To have or possess as property b. To have control over
The 1.a. definition seems to vibe with my preferred understanding of the term, while the 1.b. seems to be more to your liking.
wilderness:I jump off the roof choosing to fly or I choose not to fly and stay on the roof. Each one involves an action of choice.
But you cannot make the choice to fly. You are prevented outside of your control from doing so.
Jackson LaRose:But you cannot make the choice to fly.
I most certainly can make the choice to fly. Whether it pans out as I expect or not is a different issue. But even if we conceded your point it does not invalidate Wilderness's point of self control and self ownership.
Your body is a tangible object, if it was not owned I should be allowed to chop off your arm, claim it as mine and homestead it. And you would have no care otherwise, since it is not yours, and is apparently up for grabs.
filc:I most certainly can make the choice to fly.
I would argue that you can make the choice to desire to fly, but the execution of the action is out of your control.
filc:Your body is a tangible object, if it was not owned I should be allowed to chop off your arm, claim it as mine and homestead it. And you would have no care otherwise, since it is not yours, and is apparently up for grabs.
This is were I disagree with the Hoppean logic. True, my body is a tangible object, and if I had no regard for it, nothing would stop you from chopping my arm off. It is only my concern for maintaining the body in question's integrity that makes me stop you from doing it. I don't have to consider whether or not I own my body or not. I also disagree that I would necessarily have to own something to have any regard for it. I like whales, and it bothers me when dolphins are rounded up in coves and slaughtered, but it doesn't mean I feel I own the dolphins.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:There is no question that A is here violating both the person and the property of B. I would contend the use of the word "property" here, by my understanding of the word.
That's what I'm pointing out to you. If you are going to understand natural law paradigms, then first it would be helpful to understand their culture/language.
For the sake of argument let's assume I meet a Mexican who doesn't know a word of American-English. I ask him in Spanish "Can I borrow that pencil?" BUT I say everything in Spanish except the word "pencil". I only say it in A-English. He stares at me baffled. I don't understand why he won't give me the pencil or respond. Communicate level breaks down. I need to talk in their language to understand their worldview.
In the case of property here, it's only semantics and this is the definition of property in natural law theory. Love or it or leave it, but one will not understand natural law but at the same time one will not be able to argue effectively against it because the argument is only boiling down to semantics and not actual concepts and theories.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:Certainly not-for we don't know simply from our observation whether A is indeed a thief, or whether A is merely repossessing his own watch from B who had previously stolen it from him.(emphasis added) Here, the question (as I'm sure you agree) turns into an ethical one.
Here, the question (as I'm sure you agree) turns into an ethical one.
Yes.
Jackson LaRose:I highlighted where I think Rothbard shows that "owning" and "possessing" are distinct. Since the phrase implies that A can "own" the watch without "possessing" it. Therefore, it can also be said that the watch was never B's property at all, regardless of whether or not he managed to posses it for a while. This is why I feel the term "ownership" is so pregnant with ethical connotations.
Yes. I understand your point. And also because somebody possesses a watch doesn't mean such a person owns the watch. But if somebody owns a watch it also doesn't mean it is legitimately their watch. To highlight "own" in the absolute sense of 'who's watch it really is' that is an ethical question. But in another light, if somebody possesses, uses, controls, and owns something it doesn't mean it is rightfully of their possession, control, use, and ownership. Ethically speaking, "own" can be used both ways without controversy: (A) just owner (B) unjust owner; and both ways make perfect sense when read.
Jackson LaRose:As far as the rest goes, I understand what Rothbard is saying, I just tend to disagree with his use of the word "property" in much of the passage.
Semantics or aesthetic, that's your choice, but it says nothing of the theory and conceptual nature of property used in such a manner, ie. person, object, thereby your argument is a semantic one and not one that can dealt with intellectually concerning theory and principle. It would therefore only come down to what color you want to paint the room but doesn't change the fact of the theory of property and what that means, entails, etc.... It's not detrimental to use property to define a person because ethically speaking an individual owning his person as property is the core of what liberty and freedom means. To attack property in the person is to attack liberty and freedom in natural law theory. And logically that only leads to special pleading, performative contradictions, and hypocrisy. But we really are not having a discussion on the theory itself. Just semantics.
Jackson LaRose:I would argue that you can make the choice to desire to fly, but the execution of the action is out of your control.
The consequences of any action is out of your control. You can only expect the likelihood of those consequences. For example you may be used to safely walking to work everyday. It is within your power to do so, however today a meteorite may fall from the sky, land on you, and kill you. As such walking to work that day successfully was out of your control. That did not deter you from making the choice to do so.
In the same respect you can choose to fly, ignoring the likelihood of the consequences of that action. You will likely fall to your death, but the consequences do not deter you from choosing the desired action, or attempted action.
Jackson LaRose:It is only my concern for maintaining the body in question's integrity that makes me stop you from doing it.
You have just described property again.
Jackson LaRose:I also disagree that I would necessarily have to own something to have any regard for it. I like whales, and it bothers me when dolphins are rounded up in coves and slaughtered, but it doesn't mean I feel I own the dolphins.
This isn't the conclusion we would come to either. Still everything you have described is property, you just choose not to use the word when applying it to your own person. It doesn't change the fundamental principles however by ignoring it's name. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
filc:You have just described property again.
I would contend that description of property.
filc:Still everything you have described is property, you just choose not to use the word when applying it to your own person. It doesn't change the fundamental principles however by ignoring it's name. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
But what I'm saying is that the definition of property includes the concept of ownership, which is derived from a concept of rights, which I feel is unnecessary, or rather, not intrinsic to the objects I describe.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness: Example: I have (possess) a rake that is in the shed. I'm cooking lunch right now, but if somebody needs to borrow it, then I can run out back and get it. Example: I have (own) a rake.... (same example) Until you no longer posses it. By your definition (as I understand it) you have (albeit voluntarily) ceded ownership when the rake left your control (when you let the somebody take possession of it).
Ethically speaking, I haven't ceded ownership because I pointed out how not physically possessing something also shows how I can still own it and have possession of it, though not physical possession. I possess it or have it in the shed. It's not physically in my hand at the moment. Therefore I still own the rake even when somebody else takes control of it physically.
The borrower owns it by being able to wield it with the power of their arms. It is theirs to wield and control. Each action they take with the rake, they own those actions, as those actions are deliberately theirs willed through the structure of the rake. Is the borrower to own the rake unjustly though? Are to we bring ethics into this situation? I don't need to. But as I said I totally understand how own, semantically, can be embedded with ethical connotations because it's easier to simply say: I own this. Without having to say each time: I justly own this. But "own" doesn't have to and it's not controversial to think that own can be understood without that connotation aspect. I think it's perfectly sensible to understand "own" without ethical judgment AND I understand how it is sensible to understand "own" with ethical judgment. And each instance (A) without ethic (B) with ethic, both A and B can be understood semantically by reading the one word "own". It's a choice by the reader to choose A or B at any given moment or marginal unit.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness: That's fine, I mean this is semantics after all, but here's a dictionary definition to show I'm not the only one thinking this way: own (n) owned, own·ing, owns 1. a. To have or possess as property b. To have control over The 1.a. definition seems to vibe with my preferred understanding of the term, while the 1.b. seems to be more to your liking.
wilderness: That's fine, I mean this is semantics after all, but here's a dictionary definition to show I'm not the only one thinking this way: own (n) owned, own·ing, owns 1. a. To have or possess as property b. To have control over The 1.a. definition seems to vibe with my preferred understanding of the term, while the 1.b. seems to be more to your liking.
Yes. Yes. Exactly.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:I jump off the roof choosing to fly or I choose not to fly and stay on the roof. Each one involves an action of choice. But you cannot make the choice to fly. You are prevented outside of your control from doing so.
i can choose all day and night to fly. I consciously make that decision, but will it happen? No. It's beyond my power.
Jackson LaRose: filc:You have just described property again. I would contend that description of property. filc:Still everything you have described is property, you just choose not to use the word when applying it to your own person. It doesn't change the fundamental principles however by ignoring it's name. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But what I'm saying is that the definition of property includes the concept of ownership, which is derived from a concept of rights, which I feel is unnecessary, or rather, not intrinsic to the objects I describe.
To come full circle than, if you want to go the route of rights. Can I legitimately sell someone else's property without their consent?
In that situation what would that be?
That old adage still works wonders.
I completely agree with this here filc. It's really about the name, but not the principles. Maybe that's what's called window dressing?
Jackson LaRose:But what I'm saying is that the definition of property includes the concept of ownership, which is derived from a concept of rights, which I feel is unnecessary, or rather, not intrinsic to the objects I describe.
Well you are ethically speaking now.
wilderness:I completely agree with this here filc. It's really about the name, but not the principles. Maybe that's what's called window dressing?
Sadly is as often is the case with certain individuals when they are backed into a corner they attempt to rescue themselves with pet definitions. Despite the fact it is an intilliectual digression. It goes along with what you said earlier.
wilderness:Semantics or aesthetic, that's your choice, but it says nothing of the theory and conceptual nature of property used in such a manner, ie. person, object, thereby your argument is a semantic one and not one that can dealt with intellectually concerning theory and principle. It would therefore only come down to what color you want to paint the room but doesn't change the fact of the theory of property and what that means, entails, etc.... It's not detrimental to use property to define a person because ethically speaking an individual owning his person as property is the core of what liberty and freedom means. To attack property in the person is to attack liberty and freedom in natural law theory. And logically that only leads to special pleading, performative contradictions, and hypocrisy. But we really are not having a discussion on the theory itself. Just semantics.
wilderness: I possess it or have it in the shed.
I think both are examples of physical possession.
wilderness:It's not physically in my hand at the moment.
No, but you are still physically restraining it.
wilderness:Therefore I still own the rake even when somebody else takes control of it physically.
I don't really see how that follows. The shed is not someone else.
wilderness:The borrower owns it by being able to wield it with the power of their arms. It is theirs to wield and control. Each action they take with the rake, they own those actions, as those actions are deliberately theirs willed through the structure of the rake.
So you contend that ownership and possession are one in the same?
wilderness:i can choose all day and night to fly. I consciously make that decision, but will it happen? No. It's beyond my power.
Yeah, but you aren't actually flying as a result of your choice. I think that is important to distinguish, as I don't see how it is then a choice to be made.
filc:To come full circle than, if you want to go the route of rights. Can I legitimately sell someone else's property without their consent?
I'm not sure what you mean by legitimately.
filc:adly is as often is the case with certain individuals when they are backed into a corner they attempt to rescue themselves with pet definitions. Despite the fact it is an intilliectual digression. It goes along with what you said earlier.
Please, spare me the patronizing bull crap. If the definitions of what people are trying to convey to one another aren't congruent, how can meaningful communication take place? What if I think "property" is only the stuff I find in my belly-button? How am I expected to hold a meaningful conversation with anybody? Shrugging off semantics as just an escape hatch is intellectually dishonest, IMO.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness: I possess it or have it in the shed. I think both are examples of physical possession.
I physically don't have the rake in my hand that not disputable.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:It's not physically in my hand at the moment. No, but you are still physically restraining it.
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.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:Therefore I still own the rake even when somebody else takes control of it physically. I don't really see how that follows. The shed is not someone else.
My sentence doesn't have the word "shed" in it. I don't know what you mean either.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:The borrower owns it by being able to wield it with the power of their arms. It is theirs to wield and control. Each action they take with the rake, they own those actions, as those actions are deliberately theirs willed through the structure of the rake. So you contend that ownership and possession are one in the same?
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. Like when somebody plays a joke on somebody else. The person who fell for the joke was owned. But that's a bit of an urban jargon flavor. To possess seems slightly toned down a notch in which I'm merely holding it, maybe not even physically controlling it or wielding much power through it. That's my perspective.
Jackson LaRose: wilderness:i can choose all day and night to fly. I consciously make that decision, but will it happen? No. It's beyond my power. Yeah, but you aren't actually flying as a result of your choice. I think that is important to distinguish, as I don't see how it is then a choice to be made.
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.
P.S. And who changed the font that we are all now posting from in our responses!! lol
Jackson LaRose:Please, spare me the patronizing bull crap. If the definitions of what people are trying to convey to one another aren't congruent, how can meaningful communication take place? What if I think "property" is only the stuff I find in my belly-button? How am I expected to hold a meaningful conversation with anybody? Shrugging off semantics as just an escape hatch is intellectually dishonest, IMO.
The point is you are building the concept of "Property" from the concept of "Property rights". As if somehow property rights come before the concept of property. This is a conflation of property and rights to be sure, you fail to recognize is that rights applied to property can only come after the principles of property are recognized first. So you seem to have fabricated a circular definition.
My other point is that people often create their own definitions to support their argument. It's an easy way to not admit you are wrong, but becomes intellectually counter-productive. My definition, and I am not sure but I think Wilderness would agree, is built apong 3 preceding principles.
That objects are scarce, time is scarce, and the occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy needs or desires.
If any one of those 3 were not the case property would be meaningless, I think you agreed above. In addition property rights would also be meaningless as there would not be property.
Your definition by contrast relies on property rights becomes circular. It assumes property in the definition of rights, then uses that again to define property.
Jackson LaRose: filc:To come full circle than, if you want to go the route of rights. Can I legitimately sell someone else's property without their consent? I'm not sure what you mean by legitimately.
Hmm, what about this.
Can I sell someone else's property without their consent and while not violating their rights?
I like that definition filc. I haven't thought that deeply into the principles of property. I've recognized scarcity and occupation of objects, but I haven't thought about the "time" issue. Yet that's because I'm not as read in time preference theory as you probably are, but I'm getting there!
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.
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: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. Also, when you lend out your rake, you no longer own it. Is that fair to say, using your definition?
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:P.S. And who changed the font that we are all now posting from in our responses!! lol
I don't know.
filc:Your definition by contrast relies on property rights becomes circular. It assumes property in the definition of rights, then uses that again to define property.
No, that is a misunderstanding on your part.
The definition of property I am using is essentially
"Matter an individual has claimed ownership upon"
Without ownership, an consequently, without rights, property becomes simply, "matter", or "stuff", or "things".
I don't see how that is circular, or counter-productive. It's simply a different understanding of a word.
So your still deriving your definition of property from rights. Your previous post to Wilderness was entirely built upon ethics. Who has the right to own this or that.
the problem with your definition is that it changes from person to person, culture ot culture, and economic model to economic model. Communists, socialists, fascists and capitalists however all believe in property. Who owns that property whether it be individually or collectively is what changes.
filc:So your still deriving your definition of property from rights.
How?
filc:Your previous post to Wilderness was entirely built upon ethics. Who has the right to own this or that.
Because when I talk about "property" as opposed to "stuff", I can't help but drag ethics into it. It's like trying to talk about "good" and "bad" without talking about ethics. The word property is an ethical statement (to me, at least).
filc:the problem with your definition is that it changes from person to person, culture ot culture, and economic model to economic model. Communists, socialists, fascists and capitalists however all believe in property. Who owns that property whether it be individually or collectively is what changes.
I don't find that to be a problem. I just think the concept of property, and all the baggage I associate with the term is phony, a spook, make-believe. Bingo, problem solved.
Jackson LaRose: How?
You have repeatedly stated the following.
Jackson LaRose:to assume an understanding of property, one has to assume understanding of the concept of ownership, therefore rights.
Rights -> Ownership -> Property.
Wilderness and I are stating this.
Property -> Ownership -> Rights.
We cannot know what rights apply to whom and how without first understanding what we are applying rights to. The definition of the object which rights apply to comes before the rights themselves.
Jackson LaRose:The word property is an ethical statement (to me, at least).
First we understand that someone is occupying a scarce good over a specific amount of time. That is property. To make a judgement of whether or not this person has the RIGHT to occupy and employ that scarce good over a specific set of time is an ethical judgement.
For example I may be renting a lawnmower. During the rent the lawnmower is in my pocession. It is my right to hold it in my pocession as agreed per contract. The rights of pocession and ownership change based on need and situation. They are often arbitrary and manipulated to fit the best economic need.
But before we can even analyze those situations we must first recognize that it all boils down to the occupation of scarce objects, over time to satisfy a need.
As I said above. We live in a world where objects are scarce, time is scarce, and the occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy needs or desires. Without those 3 both property, and the rights you conflate with them would be meaningless.
Those 3 underlying principles are the framework from which property is built from. Rights to who owns what comes after the fact.
Jackson LaRose: Bingo, problem solved.
Ok then back to where we started. Please answer this.
filc:Can I sell someone else's property without their consent and while not violating their rights?
Rights as understood by you.
filc: Rights -> Ownership -> Property. Wilderness and I are stating this. Property -> Ownership -> Rights.
Understood, but you are missing a crucial link in my definition
Matter + Rights = Ownership, Property
filc:We cannot know what rights apply to whom and how without first understanding what we are applying rights to.
Stuff. When you apply concepts of rights to stuff, you get property.
As to the rest of your post, I understand, but disagree on you definition of property. You seem to like Wilderness, so let's borrow his method:
Property:
1.
a. Something owned; a possession.
b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
Jackson LaRose:Stuff. When you apply concepts of rights to stuff, you get property.
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?
Also can you answer my question about the selling of someone else's property without their consent?