-
The market and the wealth it creates preceedes all of those thngs. This isn't socialism, it is simply a form of a market economy
-
I am saying.. someone take this apart please! Sure: The institution of private property is a wholly artificial one, the construction of society, and it therefore reflects no pre-political or pre-social moral truths. In evaluating private property from an ethical point of view, the sole relevant considerations to take into account are the prevailing
-
I am criticizing the idea of property rights as axiomatic I don't think anyone disagrees, self ownership though is a bit of a wonky phrase from time to time - or there is no conclusions of such a concept that support or disprove the market mechanism. After that we are simply identifying mechanisms at work to utilize a worth while description of
-
Property is autocratic, but it can certainly be peaceful. I think it is also a logicl neccessity - the minute someone makes the comment "there is no property ", "property doesn't exist", or "we ought not have property" - I don't think I can wrap my head around the statement, the best I can translate it is - "this
-
I am also starting to take the concept of expectations very seriously, and I think this dovetails inl with such ways one conducts themselves in their very real environment.
-
Nope. Custom: If you are in a society in which this is an actual problem it won't exist. If you are one irrelevant case, that can't make a difference no matter what you do, consider yourself a foolish investor. If someone thinks "property rights" are this Platonic and they can get away doing this shit when more powerful social mechanisms
-
Everything is force - property is just an unavoidable fact of life, and at any point it exists(be it the USSR or Anarcho-capitalism Land) it automatically establishes the fact there is some form of cooperation, properity, custom, market mechinism, and homeostasis rather than a war of all against all
-
Wait, you're saying you want to disconnect the mechanical functions of our brains from the way we think? We all evolved along similar lines, so I think it's pretty reasonably to suggest that we have similar tastes, and in the grand scheme of things we all do. Thing is, when we make generalisations within racial lines as opposed to between them
-
I disagree with youre claim this isn't science. As I said, he made a testable claim and one can think of a few ways to test it, even though they might not be perfect tests for attractive, I daresay they'd be highly correlated with general perceptions. No there are no laws here that this covers or describes that are within the language of science
-
I think I agree with Caley on this. Though I think even here the word "gifted" can only be used as a type of "matter of fact statement" in a "what is, is" situation....that is gifted is what is on top, and what is on top is gifted, and this is only dependent on perspectives.