majevska: "Ownership," conventionally defined is not synonymous with neurological control of actions. Let's say you claim to own a particular teddy bear-- do you mean that you can telepathically control the actions of the teddy bear? What about your heart? You have no direct conscious neurological control over its actions; do you not own it? De jure and de facto ownership are meaningful descriptive terms, normative claims of ownership, are a different beast entirely. What a lot of people are doing in this thread is equivocating normative claims of ownership with descriptive claims. It makes sense for neurological connections to be evidence of de facto ownership, but it's not evidence of cosmic de jure ownership, i.e. natural law. . I don't see any evidence for the existence of universal de jure ownership in humans.
"Ownership," conventionally defined is not synonymous with neurological control of actions. Let's say you claim to own a particular teddy bear-- do you mean that you can telepathically control the actions of the teddy bear? What about your heart? You have no direct conscious neurological control over its actions; do you not own it?
De jure and de facto ownership are meaningful descriptive terms, normative claims of ownership, are a different beast entirely. What a lot of people are doing in this thread is equivocating normative claims of ownership with descriptive claims.
It makes sense for neurological connections to be evidence of de facto ownership, but it's not evidence of cosmic de jure ownership, i.e. natural law. . I don't see any evidence for the existence of universal de jure ownership in humans.
This.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
ivanfoofoo: Agree. What I mean, is that every conceived system (such as Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism or any other) is not based on objective facts, but rather on subjective values. Our main political value is individualism, we should stick to that.
Agree. What I mean, is that every conceived system (such as Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism or any other) is not based on objective facts, but rather on subjective values. Our main political value is individualism, we should stick to that.
Agreed. Objective facts can inform our subjective values but facts alone are just a description of how things are. The way I see it, "natural law," tries to divorce the valuer from his own values, not only is this incoherent, but by demanding the individual subordinate himself to an entity "above" himself, as you've said: it's anti-individualist.
Agreed. Objective facts can inform our subjective values but facts alone are just a description of how things are. The way I see it, "natural law," tries to divorce the valuer from his own values; not only is this incoherent, but by demanding the individual subordinate himself to an entity "above" himself, as you've said: it's anti-individualist.
majevska: "Ownership," conventionally defined is not synonymous with neurological control of actions. Let's say you claim to own a particular teddy bear-- do you mean that you can telepathically control the actions of the teddy bear? What about your heart? You have no direct conscious neurological control over its actions; do you not own it? De jure and de facto ownership are meaningful descriptive terms, normative claims of ownership, are a different beast entirely. What a lot of people are doing in this thread is equivocating normative claims of ownership with descriptive claims. It makes sense for neurological connections to be evidence of de facto ownership, but it's not evidence of cosmic de jure ownership, i.e. natural law. . I don't see any evidence for the existence of universal de jure ownership in humans. "The universe" as a whole doesn't make courts or any sort of legal provisions for rights violations. Humans do sometimes, but not always. "Human nature," also doesn't set up any sort of legal system; particular humans at particular times do-- and very often not in concordance with Rothbard or [insert name here]'s beliefs.
It makes sense for neurological connections to be evidence of de facto ownership, but it's not evidence of cosmic de jure ownership, i.e. natural law. . I don't see any evidence for the existence of universal de jure ownership in humans. "The universe" as a whole doesn't make courts or any sort of legal provisions for rights violations. Humans do sometimes, but not always. "Human nature," also doesn't set up any sort of legal system; particular humans at particular times do-- and very often not in concordance with Rothbard or [insert name here]'s beliefs.
Wow you went off on a tangent. We weren't even talking about court systems. And human nature is the person, based on the individual, to make absurd reductional remarks asking if the heart asked us to is a silly tangent. Some people believe they have a master, but of course natural rights are based on free-will, so, love 'em or leave 'em.
majevska: Why should the nature of the humans who violate natural law be excluded from "human nature"? Some of these rights violators claim to have achieved happiness from it.
Why should the nature of the humans who violate natural law be excluded from "human nature"? Some of these rights violators claim to have achieved happiness from it.
The natural law of human nature recognizes liberty - not Stalin's definition of what should or should not be.
majevska: Are you able to disprove these claims? If by "against human nature," you intend to include all actions that result in overall decreased satisfaction, you will have to prove that the particular actions you would categorize thusly are always and at all times resultant in decreased net satisfaction. You must also prove that all actions in concordance with supposed "human nature," are always and at all times resultant in increased net satisfaction.
Are you able to disprove these claims? If by "against human nature," you intend to include all actions that result in overall decreased satisfaction, you will have to prove that the particular actions you would categorize thusly are always and at all times resultant in decreased net satisfaction. You must also prove that all actions in concordance with supposed "human nature," are always and at all times resultant in increased net satisfaction.
Yes you would. So try it out. Doing crime violates somebody's person, liberty, or property? Does that maximize conflict? Yes. Is it minimizing conflict and adhering to a good system that provides liberty for the individual? I mean it's obvious to only think about yourself in the extreme is to be Hitler or Stalin when it comes to going against human nature. Of course there are degrees to this and luckily most times we can try to deal with the situation though it will be like going uphill (communism) when a perfectly good option of going downhill is available (free market).
Are you able to disprove the sky is blue when it is blue?
zefreak: majevska: "Ownership," conventionally defined is not synonymous with neurological control of actions. Let's say you claim to own a particular teddy bear-- do you mean that you can telepathically control the actions of the teddy bear? What about your heart? You have no direct conscious neurological control over its actions; do you not own it? De jure and de facto ownership are meaningful descriptive terms, normative claims of ownership, are a different beast entirely. What a lot of people are doing in this thread is equivocating normative claims of ownership with descriptive claims. It makes sense for neurological connections to be evidence of de facto ownership, but it's not evidence of cosmic de jure ownership, i.e. natural law. . I don't see any evidence for the existence of universal de jure ownership in humans. This.
If you would like I can give this a work over, after I get home from work....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Of course you would rally behind Hitler the individual.
scineram: wilderness: scineram: Harry Felker:What exactly is the problem with my logic? Aside from of couse you do not agree that you own yourself... You could own yourself without owning everything you produce. Of course. But I'll put this in terms my four year old niece would understand: Is that good or bad? look at my signature and decide... It depends. Are you the producer or the needy?
wilderness: scineram: Harry Felker:What exactly is the problem with my logic? Aside from of couse you do not agree that you own yourself... You could own yourself without owning everything you produce. Of course. But I'll put this in terms my four year old niece would understand: Is that good or bad? look at my signature and decide...
scineram: Harry Felker:What exactly is the problem with my logic? Aside from of couse you do not agree that you own yourself... You could own yourself without owning everything you produce.
Harry Felker:What exactly is the problem with my logic? Aside from of couse you do not agree that you own yourself...
You could own yourself without owning everything you produce.
Of course. But I'll put this in terms my four year old niece would understand: Is that good or bad?
look at my signature and decide...
It depends. Are you the producer or the needy?
No it doesn't depend. You were talking about the individual that doesn't own everything they produce. You never brought up if they were getting returns or not on their labor? Is it good or bad? It's not that difficult unless you make it that way.
Harry Felker: zefreak: majevska: "Ownership," conventionally defined is not synonymous with neurological control of actions. Let's say you claim to own a particular teddy bear-- do you mean that you can telepathically control the actions of the teddy bear? What about your heart? You have no direct conscious neurological control over its actions; do you not own it? De jure and de facto ownership are meaningful descriptive terms, normative claims of ownership, are a different beast entirely. What a lot of people are doing in this thread is equivocating normative claims of ownership with descriptive claims. It makes sense for neurological connections to be evidence of de facto ownership, but it's not evidence of cosmic de jure ownership, i.e. natural law. . I don't see any evidence for the existence of universal de jure ownership in humans. This. If you would like I can give this a work over, after I get home from work....
I'll be waiting, considering the content of your last few posts.
majevska: ivanfoofoo: Agree. What I mean, is that every conceived system (such as Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism or any other) is not based on objective facts, but rather on subjective values. Our main political value is individualism, we should stick to that. Agreed. Objective facts can inform our subjective values but facts alone are just a description of how things are. The way I see it, "natural law," tries to divorce the valuer from his own values, not only is this incoherent, but by demanding the individual subordinate himself to an entity "above" himself, as you've said: it's anti-individualist.
Of course you don't understand the basics. If you did you would understand that free-will is a natural law of human nature based on thus said human action. You have the free-will to violate such natural laws. It is completely about the individual. But you don't know what you're talking about and ignore thousands of years of understanding that discusses these basics. Violate natural law, ignore facts of human action, and be a criminal - it's your choice.
Harry Felker: scineram: Harry Felker:What exactly is the problem with my logic? Aside from of couse you do not agree that you own yourself... You could own yourself without owning everything you produce. How so, you are responsible for your actions, that responsibility concludes that you have some stake in its product, thus the product is yours... I do think I know where you are going.... The Factory Worker The factory worker produces widgets, so the widgets are his, this supposes the factory worker is not paid for his service of widget production, the factory worker takes the factory owners materials and produces a widget for a sum of money, the responsibility of the factory worker for the widget is transfered to the owner based on contractual stipulation in exchange for payment, the payment is not for the widget, but for the participation in creating the widget. The only other case would be the factory owner and worker jointly own the widget (raw material from owner and labor from worker) and upon sale they divide the money as per a previous agreed proportion. Both are equal, but the first scenario is more to the workers immediate benefit...
How so, you are responsible for your actions, that responsibility concludes that you have some stake in its product, thus the product is yours...
I do think I know where you are going....
The Factory Worker
The factory worker produces widgets, so the widgets are his, this supposes the factory worker is not paid for his service of widget production, the factory worker takes the factory owners materials and produces a widget for a sum of money, the responsibility of the factory worker for the widget is transfered to the owner based on contractual stipulation in exchange for payment, the payment is not for the widget, but for the participation in creating the widget. The only other case would be the factory owner and worker jointly own the widget (raw material from owner and labor from worker) and upon sale they divide the money as per a previous agreed proportion. Both are equal, but the first scenario is more to the workers immediate benefit...
Yeap. Anybody that has ever had a job would understand this very easily.
How does it come to be that private property is part of natural law, given that self-ownership and free-will exist in everyone of us? I think you will always stuck on what you consider to be "the rightful", "the best", "the most desirable" or some other subjective value.
ivanfoofoo:How does it come to be that private property is part of natural law, given that self-ownership and free-will exist in everyone of us?
the ownership part of self ownership, is a package deal, its surely not comprehensible without some property to to be what is owned. you can hardly have self-ownership, or any kind of ownership, without ownable property.
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
I think everything I wrote was germane to the discussion at hand but perhaps some clarification is in order. Rereading what I wrote, I can see why it might seem to be a tangent.
Regarding court systems, I was referring to the fact that if setting up courts in concordance with natural law is part of human nature, one would wonder why humans are able to go against their own nature or the nature of the universe. This goes back to the distinction made a while back by others between laws of physics and natural laws, with some posters claiming they are of the same essential character.
Regarding "the heart," I meant the organ that pumps blood. Since humans have no direct conscious control over it, should they own it according to natural law?
Then what, if not their nature, is it that leads some people to believe in Stalin's definition of what should or should not be?
Yes you would. So try it out. Doing crime violates somebody's person, liberty, or property? Does that maximize conflict? Yes. Is it minimizing conflict and adhering to a good system that provides liberty for the individual? I mean it's obvious to only think about yourself in the extreme is to be Hitler or Stalin when it comes to going against human nature. Of course there are degrees to this and luckily most times we can try to deal with the situation though it will be like going uphill (communism) when a perfectly good option of going downhill is available (free market). Are you able to disprove the sky is blue when it is blue?
I don't really have a desire to do anything that violates Rothbardian natural law at the moment, but if I come across an instance where I think it will be beneficial then I probably will. I have in the past achieved satisfaction from violating natural law. No, not genocide or murder. To provide a specific example, when I was about 12 years old I kicked over somebody's lawn gnome. In my judgement, this action provided me with a net increase in satisfaction. Did I just "disprove the sky is blue" as you put it?
nirgrahamUK: ivanfoofoo:How does it come to be that private property is part of natural law, given that self-ownership and free-will exist in everyone of us? the ownership part of self ownership, is a package deal, its surely not comprehensible without some property to to be what is owned. you can hardly have self-ownership, or any kind of ownership, without ownable property.
I'm not arguing that ownable property doesn't exist at all. I'm asking why may someone become the propietor of something, given the natural rights approach. I know, you will throw out the Lockean property idea. It's not that convincing.
The concepts of property, rights, and ownership all derive from the laws of human nature. You own yourself by definition (the definition of own is to possess) because you must necessarily be and control yourself.
Own:
"Origin: bef. 900; (adj.) ME owen, OE āgen (c. G eigen, ON eigenn), orig. ptp. of āgan to possess (see owe ); (v.) ME ownen, OE āgnian, āhnian, deriv. of āgen"
All other property rights are derived from that fact. All rights are property rights, and are therefore derived from that fact.
ivanfoofoo: How does it come to be that private property is part of natural law, given that self-ownership and free-will exist in everyone of us? I think you will always stuck on what you consider to be "the rightful", "the best", "the most desirable" or some subjective value.
How does it come to be that private property is part of natural law, given that self-ownership and free-will exist in everyone of us? I think you will always stuck on what you consider to be "the rightful", "the best", "the most desirable" or some subjective value.
Private property is derived thus deducted from natural law. In other words if you understand what natural law is and considering we interact in a society (two or more people), the thoughtful deductions of natural law conclude their are these natural rights. Human action and free-will in everyone of us aka natural law of human nature.
Of course when humans act freely and deducing that all humans are to act freely this means to not violate their acting freely. If you violate a person from acting freely, then you have violated natural law. People can violate natural law cause of free-will which again is a natural law of human nature. But to violate natural law of human nature is to go against thus said human nature that if logically followed in a thoughtful exercise no human nature would be left. To violate human nature is an implosion upon human nature. But to go with human nature is to logically follow in a thoughtful exercise that this would mean, if we are to humanly act freely that each individual is to humanly act freely - and that's the definition of liberty. If we freely act, as individuals, to acquire the desired needs and luxuries of life and thus we are acquiring these items, these properties, then for somebody to come along and to counter a person's property they justly and thus freely acquired is to go against their nature. It is to violate their nature of what they have been acquiring justly. It is the person's will that is involved in acquiring justly. So it is against their free-will against their human nature of natural law to counter and go against their property. Property is an extension of their will due to their human action.
The difference between natural law of human nature and natural rights is: Natural Law remains unchanging. It can be limited and suppressed but the choices of human action remain though when limited and suppressed involuntarily the choices that can still be made are made with increasingly brute force. Due to the liberty options are being involuntarily curbed. Of course a person can become a slave but with our knowledge of the potential of human nature any free options a slave may want to make that is made in the free market would most likely have to evolve and be made with brute force first. Cause the slaver master, in this example, would not want the slave to make those free choices. Natural law is therefore unchanged, the human actions are potential and can be made actual. The measure of these violations and limits are defined by natural rights.
A person can focus on the individual as natural rights do, or you can focus on the individual and support the individual without considerations of liberty, thus, a person can support individuals such as Hitler by that logic, cause Hitler is only an individual. It leads to absurd conclusions without natural rights of each individual considered. And natural rights do NOT go against natural law so in liberty an individual is free to follow his or her nature.
how do you mean 'why'?
are you asking motive>?
majevska: Regarding "the heart," I meant the organ that pumps blood. Since humans have no direct conscious control over it, should they own it according to natural law?
I think you bringing up the court is a tangent I'm not ready to get into since I have to leave here shortly. Maybe somebody else will discuss it. As to the heart, yes it is in our nature as humans to have a heart - you are not a perversion of human nature by having one majevska.
majevska: Then what, if not their nature, is it that leads some people to believe in Stalin's definition of what should or should not be?
They go against human nature. It is a natural law of human nature to have free-will. We are unique creatures in thus being able to choose to kill ourselves and to pervert our natures by enslaving ourselves. Or we can choose to go with our natures and flow down river or go against our natures.
majevska: I don't really have a desire to do anything that violates Rothbardian natural law at the moment, but if I come across an instance where I think it will be beneficial then I probably will.
I don't really have a desire to do anything that violates Rothbardian natural law at the moment, but if I come across an instance where I think it will be beneficial then I probably will.
If you think so... but it's funny how you can't now as you say.
majevska: I have in the past achieved satisfaction from violating natural law. No, not genocide or murder. To provide a specific example, when I was about 12 years old I kicked over somebody's lawn gnome. In my judgement, this action provided me with a net increase in satisfaction. Did I just "disprove the sky is blue" as you put it?
I have in the past achieved satisfaction from violating natural law. No, not genocide or murder. To provide a specific example, when I was about 12 years old I kicked over somebody's lawn gnome. In my judgement, this action provided me with a net increase in satisfaction. Did I just "disprove the sky is blue" as you put it?
No. Cause criminals love to watch blood drip from knifes too. So what's your point?
Again, it's because it's desirable to be it that way. A group of people may not have that property ideas, they may share everything, and be as natural as a "capitalist" society. I don't think we can resort to nature (and ideas that vaguely come from it) to justify our ideology. I will always justify my view on anarcho-capitalist because I consider private property to be just, good, moral and has good consequences (establishing limits of justice enforcement, for example). I consider that its desirable for every individual to reach his highests ends without being constrained by a "collective will", and so on. Nature, or god, as any metaphysical idea can't be definitive in our social arrangements. It's our political values that precede our political system, and not otherwise.
zefreak:You are using ownership to mean legitimate exlusivity, which cannot be logically derived from the fact that I determine my actions.
Why can't it be? Who determines your actions if not yourself?
zefreak:Now that I think about it, is there a difference in essence between "myself" controlling my body via my neural/muscular/skeletal structure and a third party controlling my body? If you look at the body as its component parts, and not a singular entity, there is no meaningful difference. Not exactly important to the topic at hand.
Who is this third party?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
scineram:Juan. He owns my sorry ass.
*Slips scineram anti-slavery literature*
'Keep it secret...keep it safe'
ivanfoofoo:I don't think we can resort to nature (and ideas that vaguely come from it) to justify our ideology.
No, we have to ask aliens for the exact, precise truth.
Hashem,
First, I disagree with your assertion of self-ownership, in fact, I think you have to commit circular reasoning to suggest it. By self-ownership, one largely means that one has sole facility of one's self and that others should not infringe upon that. Now, aside from the second statement contradicting the first - that is, if man really does have sole facility of himself, how could it be infringed upon? - to justify such a claim you need to show why another should not attack a "self-owner." Most of the time I find people due this by saying: One does not have the right to attack a self-owner because an owner has the sole right to his subject. You can see the problem of logic there, yes?
Second, I disagree with your very notion of human nature. I think, in fact, there is either no human nature - aside from biology, and even that is mostly lacking - or many human natures. Man having diverse dispositions and desires, it seems rather odd to even think that all men are on a homogenous plane of nature.You use reason as though all reason were the same and objective or that no human has ever been unreasonable by nature.
No, I think a much better definition of "human nature" would be that human beings exist, they will do as they do and think as they think until they die.
Third, you might be right that if all men stole from all men, equally and perfectly distributed, no man would eat, however, I suspect thaty ou can't prove this and I also suspect that the qualifiers are needed for the very fact that this is not a realistic approach to human societies. In any case, what if it were not the case that all men stole to equal proportions and at an equal distribution? What if only some men stole, say a "2/5ths" rule. Say exactly 40% of society steals 40% of the time. This would, no doubt, be a very thieving society - somewhat similar to tourist destinations in Europe - but I imagine that society would still go on.
By the way, I think it's much closer to say that, save for government, human beings only have about 5% of the population that steals maybe 10 - 20% of the time.
existence is elsewhere
Anarchist Cain: Why can't it be? Who determines your actions if not yourself?
I would say that, mostly if not all the time, one determines ones own actions, but this is not entirely what is meant by exclusivity of ownership, is it? After all, we are more than just a consciousness of free will. We possess chemical as well as physical aspects that can and are influenced directly and indirectly by others involuntarily and voluntarily.
Anarcho Mercantilist:I have discovered twenty or so different definitions of moral nihilism. So please, resolve your terminology before you falsely convict each other of trolling. Both sides in this debate are non-malicious. However, each side falsely interpret another's writing as malicious, so they strawmen each other with hundreds of posts.
The sad thing is that they do not notice what words are misinterpreted on each side.
* amoralism * moral nihilsm * subjectivism * objectivism * value * meaning * existence * truth I have no time to define each of the above words every different context that each side uses. Each definition within a specific context would take pages to define. So I must write 100 or so pages to define all these above terms in all contexts non-ambiguously. And don't misinterpret me. I am not arguing that this controversey is purely terminological. I am arguing that terminology makes this debate expand to hundreds of posts and this terminological confusion in itself constitutes 95% or so of the controversey itself.
Although I did not resolve this debate, I believe that my post will make this debate more logical without the personal attacks. I am posting this to cool down this debate.
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."
Wilmot, are you arguing in good faith?. can you honestly say that if someone else claimed ownership over your property, you would not say/think/feel/assert/contend that it was wrong. perhaps merely that you disliked it, but not that it was 'wrong'. if anyone asked you whether he was wrong to take wat you had, you would say 'no' or 'i dont understand the question'. further that you are not a victim etc. etc.
Jon Irenicus:Moral nihilism =/= moral subjectivism. The former denies the existence of moral statements (even argues they're incoherent, and denies them any truth value) and is amoralist, the latter merely renders the ontology of morals subjective, and may still allow for moral statements to be true/false (subjectively, however that works.) I think that's what he meant when he said you're misinterpreting each other.
nirgrahamUK: Wilmot, are you arguing in good faith?. can you honestly say that if someone else claimed ownership over your property, you would not say/think/feel/assert/contend that it was wrong. perhaps merely that you disliked it, but not that it was 'wrong'. if anyone asked you whether he was wrong to take wat you had, you would say 'no' or 'i dont understand the question'. further that you are not a victim etc. etc.
Oh belive me I would! If someone tried to steal my car I would pull out my gun and not stop pulling the trigger until every last bullet was gone. And I would feel victimized, as anyone would, it doesn't mean that I legitimately have a "right" to anything though.
My position isn't one about, you should let anyone do whatever to you because you don't have a right to it either. No. That's too simple. My belief is that anyone will do anything to you and that crying fould will not save your life or your car. Natural law, even if it is correct - which I don't think it is - is then little more than window dressing, yeah? If it doesn't do anything, then what's the bother about? Law by the gun. That's the law I see.
ivanfoofoo: Again, it's because it's desirable to be it that way. A group of people may not have that property ideas, they may share everything, and be as natural as a "capitalist" society.
Again, it's because it's desirable to be it that way. A group of people may not have that property ideas, they may share everything, and be as natural as a "capitalist" society.
Are you really suggesting that communism is good?
ivanfoofoo: I don't think we can resort to nature (and ideas that vaguely come from it) to justify our ideology. I will always justify my view on anarcho-capitalist because I consider private property to be just, good, moral and has good consequences (establishing limits of justice enforcement, for example). I consider that its desirable for every individual to reach his highests ends without being constrained by a "collective will", and so on. Nature, or god, as any metaphysical idea can't be definitive in our social arrangements. It's our political values that precede our political system, and not otherwise.
I don't think we can resort to nature (and ideas that vaguely come from it) to justify our ideology. I will always justify my view on anarcho-capitalist because I consider private property to be just, good, moral and has good consequences (establishing limits of justice enforcement, for example). I consider that its desirable for every individual to reach his highests ends without being constrained by a "collective will", and so on. Nature, or god, as any metaphysical idea can't be definitive in our social arrangements. It's our political values that precede our political system, and not otherwise.
Nature is not metaphysical. Do you breath air?
Wilmot of Rochester: nirgrahamUK: Wilmot, are you arguing in good faith?. can you honestly say that if someone else claimed ownership over your property, you would not say/think/feel/assert/contend that it was wrong. perhaps merely that you disliked it, but not that it was 'wrong'. if anyone asked you whether he was wrong to take wat you had, you would say 'no' or 'i dont understand the question'. further that you are not a victim etc. etc. Oh belive me I would! If someone tried to steal my car I would pull out my gun and not stop pulling the trigger until every last bullet was gone. And I would feel victimized, as anyone would, it doesn't mean that I legitimately have a "right" to anything though. My position isn't one about, you should let anyone do whatever to you because you don't have a right to it either. No. That's too simple. My belief is that anyone will do anything to you and that crying fould will not save your life or your car. Natural law, even if it is correct - which I don't think it is - is then little more than window dressing, yeah? If it doesn't do anything, then what's the bother about? Law by the gun. That's the law I see.
And therefore you don't reason. Plain and simple. So your words here are mere "window dressing" for you really are trying to pull a gun out on everybody.
wilderness: And therefore you don't reason. Plain and simple. So your words here are mere "window dressing" for you really are trying to pull a gun out on everybody.
Wilderness,
Please, don't frame this debate in terms of you either agree with X or Y. It's boring.
I never said that reason doesn't exist. Just that reason is not objective for all mankind. Another man might reason to save his bullets, or to call the police, or to do nothing at all. My point was that reason changes between people and is not a solid linear rule to be followed.
Wilmot of Rochester: wilderness: And therefore you don't reason. Plain and simple. So your words here are mere "window dressing" for you really are trying to pull a gun out on everybody. Wilderness, Please, don't frame this debate in terms of you either agree with X or Y. It's boring.
Sorry facts bore you. But you said natural law of human nature, which is discovered by reasoning, is "window dressing". So therefore you think reasoning is window dressing. Simple logic, quite mathematical. This isn't about somebody disagreeing or not. People that think it's about: 'I need you to agree with somebody,' are not unique, are uncreative, and therefore don't think for him or her self. Use your own reasoning and deduct your own statements, but if you can't do that, then I will continue to do it for you.
Wilmot of Rochester: I never said that reason doesn't exist.
I never said that reason doesn't exist.
You said natural laws can't be reasoned since they are only "window dressing", so, yes you did.
Wilmot of Rochester: Just that reason is not objective for all mankind.
Just that reason is not objective for all mankind.
More of this absurd objectivism, subjectivism bullshit.
Wilmot of Rochester: Another man might reason to save his bullets, or to call the police, or to do nothing at all.
Another man might reason to save his bullets, or to call the police, or to do nothing at all.
so? Choices are natural law of human nature.
Wilmot of Rochester: My point was that reason changes between people and is not a solid linear rule to be followed.
My point was that reason changes between people and is not a solid linear rule to be followed.
And that's what liberty is all about. I can't help it you don't know what liberty is.
Wilmot of Rochester:By self-ownership, one largely means that one has sole facility of one's self and that others should not infringe upon that.
Wrong. Self-ownership is a given. You are yourself, you must necessarily be and control yourself, therefore you literally, by definition, own yourself. (It's not really debatable -- though perhaps the implications are -- unless you presume to refute words themselves.) What is not a given is that people "should" not aggress you. That must be learned through natural law. All rights are property rights, and all property is derived from self-ownership. It cannot be any other way.
Wilmot of Rochester:Second, I disagree with your very notion of human nature.
Well, that's because you don't know anything -- which accounts for your constantly being wrong. For example:
Wilmot of Rochester:"in fact, I think...""I think, in fact...""No, I think...""By the way, I think..."
wilderness: Wilmot of Rochester: wilderness: And therefore you don't reason. Plain and simple. So your words here are mere "window dressing" for you really are trying to pull a gun out on everybody. Wilderness, Please, don't frame this debate in terms of you either agree with X or Y. It's boring. Sorry facts bore you. But you said natural law of human nature, which is discovered by reasoning, is "window dressing". So therefore you think reasoning is window dressing. Simple logic, quite mathematical. This isn't about somebody disagreeing or not. People that think it's about: 'I need you to agree with somebody,' are not unique, are uncreative, and therefore don't think for him or her self. Use your own reasoning and deduct your own statements, but if you can't do that, then I will continue to do it for you. Wilmot of Rochester: I never said that reason doesn't exist. You said natural laws can't be reasoned since they are only "window dressing", so, yes you did. Wilmot of Rochester: Just that reason is not objective for all mankind. More of this absurd objectivism, subjectivism bullshit. Wilmot of Rochester: Another man might reason to save his bullets, or to call the police, or to do nothing at all. so? Choices are natural law of human nature. Wilmot of Rochester: My point was that reason changes between people and is not a solid linear rule to be followed. And that's what liberty is all about. I can't help it you don't know what liberty is.
My quote was that, "Natural law, even if it is correct - which I don't think it is - is then little more than window dressing, yeah?"
Meaning that it's not about whether natural law exists or not, it's what natural law achieves in matters - like violent "crimes" - that it deals with, which is nothing.
For everything else. Uh huh... I'm not going to continue with you on this one. You are way too ornery.
hashem: Wilmot of Rochester:By self-ownership, one largely means that one has sole facility of one's self and that others should not infringe upon that. Wrong. Self-ownership is a given. You are yourself, you must necessarily be and control yourself, therefore you literally, by definition, own yourself. (It's not really debatable -- though perhaps the implications are -- unless you presume to refute words themselves.) What is not a given is that people "should" not aggress you. That must be learned through natural law. All rights are property rights, and all property is derived from self-ownership. It cannot be any other way. Wilmot of Rochester:Second, I disagree with your very notion of human nature. Well, that's because you don't know anything -- which accounts for your constantly being wrong. For example: Wilmot of Rochester:"in fact, I think...""I think, in fact...""No, I think...""By the way, I think..."
Except I don't really see it as a given. True, I exist, but existence and control does not mean ownership. Ownership entails either one of two things, impossibility of trespass or immorality of trespass. I can prove very easily from this weekend that it is not at all impossible to trespass on my body through chemicals or intoxicants. You cannot suggest ethics of ownership without using circular reasoning.
I get what you're saying, language assumes my control of thought, which is true - to a point. When I say that I think, I literally mean that I as an individual think. Use, however, is not the only qualifier of ownership. I can, for example, use a car without having ownership of it. I can even claim that, at that time, the car is mine because I use it, but does that suggest any moral reasoning? Does it suggest that the car cannot be taken away from me?
Well, again, you can't really show the moral and the car can be taken away from me, so this concept of self-ownership does not at all seem self-evident - if anything, it seems devoid of observed facts.
I'm not going to continue down this line, however, because it wasn't really my original desire for posting. I originally wanted to show you why your idea of natural law is faulty, or at least has no teeth.
Wilmot of Rochester: My quote was that, "Natural law, even if it is correct - which I don't think it is - is then little more than window dressing, yeah?" Meaning that it's not about whether natural law exists or not, it's what natural law achieves in matters - like violent "crimes" - that it deals with, which is nothing.
People reason natural law. People that don't reason and thus think it does "nothing" are not reasoning but would rather point the gun. This is about human nature. So simple deduction again on what you think.
Wilmot of Rochester: For everything else. Uh huh... I'm not going to continue with you on this one. You are way too ornery.
Perfect example of the irrationality that you advocate. Thanks for proving it. Can't help it if reasoning is challenging for you.
Wilmot of Rochester: ...or at least has no teeth.
...or at least has no teeth.
Of course nothing has teeth enough for you, unless as you state, events happen by the point of the gun. Of course you refuse to rationalize, so, you stick to your guns. As noted in another thread. I also would not want you in or around my house. Something reasonable like liberty will come up and you'll pull out your guns. disgusting
wilderness: Wilmot of Rochester: ...or at least has no teeth. Of course nothing has teeth enough for you, unless as you state, events happen by the point of the gun. Of course you refuse to rationalize, so, you stick to your guns. As noted in another thread. I also would not want you in or around my house. Something reasonable like liberty will come up and you'll pull out your guns. disgusting
lol
Setting aside terminological differences, I happened to agree with both Juan and zefreak. Juan has pointed out the contradiction of one prescibing a moral code that rejects the moral code in itself. zefreak has pointed out that human subjects prescribe morality. How can I agree with both sides?
If I agree with both sides, then this controversey must have to do with terminology. To keep this post short, I will not resolve this controversey here at this forum.
I have attempted to solve the controversey between the self-described "objectivists" and "subjectivists". Previously, I have written two major attempts. However, both attempts have failed to convince a significant number of readers. It has failed probably due to my ambiguous writing.
I have written my first attempt to solve this controversey on my blog. However, almost no one can read my prose, with atypical grammar and style errors. Fortunately, at least one person, David Z., has understood my point. Other than that, I believe that no others have accurately interpreted my writing.
I have written my second attempt as a series of comments at Polycentric Order. I have re-posted that on this forum. This attempt might have convinced wilderness. However, Juan and zefreak did not comprehend my writing because of its ambiguity. Although I might have convinced wilderness, my second attempt has failed to convince Juan and zefreak.
I will write my third attempt to solve this controversey. In this attempt, I will try to convince Juan and zefreak. I will not write my third attempt at this forum, because it would take several pages. I will write my third attempt at my blog.
Edit: Please note that I have not written that article at Polycetric Order. I linked to that article to show my comments!
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Own means to possess. Look it up. It's not a new word or a new definition. Own has always meant to be in possession of. The mysterious "own" you are referring to is actually the property right in something. But you can't have property rights unless you first have a property in your person, and you can't have that unless it is derived from natural law.
Wilmot of Rochester:True, I exist, but existence and control does not mean ownership.
Yes, it does. You are your mind, which is in possession of your body. You own yourself. You can't not own yourself.
Wilmot of Rochester:Ownership entails either one of two things, impossibility of trespass or immorality of trespass.
That's completely absurd. It has nothing to do with either of those! You are literally making things up. You are trying to avoid the property right problem by ignoring it altogether and making up a magical new concept called "own", which is in blatant contrast to the real meaning of the word.
You are skipping past the whole problem of property rights to invent a mystical, unheard of concept of "ownership". What you are calling "ownership" is really the property right to something. To own only means to possess.
Own means to possess. To have property which would be immoral to violate, is to have a property right in it. But you can't have rational morals grounded in reason unless they are derived from natural law ethics, which is in turn derived from natural law. And you can't have property rights in anything unless you first have a property right in your person -- again, back to natural law.