Marko: JonBostwick: First, "If you do this, then you must do that" is not a contract. Never will be. Contracts are, "If you do this, I'll do that," mutually agreed. That is a great point. But what he wrote could be easily rewritten as "I allow you to set foot on my land if you..."
JonBostwick: First, "If you do this, then you must do that" is not a contract. Never will be. Contracts are, "If you do this, I'll do that," mutually agreed.
First, "If you do this, then you must do that" is not a contract. Never will be. Contracts are, "If you do this, I'll do that," mutually agreed.
That is a great point. But what he wrote could be easily rewritten as "I allow you to set foot on my land if you..."
But is that mutually agreed. Did the guests say, "Ill set foot on your land, if you have sex with me"? (Edit: though this is sounding more like a promise than a contract, anyways)
So then the sign is nothing but a terms of use, "I won't let you come on my property if you won't have sex with me." Where's the issue? I wouldn't want to be invited over to that person's house for dinner.
Peace
JAlanKatz: Sam Armstrong: Onto this ownership of land. Let's say I till the entirety of the land. I have now put my labor into it and and have homesteaded the entirety of that land, just as if I had planted an apple tree. I own the apples that come out of that tree, and I own the tree. I own the tilled land. I can tell you not to touch my apple's. And I can tell you to not step on my tilled soil. I have homesteaded all the types of physical interactions that I performed on that land. Notice I haven't yet sent radio waves out across it, and so the rights to send radio waves to that area which don't interfere with the physical interactions I've already homesteaded, are fair game. So if somebody want's to set up a radio tower near me, those radio wave rights are still able to be homesteaded. As for the island, yes I can homestead the entire thing provided I do that before anybody else does. And lets just say that some dude on a life raft showed up. Would I have rights to bar him entrance? Yes. Just as I could deny anybody who was starving some the fruit from my apple tree, I could do the same with anybody showing up to use my island as a refuge from the sea. And I could set any price for him for use of my land to survive. Well, you'e certainly articulated a theory about ownership, and done a good job at it. But nothing here explains what makes such a theory correct, and most people, including most Lockeans, would hold that what you've claimed is positively immoral. Why should I think that your theory is correct?
Sam Armstrong: Onto this ownership of land. Let's say I till the entirety of the land. I have now put my labor into it and and have homesteaded the entirety of that land, just as if I had planted an apple tree. I own the apples that come out of that tree, and I own the tree. I own the tilled land. I can tell you not to touch my apple's. And I can tell you to not step on my tilled soil. I have homesteaded all the types of physical interactions that I performed on that land. Notice I haven't yet sent radio waves out across it, and so the rights to send radio waves to that area which don't interfere with the physical interactions I've already homesteaded, are fair game. So if somebody want's to set up a radio tower near me, those radio wave rights are still able to be homesteaded. As for the island, yes I can homestead the entire thing provided I do that before anybody else does. And lets just say that some dude on a life raft showed up. Would I have rights to bar him entrance? Yes. Just as I could deny anybody who was starving some the fruit from my apple tree, I could do the same with anybody showing up to use my island as a refuge from the sea. And I could set any price for him for use of my land to survive.
Onto this ownership of land. Let's say I till the entirety of the land. I have now put my labor into it and and have homesteaded the entirety of that land, just as if I had planted an apple tree. I own the apples that come out of that tree, and I own the tree. I own the tilled land. I can tell you not to touch my apple's. And I can tell you to not step on my tilled soil. I have homesteaded all the types of physical interactions that I performed on that land. Notice I haven't yet sent radio waves out across it, and so the rights to send radio waves to that area which don't interfere with the physical interactions I've already homesteaded, are fair game. So if somebody want's to set up a radio tower near me, those radio wave rights are still able to be homesteaded.
As for the island, yes I can homestead the entire thing provided I do that before anybody else does. And lets just say that some dude on a life raft showed up. Would I have rights to bar him entrance? Yes. Just as I could deny anybody who was starving some the fruit from my apple tree, I could do the same with anybody showing up to use my island as a refuge from the sea. And I could set any price for him for use of my land to survive.
Well, you'e certainly articulated a theory about ownership, and done a good job at it. But nothing here explains what makes such a theory correct, and most people, including most Lockeans, would hold that what you've claimed is positively immoral. Why should I think that your theory is correct?
Don't think of it as correct. Think of it as the best political theory to advance the goal of your life. It's called rule utilitarianism. It's much better than act-utilitarianism. If you make an exception to any rule, you can make an exception to any rule. Which leads to property rights disintegrating completely.
Conza88: So what - "peaceful" is subjective and thus useless.
So what - "peaceful" is subjective and thus useless.
I have a cabin in the woods, no saw mills within 50 miles. Someone wants to build one 100 feet away, its an objective fact that doing so would effect the level of sound on my property, ie distrub the peace.
So two people might disagree on what is pollution ? That's what property rights exist to remedy, to determine who gets the final say!
Sam Armstrong:Don't think of it as correct. Think of it as the best political theory to advance the goal of your life. It's called rule utilitarianism. It's much better than act-utilitarianism. If you make an exception to any rule, you can make an exception to any rule. Which leads to property rights disintegrating completely.
My general objection to rule utilitarianism (from Roderick Long) is that it seems to be in a weird position. The basic utilitarian premise is clear - but the rule utilitarian, even in a situation where it is clear how to act on that premise, will forbid doing so if it violates a rule. So how is the rule serving a utilitarian function? What distinguishes rule-utilitarianism from any system of making rules? In particular, what is utilitarian about it?
JonBostwick: But is that mutually agreed. Did the guests say, "Ill set foot on your land, if you have sex with me"?
But is that mutually agreed. Did the guests say, "Ill set foot on your land, if you have sex with me"?
Yes, you're right. I read the "mutually agreed" part but it didn't really register in my mind.
Rule utilitarianism takes into account the fact that if you ever use act utilitarianism as justification, you will be more likely to use act utilitarianism as justification in the future, and will so become an act utilitarian.
The premise goes like this. Any given criminal act has a low probability of coming back to bite you in the ass. So if you break into someone's house while they're gone and steal all their stuff, you will likely get away with it. Over time however, your chances of being caught generally rise to a level which is unacceptable to over all utilitarianism. So if you are a rule utilitarian who says "but this one time the chances of getting caught are so low, that I should do it", you have become an act utilitarian. You will likely stay an act utilitarian since the next time "this one chance of getting caught is so low" comes by, you will do it again. You are then going against your over all utilitarianism if you continue on like that. Everybody thinks they aren't going to get caught when they commit a premeditated crime.
Sam Armstrong:Any given criminal act has a low probability of coming back to bite you in the ass. So if you break into someone's house while they're gone and steal all their stuff, you will likely get away with it. Over time however, your chances of being caught generally rise to a level which is unacceptable to over all utilitarianism.
This is some egoist form of utilitarianism. The fact that your chances of getting caught once are low does not imply that doing it that one time increases overall utility.
Marko:Is a 'no non-thick libertarian' something like a 'no true Scotsman'?
No, because the point of view that NAP is all you need is not commonly asserted by non-thick libertarians. Again READ the bubble thief thread here on this forum to see why.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Sam Armstrong:And I could set any price for him for use of my land to survive.
So you have the right to aggress on another person in terms of misfortune and/or happenstance? Sorry, but not only does that violate NAP, it violates self-ownership. Try again. *facepalm*
What is a thick libertarian anyway? Is that like a bad thing?
ladyattis: Sam Armstrong:And I could set any price for him for use of my land to survive. So you have the right to aggress on another person in terms of misfortune and/or happenstance? Sorry, but not only does that violate NAP, it violates self-ownership. Try again. *facepalm*
Then according to you, stopping someone who is starving from eating my food also violates self-ownership and the NAP. Tell me, if I had water in the desert, and there was someone who was dying of thirst, would I be violating the NAP or self ownership if I stopped him from drinking my water?
JAlanKatz: Sam Armstrong:Any given criminal act has a low probability of coming back to bite you in the ass. So if you break into someone's house while they're gone and steal all their stuff, you will likely get away with it. Over time however, your chances of being caught generally rise to a level which is unacceptable to over all utilitarianism. This is some egoist form of utilitarianism. The fact that your chances of getting caught once are low does not imply that doing it that one time increases overall utility.
Yes it is egoist. That's the only way that any type of morals exist. Your goals define your morals. If you goal is to live, then voluntarism is the best set of rules. And people only do things because they think it'll increase their utility. When it does not increase their utility, it's called a mistake.
Sam Armstrong:Then according to you, stopping someone who is starving from eating my food also violates self-ownership and the NAP. Tell me, if I had water in the desert, and there was someone who was dying of thirst, would I be violating the NAP or self ownership if I stopped him from drinking my water?
You're appealing to personal ethics not law which is political and can't account for every single particular event that deals with virtue or vice.
No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law. I think it's legal in a natural law sense that I can deny someone starving my food, or deny someone dying of thirst my water, or to deny someone who's drowning refuge on my island. It's all the same thing. Rothbard addressed life-boat ethics, and he even said that if you own the life boat, you can deny a drowning person entry onto that boat. The same holds if you own an island.
Sam Armstrong: No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law.
No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law.
Would love to read / hear a convincing argument for natural law and/or natural rights, then.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
The problem I have with this argument is that it really has no end.
Where can I actually draw the line and exclude you, when you cross "my" fence, when you trample "my" grass, when you enter "my" home etc... to answer conclusively is impossible.
I like the idea of common law determining the amount of acceptable trespass, as the nature of the property and how it is used differs from location, the laws should follow suit.
Sam Armstrong:No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law. I think it's legal in a natural law sense that I can deny someone starving my food, or deny someone dying of thirst my water, or to deny someone who's drowning refuge on my island.
QFT
Nitroadict: Sam Armstrong: No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law. Would love to read / hear a convincing argument for natural law and/or natural rights, then.
The argument is that it is most likely the best political system for you to live in and achieve your goal of living. There's nothing metaphysical about it, it's just the most logical choice of politic if your goal is to live. If your goal isn't to live and instead to kill people, then it's not the best political system, but don't be surprised when people who's goal is to live then kill you.
Sam Armstrong:No I'm not. I'm appealing to natural law. I think it's legal in a natural law sense that I can deny someone starving my food, or deny someone dying of thirst my water, or to deny someone who's drowning refuge on my island. It's all the same thing. Rothbard addressed life-boat ethics, and he even said that if you own the life boat, you can deny a drowning person entry onto that boat. The same holds if you own an island.
Or you could give somebody water or save somebody from drowning. Not violating property that way either.
Nitroadict:Would love to read / hear a convincing argument for natural law and/or natural rights, then.
This was one of the most lucid posts in the forum I've read on rights.
Sam Armstrong:The argument is that it is most likely the best political system for you to live in and achieve your goal of living. There's nothing metaphysical about it, it's just the most logical choice of politic if your goal is to live. If your goal isn't to live and instead to kill people, then it's not the best political system, but don't be surprised when people who's goal is to live then kill you.
I don't know that this is true. A system that allows you to put people in a position where they must, in either case, die - drink my water and I'll shoot you! doesn't seem to be the one that best enables living.
What if I'm dying of thirst. Don't I have the right to shoot him so that he doesn't drink my water and cause me to die of thirst if he persists in trying to steal it? If I have the right to stop him, I have the right to stop him in all situations. Rights aren't contextual. If you ever make rights contextual, you defeat the purpose of having them, and thus you defeat the purpose of the system. Of course I can share the water, or even sell it to him at a price we agree on. But if we don't agree on the price, he doesn't get to take it from me.