Have we defined the State right?

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 12:20 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

Thank you for confirming  yet again my thesis.

LOL!  What? How?  This baby has no sense of property right!  The pacifier is my property, the baby desires it for strictly egoistic reasons, not because of some innate sense of property!

filc:

Irrelevant and besides the point I am making.

Then what the hell is your point?

filc:

The question is, why do babies cry when the pacifier is taken from them.

The same reason they cry when they have gas, or want some food.  They are pissed.

filc:

what it shows is that babies are aware of occupation of objects over time. They are aware that they want that pacifier, that there is one, and now that single pacifier is in their mothers hand rather then it's mouth. 

What does this have to do with property rights?

Jackson LaRose:

So you assume that everybody has a innate concept of property rights?

filc:

Their actions seem to imply so. Even toddlers that cannot even talk or walk exhibit signs understanding a primitive level property, ownership, and rights.

filc:

In all of this you seem to have dismissed the word "primitive". I said babies had a "primitive"  understanding. Not a thorough.

So, the fact that babies realize that things exist gives them a primitive sense of property rights?

filc:

That doesn't refute the fact that babies understands that he wants to employ that scarce object over scarce time.

If so, so what?  I don't understand how this has anything to do with property, never mind property rights.

filc:

You will quote me where I state that the earth is flat or stop this petty shenanigan at attempting to make me look un-intelligent.

I'll quote you where you dismiss science:

filc:

At any rate arbitrary scientific studies will be no more or no less revealing or conclusive than the anecdotal evidence I have provided for you.

In favor of anecdotal evidence.  I look out on the horizon, the Earth appears flat.  Good enough?

filc:

The petty attack clearly shows you have no substance to your argument other then restating, ad nauseum, "your wrong". You have yet to explain why I am wrong, all of your explanations of why babies cry actually supported my thesis

Good, then we agree.

filc:

This forum fosters an environment for intillectual growth and positive debate amongst members. You and others have decided to take things to a petty level which really underminds your intillectual growth, my intillectual growth, and those that are reading.

So if I don't immediately agree, I am being anti-intellectual?

filc:

You by contrast have demonstrated that you are not concerned with any of that. Your primary concern seems to be being right, and making me wrong, and the satisfaction you get from doing this.

I'm just trying to understand your position, which you did not explain to my satisfaction.  That's why I kept engaging.  If you think I was trying to prove my point, you're right.  Isn't that the point of debate, to continuously challenge your assumptions against the criticism of others?  If you made a point, I would have no problem conceding it.  Instead, you call me stubborn, then cry when I still don't understand where you are coming from.  Seems like you just frequent this place for some petty conformation on you existing set of biases.  Sorry I didn't oblige.

filc:

All while not really presenting a case.

Ahem, "I don't see a correlation with the actions of infants and property rights".  Concise enough for you?

filc:

You seem more interested in making this a flame war between you and me

Who flamed who?

filc:

There is no need for you to be irrationalyl stubborn

filc:

I am interested in having a positive, respectful, debate with others.

as long as they agree with you

filc:

If your not then I'll just assume not respond to your future posts. That may not bug you but my time is too precious for going back and forth over petty matters. I shouldn't have to spend 10 minutes of my post explaining why I don't believe the earth is flat, I can't think of anything more ridiculous and non-relevant. Good day.

LOL !!!  How's that for adolescent?

Reply

filc replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 1:13 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

LOL!  What? How?  This baby has no sense of property right!  The pacifier is my property, the baby desires it for strictly egoistic reasons, not because of some innate sense of property!

Do you understand what the word primitive is?

Jackson LaRose:

Then what the hell is your point?

As I stated earlier I don't need to spend half my day explaining myself multiple times to a blatant overt troll.

Jackson LaRose:

The same reason they cry when they have gas, or want some food.  They are pissed.

Good job at going no where. Now why is he pissed?

Jackson LaRose:

What does this have to do with property rights?

Your apparent lack of comprehension seems to have failed you in the fact that I am not talking about "rights" but about the concept of "property", IE in general. Reading comprehension ftw. Try again

Jackson LaRose:

So, the fact that babies realize that things exist gives them a primitive sense of property rights?

As I have tried to reason. It shows that babies are aware of scarcities, aware of time, and aware that occupation of both satisfy needs. You have yet to offer a discussion but have repeatedly offered assertions. Which reveals your character rather clearly.

Your clearly out looking for a fight.

Jackson LaRose:

I'll quote you where you dismiss science:

filc:

At any rate arbitrary scientific studies will be no more or no less revealing or conclusive than the anecdotal evidence I have provided for you.

In favor of anecdotal evidence.

You dissmiss anything a priori. You appear to dismiss the concept of a priori. I am not against empirical evidience, I just think it's rather silly in some applications. Like this for example, where nearly all non-stubborn parties would agree that babies cry when a pacifier is taken from them. Indeed you have agreed with me already on several counts. So maybe your the flat-lander?

There are applications for empirical evidence, and places where it's appropriate. This is not one of them. I have never dismissed this method. I am dissmissing it for this specific context as it's not needed. And I can prove this as you have already agreed with me. No study necessary. 

So I reveal your conflation in it's fullest glory. Disabuse yourself of your petty attempt to discredit me. Your only putting on a show for yourself.

Jackson LaRose:

So if I don't immediately agree, I am being anti-intellectual?

Well you have yet to back up your assertions that I am wrong. If one goes back and re-reads our threads you will see one side of the argument ovvering explanations and reason. The other side shouting with assertions.

People can be the judge.

Jackson LaRose:

I'm just trying to understand your position, which you did not explain to my satisfaction.

Your clearly not interested in my position. Your actions clearly show, in broad daylight, that your concerned with a petty internet argument and you are a troll. If you are interested in my position your tone and responses will change.

Jackson LaRose:

Ahem, "I don't see a correlation with the actions of infants and property rights".  Concise enough for you?

Thats because we aren't talking about rights. I am not talking about property as a whole either. Hence the word "primitive" which you seem to not understand.

Jackson LaRose:

Who flamed who?

You to me. Your aggressive tone and obvious lack of interest in the topic, but more interest in fighting. You have baited and tackled me, I'm sure it makes you feel good inside. However only one person here looks the troll in such situations.

Jackson LaRose:

as long as they agree with you

Even if they disagree with me. I have disagreed with many, and many have disagreed with me. And those conversations ran a much more positive and constructive tone then the one you are allowing.

Jackson LaRose:

LOL !!!  How's that for adolescent?

Childish.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 2:11 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

Do you understand what the word primitive is?

I think so, here's what Webster has to say:

Merriam-Webster:

Primitive -

1 a : not derived : original, primary b : assumed as a basis; especially : axiomatic <primitive concepts>
2 a : of or relating to the earliest age or period : primeval <the primitive church> b : closely approximating an early ancestral type : little evolved <primitive mammals> c : belonging to or characteristic of an early stage of development : crude, rudimentary <primitive technology> d : of, relating to, or constituting the assumed parent speech of related languages <primitive Germanic>
3 a : elemental, natural <our primitive feelings of vengeance — John Mackwood> b : of, relating to, or produced by a people or culture that is nonindustrial and often nonliterate and tribal <primitive art> c : naive d (1) : self-taught, untutored <primitive craftsmen> (2) : produced by a self-taught artist <a primitive painting>

filc:

As I stated earlier I don't need to spend half my day explaining myself multiple times to a blatant overt troll.

LOL

filc:

Good job at going no where.

LOL

filc:

Now why is he pissed?

You took away the thing the baby desires.

filc:

I am not talking about "rights" but about the concept of "property", IE in general. Reading comprehension ftw. Try again

OK, let's try again, shall we?

Jackson LaRose:

So you assume that everybody has a innate concept of property rights?

filc:

Their actions seem to imply so. Even toddlers that cannot even talk or walk exhibit signs understanding a primitive level property, ownership, and rights.

I'm sorry, I thought that's what we were discussing.  Either way, let's randomly assume that this whole conversation rests on a different premise, namely:

filc:

It shows that babies are aware of scarcities, aware of time, and aware that occupation of both satisfy needs.

I would agree that babies seem to be aware of these things.  So, we agree (if proving that proposition was the original intent of this debate, which I would argue it was not).

LOL I like the pic.  Although I am rather confused how you consider me a troll, when I was already on this thread discussing the topic with some other folks before you started contending my assertions.

filc:

where nearly all non-stubborn parties would agree that babies cry when a pacifier is taken from them

LOL, I never disagreed with that!!!  I disagree with this fact as evidence of cognizance of the concepts of property, ownership, and rights, even in a primitive sense!  As you stated:

filc:

Their actions seem to imply so. Even toddlers that cannot even talk or walk exhibit signs understanding a primitive level property, ownership, and rights.

filc:

Indeed you have agreed with me already on several counts. So maybe your the flat-lander?

LOL, way to turn that one around. 

filc:

There are applications for empirical evidence, and places where it's appropriate. This is not one of them. I have never dismissed this method. I am dissmissing it for this specific context as it's not needed. And I can prove this as you have already agreed with me. No study necessary. 

What are you trying to prove?  That babies cry, or that when they cry, they are expressing a primitive notion of property, ownership, and rights?  That is a big distinction, which you seem to keep floating in and out of.

filc:

So I reveal your conflation in it's fullest glory. Disabuse yourself of your petty attempt to discredit me. Your only putting on a show for yourself.

Yeah, you really got me in a tight spot.

filc:

Well you have yet to back up your assertions that I am wrong.

The burden of proof rests on your shoulders, not mine.  You made the assertion that babies understand (albeit primitively) concepts of property, ownership, and rights.  You also claim that science is unnecessary to understand this assertion as fact, then attacked me for being irrational and stubborn when I disagreed.  What were some of my assertions I've yet to back up?  That I disagree?  I've told you why I do (these concepts seem unnecessary to elicit that response from the baby).

filc:

If one goes back and re-reads our threads you will see one side of the argument ovvering explanations and reason. The other side shouting with assertions.

LOL, said the Zionist to the Palestinian.

filc:

Your clearly not interested in my position. Your actions clearly show, in broad daylight, that your concerned with a petty internet argument and you are a troll. If you are interested in my position your tone and responses will change.

Since when did you become final arbiter of appropriate internet etiquette?

filc:

Thats because we aren't talking about rights.

Fail.

filc:

I am not talking about property as a whole either.

Double Fail.

filc:

Hence the word "primitive" which you seem to not understand.

In the context you are attempting to use it, I don't understand how it absolves you from making a point.

filc:

You to me.

LOL, what?

filc:

Your aggressive tone

Argh!!

filc:

obvious lack of interest in the topic

What?

filc:

You have baited and tackled me, I'm sure it makes you feel good inside.

How?  By challenging you to back up your position with evidence?  How evil of me.

filc:

And those conversations ran a much more positive and constructive tone then the one you are allowing.

Oh please.  I'm sorry if I offended your stodgy Victorian drawing room sensibilities.

Reply

filc replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 3:22 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

As I stated earlier I don't need to spend half my day explaining myself multiple times to a blatant overt troll.

LOL

Example of your counter-productivity

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

Good job at going no where.

LOL

Further examples of your counter productivity.

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

Now why is he pissed?

You took away the thing the baby desires.

In other words the baby wants to occupay a scarce object over a specific duration of time. These are the fundamental problems property addresses.

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

I am not talking about "rights" but about the concept of "property", IE in general. Reading comprehension ftw. Try again

OK, let's try again, shall we?

Jackson LaRose:

Jackson LaRose:

So you assume that everybody has a innate concept of property rights?

(emphasis added)

filc:

Their actions seem to imply so. Even toddlers that cannot even talk or walk exhibit signs understanding a primitive level property, ownership, and rights.

(emphasis added)

I'm sorry, I thought that's what we were discussing.  Either way, let's randomly assume that this whole conversation rests on a different premise, namely:

So you keep telling me the child is pissed off. You cannot tell me why the child is pissed off. I am telling you it's because the child was occupying something, the child has a short time preference, and therefore the child felt violated when the object was confunscated. Whether the child is accurate on ownership is besides the point.
I am showing you why/how a cihld exhibits the basic understanding of property. Property as a whole address's the issues of occupying scarce goods over scarce time.

I even gave you examples of young kids exhibiting signs of fully understanding the concepts of property. You pathetically defender yourself stating that they are "socially engineered". When I asked you how a child is socially engineered you squirmished and went off on the following rant. You simply cannot live with being incorrect.

Now let me RE-EMPHASIZE statement for you. Since you prefer to order things at the convenience of your argument.

filc:

Their actions seem to imply so. Even toddlers that cannot even talk or walk exhibit signs understanding a primitive level property, ownership, and rights.

I know you have a hard time with comprehension so let me explain something to you. In grammer when nouns are separated by comma's they are different objects. I did not say "Property Rights". I said Property AND rights, as in two separate things. Please try, yet again.

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

Indeed you have agreed with me already on several counts. So maybe your the flat-lander?

LOL, way to turn that one around. 

My point here was to show how your conflation was in huge error. When directed at you, it becomes obvious how stupid the argument is. Though when you direct it at me you conveniently think it makes sense. It makes no sense however as I have never been against empirical methods of science. I just think there is a time and place for them.

So your silly attempt at discrediting me falls on it's face. It's besides the point of our topic and a clear example of you being a troll.

Jackson LaRose:

What are you trying to prove? 

What am I trying to prove? I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply making an argument that I wanted people to engage and consider. You however seem hellbent on a petty internet argument. I can feed you all day, is this what keeps you going?

Also why ask me what I am trying to argue? Do you not know that by now? Was I cryptic in my statements?

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

So I reveal your conflation in it's fullest glory. Disabuse yourself of your petty attempt to discredit me. Your only putting on a show for yourself.

Yeah, you really got me in a tight spot.

You put yourself there.

Jackson LaRose:

You also claim that science is unnecessary to understand this assertion as fact, then attacked me for being irrational and stubborn when I disagreed. 

Let me ask you empiricist, do you think I need to test 1000 babies to see if they will cry after taking a pacifier? You have already agreed at least 3 times and acknowledged the fact that they probably will. So why do I need to do this huge study to prove a consequence we already accept will occur?

Jackson LaRose:

What were some of my assertions I've yet to back up?  That I disagree?  I've told you why I do (these concepts seem unnecessary to elicit that response from the baby).

You have yet to explain to me how a baby does not acknowledge the occupation of scarce objects over scarce time to satisfy desires. In fact you have talked about everything else BUT that, which is specifically the argument I've made several times.

Jackson LaRose:

How?  By challenging you to back up your position with evidence?  How evil of me.

You havn't challenged me. Just made many assertions, mis characterized my methods and went on a trollish hay day.

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

obvious lack of interest in the topic

What?

If you were  interested in the topic you'd be focusing lest time at attacking my character, less time building strawmen which gullible people like me walk into, and more time actually considering what I said.

That is, babies understand the occupation of scarce objects over scarce time to satisfy desires. And that the framework of property, ownership, and rights address those issues. A baby cries because it feels as if something has been taken away from it. It has a very primitive, even incorrect, but vague concept of ownership, property, and rights.

If not the baby would have no reason to cry, and would not be pissed off. You have yet to stop and think critically why the baby cries. Everytime you say "It's becaose something was taken from it". But that doesn't explain why the baby is upset, it explains the action which caused the baby to be upset. 

If the baby had no concept of the information I presented above it would have no reason to be upset. I have explained this numerous times. My posts have been long, explained, and I attempted at hitting multiple angles. Your posts have been short, and quick to attack my character, like your obsession with this flat-lander analogy which makes no sense.

Jackson LaRose:

Oh please.  I'm sorry if I offended your stodgy Victorian drawing room sensibilities.

Yes and I am sorry I have to be on the same forum with people like you.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 4:17 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

Further examples of your counter productivity.

filc:

Example of your counter-productivity

LOL

filc:

In other words the baby wants to occupay a scarce object over a specific duration of time.

Yeah.

filc:

These are the fundamental problems property addresses.

OK.  But that doesn't mean the baby realizes that the concept of property addresses these problems.  Again, I think you are making a jump in logic here.

filc:

So you keep telling me the child is pissed off.

Yeah.  I think we both agree on that, otherwise it probably wouldn't be crying.

filc:

You cannot tell me why the child is pissed off.

Because you took the object it wanted away from it.

filc:

I am telling you it's because the child was occupying something, the child has a short time preference,

I with you so far,

filc:

and therefore the child felt violated when the object was confunscated.

This is where I think you are projecting your bias on the feelings of the child.  I don't the kid really feels "violated" when you take something from it, it just knows it doesn't have the thing it wanted anymore.  If the pacifier fell out of it's mouth and out of it's reach, it would feel equally pissed.  Not because it was "violated" by gravity, just that it simply no longer has the pacifier.  Do you see the distinction?

filc:

I am showing you why/how a cihld exhibits the basic understanding of property

And I'm telling you why I disagree.  See, this is plenty civil.

filc:

Property as a whole address's the issues of occupying scarce goods over scarce time.

The concept of property is just a construct, a tool people use to make sense of "what" belongs to "who", and "why".  Until you start asking those questions, you have no need for the concept, you just take until you stop, or are stopped.

filc:

I even gave you examples of young kids exhibiting signs of fully understanding the concepts of property. You pathetically defender yourself stating that they are "socially engineered". When I asked you how a child is socially engineered you squirmished and went off on the following rant. You simply cannot live with being incorrect.

That is a very dishonest (or delusional) recounting of our discussion.

filc:

Shoot I witnessed this today after skiing by the lodge. A kid was bringing snow next to a community fire pit. He went through the effort of going to the snow, making several snow balls and bringing it back. Once he arrived several other children took his snow without asking. He became upset, especially since he was the only one who put forth the effort. I remember him specifically stating "Why don't you people get your own snow". Such a statement implies ownership. He was was the only one who did not get to enjoy the fruits of his labor. I think that child has a pretty good idea of it.

Jackson LaRose:

This kid has already been socially conditioned to have a concept of property.

filc:

Are you implying that a toddler has been socially conditioned to cry when what was previously in his occupation, the pacifier, no longer is the case? Are you suggesting that when the todder cries after the pacifier is removed, he is doing so not because of the loss of the pacifier but because it was taught to cry at that point?

You completely changed your example for the retort.  You used a kid who was old enough to talk (and complain) about "his snow" being stolen.  I was saying that this kid has been socially conditioned, because he was already old enough to do these things.  So no I wasn't implying that toddlers and infants have been socially conditioned, because that wasn't the example I was writing in response to.

filc:

Now let me RE-EMPHASIZE statement for you. Since you prefer to order things at the convenience of your argument.

filc:

Their actions seem to imply so. Even toddlers that cannot even talk or walk exhibit signs understanding a primitive level property, ownership, and rights.

(emphasis added)

Than this seems like a meaningless response to the question I posed to you.

filc:

I said Property AND rights, as in two separate things.

Again, than your statement was completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

filc:

When directed at you, it becomes obvious how stupid the argument is.

I never rejected science.

filc:

Though when you direct it at me you conveniently think it makes sense.

I wanted to get a sense on where you arbitrarily begin to once again accept scientific qualification as necessary, or valid.

filc:

It makes no sense however as I have never been against empirical methods of science. I just think there is a time and place for them.

LOL, who gets to make that distinction?

filc:

I am simply making an argument that I wanted people to engage and consider.

I considered, then engaged with a counterpoint.  Suddenly, I'm:

filc:

hellbent on a petty internet argument.

What is the difference?

filc:

Also why ask me what I am trying to argue?

Because it seems to shift around.

filc:

Do you not know that by now?

Not really.

filc:

Was I cryptic in my statements?

No, I'd say more vague and waffling.

filc:

You put yourself there.

Not too familiar with sarcasm, mate?

filc:

do you think I need to test 1000 babies to see if they will cry after taking a pacifier?

Straw man. Please read what I wrote that in response to.

filc:

You have already agreed at least 3 times and acknowledged the fact that they probably will.

Right.  Which is why that is a straw man.

filc:

So why do I need to do this huge study to prove a consequence we already accept will occur?

No, but it would be nice to have a study that proves babies feel they have been violated when an object is taken from them.

filc:

You have yet to explain to me how a baby does not acknowledge the occupation of scarce objects over scarce time to satisfy desires.

Well, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

filc:

In fact you have talked about everything else BUT that, which is specifically the argument I've made several times.

But what does that have to do with a primitive concept of property, ownership, or rights?

filc:

You havn't challenged me.

Then why are we arguing?

filc:

Just made many assertions

Like what?

filc:

mis characterized my methods and went on a trollish hay day.

LOL

filc:

That is, babies understand the occupation of scarce objects over scarce time to satisfy desires.

OK

filc:

And that the framework of property, ownership, and rights address those issues.

Yep.

filc:

A baby cries because it feels as if something has been taken away from it.

Still with you.

filc:

It has a very primitive, even incorrect, but vague concept of ownership, property, and rights.

How do you distill this notion from the last three statements you've made?  I don't follow the train of logic here.  It seems like a conceptual leap.

filc:

If not the baby would have no reason to cry, and would not be pissed off.

Why not?  It doesn't have what it wants anymore.

filc:

You have yet to stop and think critically why the baby cries.

Because it doesn't have what it wants anymore.  It's really as simple as that.  I don't see why it is necessary to draw any other conclusion from that behavior.

filc:

But that doesn't explain why the baby is upset

Because it doesn't have the thing it wants anymore.  If the item was magic, and dissolved into the aether, the baby would be equally as upset as if I took it, or it fell out of reach.

filc:

If the baby had no concept of the information I presented above it would have no reason to be upset.

I would agree on the first three, but I still don't see why the fourth is a prerequisite.

filc:

I have explained this numerous times. My posts have been long, explained, and I attempted at hitting multiple angles.

And you still have yet to convince me.

filc:

Your posts have been short, and quick to attack my character, like your obsession with this flat-lander analogy which makes no sense.

LOL, you know, you have definitely brought up the flat Earth thing way more than I have.  And you'd think with all the baseless assumptions I've been making, that my posts would be at least as long as yours.

filc:

Yes and I am sorry I have to be on the same forum with people like you.

LOL, quit being such a sour-puss!

Reply

wilderness replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 4:25 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

The concept of property is just a construct, a tool people use to make sense of "what" belongs to "who", and "why".  Until you start asking those questions, you have no need for the concept, you just take until you stop, or are stopped.

That is wrong.  Property doesn't necessarily say who or why it belongs to somebody in the ethical sense.  It can if you want to discuss ethics.  But this isn't necessarily an ethical question.  Property=person.  It's semantics.  To state a person is property is to define what property is in one of its definitions.  Another definition of property is an external object that a person possesses or mixes their will with, such as a pacifier.  This doesn't explain if it is that persons property, in other words, if it is the just or unjust property of said person.  If the pacifier falls due to gravity it's not necessarily an ethical concern, but the pacifier was the property of the baby simply due to the fact that the pacifier was an external object that the baby possessed.  No more, no less. 

But the universalization test and human action points out that only the person making the choice/acting is making the choice/acting.  It is impossible for anybody else to reason for me.  I can choose to accept another person's reason, but that would mean I am reasoning to accept their reason.  They are not in my mind.  Ethics is based off of this logic, but I haven't stated an ethical proposition in this post.

Reply

filc replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 6:40 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

OK.  But that doesn't mean the baby realizes that the concept of property addresses these problems.

Perhaps not, I guess I would not state this specifically. The baby may not even be aware of it, ofcoarse the baby may not even know the word property. They are after-all a toddler. The baby does however recognize the employment of scarce objects over time to satisfy a desire. I don't think that statement is such a stretch for the fundamental primitive framework of property. Now w ho owns the property is besides the point I am making.

Jackson LaRose:

Again, I think you are making a jump in logic here.

You have asserted this now for several pages. When will you finally explain your assertion?

Jackson LaRose:

Yeah.  I think we both agree on that, otherwise it probably wouldn't be crying.

So now why are you asking me to go collect scientific data for you if we are already in agreement?

Jackson LaRose:

Because you took the object it wanted away from it.

And it realizes that there is only one currently available, and it also realizes that it is interested in employing that object right now. Keeping in mind the babies time preference is short than that of an adult. 

Jackson LaRose:

I don't the kid really feels "violated" when you take something from it, it just knows it doesn't have the thing it wanted anymore.

Well we can get into the semantics of what "violated" means but the kid feels wronged that what he was currently using was confunscated from him. Whether it was his or not is besides the point. The child is not fully aware of these concepts yet, that is why I kept rigorously asserting the word "primitive" above.

As far as the child knows though, the same person who took the pacifier from it also gave it to him. So he was under the understanding that the pacifier was his for him to use as he saw fit. If this were not the case the pacifier would have bit spat out, which does happen at times.

Jackson LaRose:

If the pacifier fell out of it's mouth and out of it's reach, it would feel equally pissed.  Not because it was "violated" by gravity, just that it simply no longer has the pacifier.  Do you see the distinction?

But it did not fall out. It was taken. But the result is the same. Even if the pacifier fell out the baby has not the capacity to go regain it. The original statement holds true. The baby knows that it wants to employ that single object over this specific period of time. If the pacifier falls out it has lost it's ability to do so. It recognizes that the pacifier is scarce and may even make an attempt, crawlling across the floor, to regain it. 

Again all of these show primitive signs of property framework. The employment of scarce objects over scarce time for the satisfaction of desires.

Jackson LaRose:

I wanted to get a sense on where you arbitrarily begin to once again accept scientific qualification as necessary, or valid.

Why? And how is that relevant at all to what we are discussing? You want to argue what who is the strongest wrestler next? You basically derailed the topic with your flatlander strawman and I fell right into it.

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

It makes no sense however as I have never been against empirical methods of science. I just think there is a time and place for them.

LOL, who gets to make that distinction?

Well we have already both agreed that a child is likely to cry when an object is taken from it. So seems to me you and I both have already made the distinction that such frivolous scientific data collection is not necessary. 

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

You put yourself there.

Not too familiar with sarcasm, mate?

Dude. Sarcasm is taken in tone. How can I hear your tone in a forum? Being sarcastic on an online forum just makes you look rude.

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

do you think I need to test 1000 babies to see if they will cry after taking a pacifier?

Straw man. Please read what I wrote that in response to.

Not at all you asked me for scientific evidience. What do you want me to prove to you? That children cry when you take things from them? The rest of my argument is a logical one. There is no empirical data collection involved. THere is nothing tangible to test. Its a logical formulation. You think I have some kind of mechanicl device that reads babies brains and reads the word "PROPERTY" written inside? And this tells me scientifically that babies are aware of property?

Why don't you tell me what kind of scientific study you would have preferred? And no, it's not a strawman.

Jackson LaRose:

How do you distill this notion from the last three statements you've made?  I don't follow the train of logic here.  It seems like a conceptual leap.

It knows that there is a scarce object, and that it wants to use it. That is in principle the point that property addresses. The occupation of scarce objects over time. Whether the property is acquired legitimately or not is besides the point.

Jackson LaRose:

Because it doesn't have what it wants anymore.  It's really as simple as that.  I don't see why it is necessary to draw any other conclusion from that behavior.

Because it cannot occupy that scarce object in the time frame it had planned for. The object was previously in the babies productive use.

Jackson LaRose:

If the item was magic, and dissolved into the aether, the baby would be equally as upset as if I took it, or it fell out of reach.

yup and the same points apply. The inability to employ a scarce object over time.

Jackson LaRose:

And you still have yet to convince me.

Thats fine, I don't need to. You done?

Jackson LaRose:

LOL, quit being such a sour-puss!

I skipped the rest of your post as it's quality can be summarized pretty much in your previous statement. 

I formulated this concept to find someone interested in expanding it. Instead I found an internet troll hell bent on a fight. You are definitely that troll, and your interests lie in arguing. This is extremely obvious.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 8:22 AM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

That is wrong.  Property doesn't necessarily say who or why it belongs to somebody in the ethical sense.

Property is just "things" or "objects" until someone decides to claim ownership.

wilderness:

Property=person.  It's semantics.

?

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 9:10 AM

rated by 0 users

filc:

The baby does however recognize the employment of scarce objects over time to satisfy a desire.

Yeah.

filc:

I don't think that statement is such a stretch for the fundamental primitive framework of property.

Why do you think it follows?

filc:

You have asserted this now for several pages. When will you finally explain your assertion?

Yes.  I don't understand how this follows.  Could you please explain you train of thought to me?

filc:

So now why are you asking me to go collect scientific data for you if we are already in agreement?

Because that's not what we've been disagreeing about.  It is also not what I would be interested in seeing scientific support for/against. This reminds me a lot of the "who's on first" bit by Abbot and Costello.

filc:

And it realizes that there is only one currently available, and it also realizes that it is interested in employing that object right now. Keeping in mind the babies time preference is short than that of an adult.

Could you explain to me how you think this implies a primitive understanding of the concepts of property, ownership, or right?

filc:

the kid feels wronged that what he was currently using was confunscated from him.

I disagree with this notion.  I think you are projecting your bias onto the actions of the child.

filc:

As far as the child knows though, the same person who took the pacifier from it also gave it to him. So he was under the understanding that the pacifier was his for him to use as he saw fit. If this were not the case the pacifier would have bit spat out, which does happen at times.

I don't understand how this is relevant.

filc:

But it did not fall out. It was taken. But the result is the same. Even if the pacifier fell out the baby has not the capacity to go regain it. The original statement holds true. The baby knows that it wants to employ that single object over this specific period of time. If the pacifier falls out it has lost it's ability to do so. It recognizes that the pacifier is scarce and may even make an attempt, crawlling across the floor, to regain it. 

So you agree that the emotional response would be the same, regardless of how the pacifier left the child's control?

filc:

Again all of these show primitive signs of property framework.

HOW???

filc:

The employment of scarce objects over scarce time for the satisfaction of desires.

What the hell does this have to do with a primitive understanding of property, ownership, or right????????????  You are just describing what people do with things, not how this automatically translates into an understanding of the concepts of property, ownership, and right???  Where is the connection???  This is tremendously frustrating.  It's like trying to debate a parrot!!!  I'm beginning to think you are just screwing with me.

filc:

Why? And how is that relevant at all to what we are discussing?

Well, why isn't that important to know?

filc:

You want to argue what who is the strongest wrestler next?

Ric Flair. WOOOO!!!!!

filc:

You basically derailed the topic with your flatlander strawman and I fell right into it.

Aw, grow a pair, Nancy!

filc:

Well we have already both agreed that a child is likely to cry when an object is taken from it. So seems to me you and I both have already made the distinction that such frivolous scientific data collection is not necessary. 

LOL, this has to be a joke...

filc:

How can I hear your tone in a forum? Being sarcastic on an online forum just makes you look rude.

LOL

filc:

Not at all you asked me for scientific evidience. What do you want me to prove to you? That children cry when you take things from them?

No.  I'd like to see some scientific evidence that babies' sense of justice is affected when you take something away from them.  Maybe like a brain scan that shows the "rights" or "property" or "ownership" parts of the brain light up in response to an object being taken from them, rather than just the "desire" part of the brain lighting up.  Again, do you see the distinction?

filc:

The rest of my argument is a logical one.

This is your argument how I understand it:

Babies use scarce things through scarce time = Babies have primitive notion of the concepts of property, ownership, and right.

How do you logically arrive at this conclusion?

filc:

There is no empirical data collection involved.

I think you are basing this on the fact that you have observed babies crying when things are taken from them, right?

filc:

THere is nothing tangible to test. Its a logical formulation.

Please, show me.  I'd love to see how an untestable hypothesis gets validated by logic.

filc:

You think I have some kind of mechanicl device that reads babies brains and reads the word "PROPERTY" written inside? And this tells me scientifically that babies are aware of property?

I'm saying that unless you can find one, you are just spewing BS.

filc:

Why don't you tell me what kind of scientific study you would have preferred?

Please refer above.

filc:

And no, it's not a strawman.

Then you are plain stupid.  That is, instead of trying to set up a strawman, you actually thought this whole time that I thought we needed scientific validation for the theory that babies cry when you take something they want away from them.

filc:

It knows that there is a scarce object, and that it wants to use it.

Yes.

filc:

That is in principle the point that property addresses.

Yes.

filc:

The occupation of scarce objects over time.

Yes.

Now, why do you assume that just because the baby wants to use a scarce object over scarce time, and that property addresses this issue, that the baby must conceptualize property?  So as soon as a being utilizes any object, it must have a concept of property?  What about dogs, or hermit crabs?

filc:

Because it cannot occupy that scarce object in the time frame it had planned for. The object was previously in the babies productive use.

If so, so what?  Why do you assume it must have a primitive concept of property, ownership, and rights, based on your statement?

filc:

I formulated this concept to find someone interested in expanding it.

You used it to challenge me!

filc:

Instead I found an internet troll hell bent on a fight. You are definitely that troll, and your interests lie in arguing. This is extremely obvious.

LOL, that's probably why we are still corresponding, because I'm just bothering you!

Reply

filc replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 11:03 AM

rated by 0 users

I am going to skip most of your unecessary adolescent responses so we can keep our points short and to the point. I'll try to avoid indulging into your trollish responses, as that just seems to feed you.

Jackson LaRose:

It's like trying to debate a parrot!!!

I do see the distinction, and I see that such a test would be mostly benign and useless. 

Brain scans do not tell us anything a bout the tangible world as we know it. It only shows patterns in the head. Not all people follow these patterns, just as people have different colored hair and eyes their brain also functions differently. Further more there is no concrete specific section of the brain dedicated to "property" Performing such a test may show that children are spacially aware of tangible objects, and we may observe the reaction when the object is taken. However such tests will never prove or disprove whether or not children understand property. All they will prove to us is that there is a pattern found in the brain during that specific activity. Whether this pattern proves property or whether it proves something entirely different is unknown to us with our current limited capabilities. 

So as I said before, here is an example where the application of empiricism would be utterlly useless. And a good example of how people like you who put so much emphasis into that style nearly always come to arbitrary conclusions.

If you call me the flat-landerer I call you the icecream selling homocide fanatic. As ice cream sales and homocides coorelate in the summer. Therefor, according to your method, icecream sales must lead to increase homocide. We should ban ice cream.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 11:39 AM

rated by 0 users

filc:

If objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and the employment of objects not necessary to satisfy ends. What would be the purpose of property? Please explain.

Property as a concept is a construct.  It's a fantasy employed by some to build a framework in which they can determine "when what belongs to who".  If you can find some other individuals who are willing to accept this set of guidelines, you can implement them to settle disputes, should they arise (like any set of laws).

If objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and the employment of said scarce items was not sometimes necessary to satisfy ends, then the concept of property would not be required to settle disputes, because it seems unlikely they would arise. 

On the other hand, just because objects can be scarce, time is scarce, and that scarce items are sometimes necessary to satisfy ends, doesn't necessarily imply that a concept of property must exist as a result of those facts.

filc:

Brain scans do not tell us anything a bout the tangible world as we know it.

The brain is the only thing you have to experience the "tangible world".  The brain scan shows what parts of the brain are activated by external stimuli.

filc:

It only shows patterns in the head.

Brought about by external stimuli.

filc:

Not all people follow these patterns, just as people have different colored hair and eyes their brain also functions differently.

And not everyone buys into the concept of property.  How is this relevant?

filc:

Further more there is no concrete specific section of the brain dedicated to "property"

How do you know that?

filc:

Performing such a test may show that children are spacially aware of tangible objects, and we may observe the reaction when the object is taken. However such tests will never prove or disprove whether or not children understand property.

Then if there is no test that could be performed, what are you basing your assertion upon?

filc:

All they will prove to us is that there is a pattern found in the brain during that specific activity. Whether this pattern proves property or whether it proves something entirely different is unknown to us with our current limited capabilities. 

Again, how do you know that it is beyond our current capabilities?

filc:

So as I said before, here is an example where the application of empiricism would be utterlly useless. And a good example of how people like you who put so much emphasis into that style nearly always come to arbitrary conclusions.

How is your conclusion (which is based on empirical observation) any less arbitrary?

filc:

If you call me the flat-landerer I call you the icecream selling homocide fanatic. As ice cream sales and homocides coorelate in the summer. Therefor, according to your method, icecream sales must lead to increase homocide. We should ban ice cream.

LOL, first you have to assume i think homicide is bad.  This is so non sequitur it hurts!

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 12:15 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

That is wrong.  Property doesn't necessarily say who or why it belongs to somebody in the ethical sense.

Property is just "things" or "objects" until someone decides to claim ownership.

1 - Yes and a person is property.  It's the definition of property. (definition)

2 -  A robber could claim ownership, but that doesn't mean it's his watch that he is currently wearing. (ethical response)

   -  A slave master could claim ownership, bu that doesn't mean the person is really his to own. (ethical response)

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

Property=person.  It's semantics.

?

As it reads.  Property is person.  That's its definition.  It's also things and objects that people use. (definition)

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 12:17 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

Property is person

Then who owns the person?

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 12:19 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

Property is person

Then who owns the person?

I did an edit, if you can go back.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 12:24 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

I did an edit, if you can go back.

I did, but I still don't see who owns the person.

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 12:26 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

I did an edit, if you can go back.

I did, but I still don't see who owns the person.

Justly or Unjustly?

edit:  Also owned semantically means control.  So who owns a person justly or unjustly (ethical question)?  Who owns or controls a person (human action question)?  Read this.

Reply

filc replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 12:33 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

On the other hand, just because objects can be scarce, time is scarce, and that scarce items are sometimes necessary to satisfy ends, doesn't necessarily imply that a concept of property must exist as a result of those facts.

Jackson LaRose:

Property as a concept is a construct.  It's a fantasy employed by some to build a framework in which they can determine "when what belongs to who".  If you can find some other individuals who are willing to accept this set of guidelines, you can implement them to settle disputes, should they arise (like any set of laws).

What belongs to w hom is an ethical argument. It is beyond the scope of property. Property can be owned by many people, legitimately or illegtimately. That is what the original point was, whether the state has legitimate claim to a broad geographical region.

You need to not conflate the ethics part from the simple concept of property.

Lets assume things ARE scarce, time IS scarce, and the occupation and employment of scarce objects over time is necessary to satisfy ends. What alternative concept would you have, and how would it not be a form of property?

Jackson LaRose:

And not everyone buys into the concept of property.  How is this relevant?

Explain to me an alternative, and explain how it would not be property. Don't play a semantics game with me please. You make these posts already unnecessarily long. I know its hard for you troll, but please stick to the point.

Jackson LaRose:

LOL, first you have to assume i think homicide is bad.  This is so non sequitur it hurts!

Thats exactly the point. Your whole scientific fiasco is non-sequitur. Just as non-sequitur as the one I tossed back at you.

Jackson LaRose:

How is your conclusion (which is based on empirical observation) any less arbitrary?

It's deduced. It's not arbitrary. The difference between you and me is your understanding of property and the definition you use. Rather then being honest about it you continue like a communist in a state where we are both arguing past each other. Communists hold their pet definition of capitalism, and we hold ours. In such debates people typically talk past one another not understanding where each party is coming from.

Similarly you have adopted this technique. You hold certain principles in your head and are unwilling to share them. Since the principles I provided conflict, rather then explaining your own logic and reasoning behind it you continue to assert that it is simply wrong.

Jackson LaRose:

Again, how do you know that it is beyond our current capabilities?

Umm how do I know we don't have spaceships yet? How do I know we can't cure cancer? How do I know we don't have hover crafts? What kind of silly question is this.

Jackson LaRose:

Then if there is no test that could be performed, what are you basing your assertion upon?

As I said before I am not necessarily compiling a hypothetical argument. I am deducing how children may have primitive knowledge of property.

Jackson LaRose:

How do you know that?

How do I know black is black? How do I know 1+1=2? In this case I've done some very basic studying. I have done alot of research on behavioral illness's specifically ADD/ADHD and I know alot about the functions and results of MRI's, fMRI's, EPI's and other variants of brain scans. 

What, did you honestly think someone would scan your brain and see a big P in the part where property existed? If you are that ignorant to the process why are you advocating for it? 

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 3:26 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

That is what the original point was, whether the state has legitimate claim to a broad geographical region.

Isn't that an ethical question?

filc:

You need to not conflate the ethics part from the simple concept of property.

So to you, property is just a synonym for "thing" or "object"?

filc:

What alternative concept would you have

I wouldn't have an alternative, because I feel the distinction is unnecessary.

filc:

and how would it not be a form of property

I don't believe in the property boogey-man.

filc:

Explain to me an alternative, and explain how it would not be property

Well, you have to tell me how you define property first.

filc:

Thats exactly the point. Your whole scientific fiasco is non-sequitur. Just as non-sequitur as the one I tossed back at you.

That's BS, but consider it dropped.

filc:

It's deduced. It's not arbitrary

But scientific studies are arbitrary?

filc:

The difference between you and me is your understanding of property and the definition you use.

No, I just don't see the value of assigning a title to "objects you are able to control".  Seems superfluous to me.

filc:

Rather then being honest about it you continue like a communist in a state where we are both arguing past each other. Communists hold their pet definition of capitalism, and we hold ours. In such debates people typically talk past one another not understanding where each party is coming from.

LOL, such vitriol!  This whole discussion was based on the premise that primitive understanding of property, ownership, and right was intrinsic in human consciousness, down to the level of infants.  After a while, you dropped the ownership and right parts, but stuck to property.  I'm not quite sure what you define property as, but I think it's something along the lines of, "scarce resources that can be implemented over scarce time to achieve desired ends". 

So now, I think you are trying to say,

"Even babies can recognize the existence of scarce resources that can be implemented over scarce time, to achieve desired ends"  Although I would disagree that this definition makes any sense when applied to the word "property", I will agree with you that babies do recognize these items as existing. 

Of course, this is completely irrelevant, because we were initially talking about property rights.

filc:

What kind of silly question is this.

I didn't know you were such a neurology buff, sorry man.

filc:

I am deducing how children may have primitive knowledge of property.

You seem to be asserting it as self-evident fact, especially when you call me irrational and stubborn for contending it.

filc:

How do I know black is black? How do I know 1+1=2?

I would argue you don't.  It all beliefs you've concocted in your head.

filc:

I have done alot of research on behavioral illness's specifically ADD/ADHD and I know alot about the functions and results of MRI's, fMRI's, EPI's and other variants of brain scans. 

And?

filc:

What, did you honestly think someone would scan your brain and see a big P in the part where property existed?

Straw man.

filc:

If you are that ignorant to the process why are you advocating for it? 

I like to learn.

Reply

filc replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 4:17 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

Isn't that an ethical question?

it is but it's not the point I was making. The point I made, you remember, is that even children have a primitive understanding of property.

Jackson LaRose:

So to you, property is just a synonym for "thing" or "object"?

How wuold you define it? Or what would you use in it's place?

Jackson LaRose:

But scientific studies are arbitrary?

A great deal of modern studies are very arbitrary yes.

Jackson you can do us both a favor by not reading sentence by sentence and making a useless remark like "LOL". I prefer to keep this short and took the point but you keep dragging along each post. Your doing it in the other thread as well. Your method is antagonistic and derails from the actual point.

Jackson LaRose:

Of course, this is completely irrelevant, because we were initially talking about property rights.

Yes but I was making a point about property, and than rights. Not property rights, property and rights. Different things.

Again I have to skip the rest of your long winded off topic response. It's hard for anyone to hold a conversation with your messy responses.

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 5:01 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

No, I just don't see the value of assigning a title to "objects you are able to control".  Seems superfluous to me.

Or we could go around and call those things that have wheels with various numbers of horse power engines that has two doors sometimes four or more that rolls across the earth if a pedal is pressed but then why call it a pedal when it can be called a piece of metal that is flat sometimes with lines for traction as the person steps on them to accelerate but then why call it acceleration when I could simply pull out a physics book and give equations but then what are all those numbers and letters?  Really?

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

You need to not conflate the ethics part from the simple concept of property.

So to you, property is just a synonym for "thing" or "object"?

If you mean it in the most general sense possible that a person is a thing, ok, again that's semantics, but personally I don't always call a person a thing.  Property is semantically 1- a person

                                             2 - an object that is the utility of a person.

                                             3 - a territory that is the utility of a person.

(my focus is on human nature thus why "utility of a person" was repeated as obviously some animals have territories and thus that's their property, and again, not a rights issue that is being discussed)

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 6:58 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

The point I made, you remember, is that even children have a primitive understanding of property.

and ownership, and right.

filc:

How wuold you define it?

Wiki:

Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons.

So it requires a concept of ownership before a concept of property can exist.  As I thought, the term is loaded with normative, and ethical baggage, which is why I don't think babies really consider it in their actions.

filc:

Or what would you use in it's place?

How about the word "stuff", if we want to avoid delving into the ethical questions inherent in the word "property".

filc:

Yes but I was making a point about property, and than rights.

Well, then your point was a complete aside to the question I posed to you, which had to do with property rights.

filc:

It's hard for anyone to hold a conversation with your messy responses.

Wow, that's the first time in a while you didn't call me a troll.  Glad to see you've dropped that mularkey.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 7:04 PM

rated by 0 users

Wilderness, that seems like a unusual definition of property.  If a person is property and owner simultaneously, how is that possible?

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 7:36 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

Wilderness, that seems like a unusual definition of property.  If a person is property and owner simultaneously, how is that possible?

Kinsella:

If "first use" is not the ultimate test for the "objective link" in the case of body ownership, what is? It is the unique relationship between a person and "his" body — his direct and immediate control over the body, and the fact that, at least in some sense, a body is a given person and vice versa. This is what constitutes the objective link sufficient to give that person better title to his body than any third party claimant, even his parents (an exception would be the victim of a crime committed by the body-owner, who might thereby acquire a "superior" link to or claim on the criminal's body).

Moreover, any outsider who claims another's body cannot deny this objective link and its special status, since the outsider also necessarily presupposes this in his own case. This is so because in seeking dominion over the other, in asserting ownership over the other's body, he has to presuppose his own ownership of his body, which demonstrates he does place a certain significance on this link, at the same time that he disregards the significance of the other's link to his own body. (Notice that if a victim seeks dominion over the body of his aggressor for purposes of proportional punishment, his claim of ownership over the aggressor's body is not incompatible with a claim of self-ownership, since the cases are different. It is not inconsistent to claim that the special link between an innocent person and his body gives him the best claim over that body, and to also claim that this no longer holds for an aggressor because he has committed aggression. This distinction is neither arbitary nor particularizable; it is grounded in the nature of things.)

The basic point about the primacy of the "direct" link over an "indirect" link (ceteris paribus — see the point above about punishment of criminals) was first suggested to me by Hoppe. As might be apparent to those familiar with Hoppe's argumentation ethics, the Hoppean theory implies the logical priority of direct versus indirect control over one's body. In fact, the argument made above (that any outsider who claims another's body cannot deny the objective link between person and body) is merely an application of Hoppe's argumentation ethics approach. In fact, Hoppe made a similar argument in a German publication in 1985:

from here

You should read about argumentation ethics as well. It pretty much obliterates the stuff about ideologies you parrot. Seriously man, it is pretty boring.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 8:18 PM

rated by 0 users

ugh, argumentation ethics (shudder).  So many a priori assumptions...

Reply

William replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 8:28 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

ugh, argumentation ethics (shudder).  So many a priori assumptions...

What's the better analogy? Argumentation ethics are like bringing in a saw to screw in a nail OR Like believing what David Blaine is actually magic and being scared of his magical powers.

Reply

Brainpolice replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 8:32 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

Wilderness, that seems like a unusual definition of property.  If a person is property and owner simultaneously, how is that possible?

Welcome to the incoherant dualism of "self-ownership".

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 8:33 PM

rated by 0 users

Dondoolee:

What's the better analogy? Argumentation ethics are like bringing in a saw to screw in a nail OR Like believing what David Blaine is actually magic and being scared of his magical powers.

What is this supposed to mean?

Reply

filc replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 8:36 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

So it requires a concept of ownership before a concept of property can exist.  As I thought, the term is loaded with normative, and ethical baggage, which is why I don't think babies really consider it in their actions.

Yes and in the situation where the child was given the pacifier, assuming it's short time preference, it assumes the roll of ownership. Ownership is the act of posessing. The child, with it's limited understanding believes that at least for the time being the object is his to use. This object is suddenly taken from him and to his confusion ownership is abruptly transfered to the parent. Since the child's understanding of time and consumption is limited it believes it has been violated. As far as the child was concerned it was using that pacifier as his, and sees not reason why it should stop. It has no understanding that Mom needs to go shopping, or mom needs to clean his diaper, and so on and so forth. All it knows is it was once occupying and employing that pacifier into productive use and now that ability was taken from it.

Without this very primitive understanding the child would not be upset, would have no reason to cry. Again you are more then welcome to agree to disagree.

Jackson LaRose:

Wow, that's the first time in a while you didn't call me a troll.  Glad to see you've dropped that mularkey.

No you are definitely a troll. Both on this thread and others. Your method of responding is antagonistic and your posts seem adolescent as if you were an angry highschool student. Still your responses are predictable. You read each sentence, piece by piece and respond to each one, as if each were different pargraphs or points. Your attention span apparently does not allow you to read a statement in full. You simply cannot wait to respond to each point so you in haste make little witty responses.

This is evident in nearly all of your posts. 

Each

LOL

sentence

Says you

is

HAHA!

responded in a petty fashion as demonstrated. 

Reply

filc replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 8:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Brainpolice:

Jackson LaRose:

Wilderness, that seems like a unusual definition of property.  If a person is property and owner simultaneously, how is that possible?

 

Welcome to the incoherant dualism of "self-ownership".

It would be even more arbitrary to claim otherwise. Though I doubt you actually have a refutation to offer. Just a simple assertion that you disagree? Or will you enlighten us and spare us from our perpetual erroneous ways. Otherwise such posts are a meatless and a waste of space. Just as counter-productive as the last 2 pages of Jackson's nonesense.

It's great you have an opinion. Congrats. Now care to elaborate?

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 8:49 PM

rated by 0 users

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec3.asp

Read that before BP? Maybe that isn't the answer you are looking for but I might not be up to it right now. You didn't really answer my question in the other thread.

You say that nobody owns "themself", but you are somehow suggesting a system of property rights. How is my physical body protected under your system? I honestly don't see where you are coming from if nobody owns "themself", let alone how you punish anyone.

Reply

Brainpolice replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 9:10 PM

rated by 0 users

E. R. Olovetto:

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec3.asp

Read that before BP? Maybe that isn't the answer you are looking for but I might not be up to it right now. You didn't really answer my question in the other thread.

You say that nobody owns "themself", but you are somehow suggesting a system of property rights. How is my physical body protected under your system? I honestly don't see where you are coming from if nobody owns "themself", let alone how you punish anyone.

I simply exempt people from the realm of ownership altogether and put foreward a principle of personal sovereignty - the effect of which, I think, is the same thing as what the Rothbardian libertarian favors as far as "self-ownership" goes in a normative sense, only it isn't couched in propertarian terms. Your physical body doesn't rightfully belong to anyone else in my view, only it isn't necessary to concieve of your body as property in general - people are simply not to be concieved of as property. A system of property rights, to the extent that I concieve of one at all, is a matter of norms for the ownership of external objects. What is presupposed by this isn't "self-ownership", but individual agency and a social context respecting personal sovereignty.

Metaphysically, your physical body isn't protected at all whether there is "self-ownership" or not (that is, it's not a given of nature; otherwise there would be no reason to be normative about it in the first place). Normatively, I favor personal sovereignty, which simply means that other people don't have authority over your body and hence they cannot enslave or murder you. But your body is yourself, not property. There is no need to invoke the concept of ownership in order to reject authoritarianism and violence over persons. The burden of proof is on the person claiming authority or a right to violence, not on their victims to produce an ownership claim over what they unavoidably already are (themselves, a person).

I don't believe in punishment (at least in retributionist terms).

Reply

filc replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 9:34 PM

rated by 0 users

Brainpolice:

I simply exempt people from the realm of ownership altogether and put foreward a principle of personal sovereignty - the effect of which, I think, is the same thing as what the Rothbardian libertarian favors as far as "self-ownership" goes in a normative sense, only it isn't couched in propertarian terms. Your physical body doesn't rightfully belong to anyone else in my view, only it isn't necessary to concieve of your body as property in general - people are simply not to be concieved of as property. A system of property rights, to the extent that I concieve of one at all, is a matter of norms for the ownership of external objects. What is presupposed by this isn't "self-ownership", but individual agency and a social context respecting personal sovereignty.

Metaphysically, your physical body isn't protected at all whether there is "self-ownership" or not (that is, it's not a given of nature; otherwise there would be no reason to be normative about it in the first place). Normatively, I favor personal sovereignty, which simply means that other people don't have authority over your body and hence they cannot enslave or murder you. But your body is yourself, not property. There is no need to invoke the concept of ownership in order to reject authoritarianism and violence over persons. The burden of proof is on the person claiming authority or a right to violence, not on their victims to produce an ownership claim over what they unavoidably already are (themselves, a person).

I don't believe in punishment (at least in retributionist terms).

Seems like alot of semantics that comes to the same conclusion as self ownership.

Reply

William replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 10:20 PM

rated by 0 users

E. R. Olovetto:

Dondoolee:

What's the better analogy? Argumentation ethics are like bringing in a saw to screw in a nail OR Like believing what David Blaine is actually magic and being scared of his magical powers.

What is this supposed to mean?

I am saying if you want to turn someone's actual state of being into a matter of arbitrary semantics and abstract / poetic phrases, fine.  But don't expect it to objectively mean "truth", nor would I expect it to change the actual material way things will and have always transpired in a sociological and psychological sense.

You can create magical codes, they will only be obeyed and have any effect so long as someone allows it to happen

You can try to appeal to a code to make a situation work to your desired end (e.g. appealing to the "proper" morality to a perceived aggressor and showing how it is logical truth), but it only exists because people allow it to exist. It only has power because someone allows the illusion to have power.

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 10:31 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

Wilderness, that seems like a unusual definition of property.  If a person is property and owner simultaneously, how is that possible?

You're not relying on the definitions, so, if you can't use the paradigm of definitions within the theory, then yes, you will never understand what the theory entails.  You're arguing over semantics which is not really an argument but rather yelling over tiddly.

own=control

Do you control your choices?  If not, then you, Brainpolice, and others deny Mises human action.  Good luck with that.

Reply

filc replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 10:32 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't get it. ER Olovetto just posted a quote from Kinsella and a link. Consider me officially lost.

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 10:44 PM

rated by 0 users

Brainpolice:

people are simply not to be concieved of as property.

Brainpolice, like Jackson, are simply not liking the word "property".  Their argument has nothing to do with the concept, but the word.  It's like a painting.  They are not looking at the content of the picture but rather turned off by the lighting in the room shining on the portrait.  It has nothing to do with the concept property, nor the semantics.  It's the label.  So call it what you will as you tried in this post Brainpolice.  Give it a different name if it makes you feel better, but if you are going to understand what other people are communicating when they say "property", then best to understand the concept behind property and quit arguing over the poor lighting in the room.  That's why it's pointless to discuss with you or Jackson on this topic as you can't refute property but you'll argue all day over the lighting shining on the word.  So you end up strawmanning and never understanding what the person(s) across from you in the discussion board are saying.  It makes your post tangent, repetitive, and unfortunately you end up in your own language bubble cut off from the rest of the world - but then you try to communicate with the rest of the world.  I suggest understanding the semantics and the concept of property when you talk with people who do talk about property.  It is effective communicate to do such.

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 10:46 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

Seems like alot of semantics that comes to the same conclusion as self ownership.

Yes.  I don't even think it's semantics anymore.  I think it's the letters p-r-o-p-e-r-t-y in and of themselves.  Oh well.

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 10:48 PM

rated by 0 users

Dondoolee:

e.g. appealing to the "proper" morality to a perceived aggressor and showing how it is logical truth), but it only exists because people allow it to exist. It only has power because someone allows the illusion to have power.

What's funny is how long Brainpolice, Jackson, and now you will paint this as being about morals, when it's about human action and property.  Didn't say property rights - simply property.  So you three end up fighting spooks.  It's rather unfortunate.

Well.  Good talking to you guys anyways.  Have a good night.

Reply

filc replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 10:53 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

What's funny is how long Brainpolice, Jackson, and now you will paint this as being about morals, when it's about human action and property.

This

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, Feb 24 2010 11:20 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

wilderness:

What's funny is how long Brainpolice, Jackson, and now you will paint this as being about morals, when it's about human action and property.

This

ironic when one knows their verbal ethical stance.  it gave me an uplifting chuckle