Have we defined the State right?

Reply

filc replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 3:54 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

and that the purchase itself was not a violation of some already pre-established land owner.

If it was purchased, wouldn't that be a voluntary exchange?

Is selling your neighbors car without his consent voluntary exchange? The answer to that question answers yours.

Jackson LaRose:

Not true, they may think that as elected officials, it is their duty to care for their constituents.  They happen to think the best way to do that is let them keep more of their money.  A Shepard tries to provide the best for his flock.

They can complain but the rates set by a private property owner are up to him. If people don't like it they can leave. Again this assumes that the state somehow has legitimate ownership of an entire geographical region, including other people's pre-existing property.

Reply

filc replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 3:55 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

Merlin:

With my rightful property? I don't think so. If you emigrate you have to leave every immovable posesion behind. hardly "free emigration".

How is it your property?  Why aren't you just considered a lessee of the state's property?

It was homestead and placed into productive use. He/she did not claim ownership of someone else's land, then violently extort wealth from the previous owners to maintain itself.

Reply

Merlin replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 4:44 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

How is it your property?  Why aren't you just considered a lessee of the state's property?

If I get “accepted” into a community where al land is held by some corporation that makes the law (call this “the City”) I’m indeed forced to follow the rules set by the City.

But if I purchase my house form the Corporation, than it has no rights to impose conditions upon my use of that house: it’s mine!

That’s why emigration is illusion: if I’m allowed To “emigrate” with my contractually acquired property (it is contractually acquired as land as the State itself considers it “private property”), than I can secede form the State along with my property. You can judge yourself as to how often that is the case.

Jackson LaRose:

Again, how have you determined it's actually your property to begin with?

You cannot define “the state” before defining the property regime. If some intelligent machine was explained the State before being explained what property is, it would go reboot.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 8:56 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

other people's pre-existing property.

pre-existing the state?

Reply

filc replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 9:09 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

other people's pre-existing property.

pre-existing the state?

Think you mis-understood what I was saying.

You said that state's were purchased, in order for such a geographical region to have been purchased legitimately there would have to have been no previous owners of property on that section of land. Since thats not the case in any previous state purchase all of those purchases were ill-legitimate. 

Now there are philosophers of private property here that you have to go one step further with purchasing such massive portions of land. You have to prove that you are placing it into productive use, otherwise the homesteading rule would apply.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:05 AM

rated by 0 users

filc:

You said that state's were purchased, in order for such a geographical region to have been purchased legitimately there would have to have been no previous owners of property on that section of land.

That seems completely arbitrary.  How do you know that?

filc:

You have to prove that you are placing it into productive use, otherwise the homesteading rule would apply

What constitutes "productive use?".  If I owned a woodlot in which I just enjoyed nature's scenic beauty, and some squater moved in and claimed I wasn't being productive, would he be right?

Reply

wilderness replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:16 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

If I owned a woodlot in which I just enjoyed nature's scenic beauty, and some squater moved in and claimed I wasn't being productive, would he be right?

I've wondered this in the past myself.  I would say the woodlot is useful as scenic beauty, as long as, I first walked there, even a jaunt along the boundary of the geography.  But it couldn't be simply looking at a whole area and claiming it.  Work, such as walking, would be necessary, which is actually routine today whenever I've bought property, or anybody else that I've known to buy property.  They walk the boundary with the real estate agent or what have you. 

Maybe I don't like to have paths, I like to walk in the woods without paths in scenic view.  So how does anybody know that I walk there?  Maybe I set up signs, but I don't like signs in my view.  Maybe I mention it to my neighbors every once in a while.  They know I hunt, fish, or simply walk in these particular woods.  Yet if I don't have that many neighbors, or live a hermit type life, then who will vouch for me?  Or I could simply homestead it, get a surveyor to mark down on a piece of paper the coordinates, and go to a notary or maybe its a business deal the surveyor him or her self do as part of their package deal and therefore they file it.  File one copy with me, one with the surveyor.  This seems to be the easiest route to take and is no different than what happens currently in the market.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 10:47 AM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

I first walked there, even a jaunt along the boundary of the geography

What if you enjoyed viewing it from a plane?

wilderness:

Or I could simply homestead it, get a surveyor to mark down on a piece of paper the coordinates, and go to a notary or maybe its a business deal the surveyor him or her self do as part of their package deal and therefore they file it.  File one copy with me, one with the surveyor.  This seems to be the easiest route to take and is no different than what happens currently in the market.

What if there is no surveyor, or no centralized database of deeds?  Wouldn't be less circuitous, and presume less about society, to just say, "if you can take it and keep it, it's yours"?  Fabricating "rightful claims" seems as cynical about human nature as the statists.  That is, the Hobbsean state of nature would result without some sort of inalienable privileges to anchor a society to.

Reply

Merlin replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:44 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

If I owned a woodlot in which I just enjoyed nature's scenic beauty, and some squater moved in and claimed I wasn't being productive, would he be right?

I’d say this would depend on the data of the specific case. But generally speaking, I wouldn’t accept the claim of native Americans that they owned the whole continent since they derived spiritual utility form it, being in contact with the spirits of all forests and that kind of stuff. In practice, I believe that only some piece of the forest will be allotted to the scenic guy. There’s no way to tell in advance though.

Reply

wilderness replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:49 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

I first walked there, even a jaunt along the boundary of the geography

What if you enjoyed viewing it from a plane?

I say no.  As there is no way to measure what a person sees, it's subjective, but to trace their steps is objective.

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

Or I could simply homestead it, get a surveyor to mark down on a piece of paper the coordinates, and go to a notary or maybe its a business deal the surveyor him or her self do as part of their package deal and therefore they file it.  File one copy with me, one with the surveyor.  This seems to be the easiest route to take and is no different than what happens currently in the market.

What if there is no surveyor, or no centralized database of deeds?

This is getting into understanding the entrepreneur.  "If" statements of this kind,  sound chicken little.

Jackson LaRose:

Wouldn't be less circuitous, and presume less about society, to just say, "if you can take it and keep it, it's yours"?

That's homesteading.  I don't know what else your trying to say.

Jackson LaRose:

Fabricating "rightful claims" seems as cynical about human nature as the statists.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Jackson LaRose:

That is, the Hobbsean state of nature would result without some sort of inalienable privileges to anchor a society to.

I don't know what you're trying to say.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:57 AM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

I say no.  As there is no way to measure what a person sees, it's subjective, but to trace their steps is objective.

So, if I bought property sight unseen, it wouldn't be mine?

wilderness:

This is getting into understanding the entrepreneur.  "If" statements are chicken little

I'd say supposing the existence of something in the future is just as much an "if".

wilderness:

That's homesteading.  I don't know what else your trying to say.

Not if it's already considered someone else's property.

wilderness:

Jackson LaRose:

That is, the Hobbsean state of nature would result without some sort of inalienable privileges to anchor a society to.

I don't know what you're trying to say.

I'm saying bothering with property rights assumes that without them, chaos would be imminent, much like a statist saying "without the state, chaos would be imminent".

Reply

wilderness replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:03 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

I say no.  As there is no way to measure what a person sees, it's subjective, but to trace their steps is objective.

So, if I bought property sight unseen, it wouldn't be mine?

Of course there is the risk that somebody else saw it for you and sold you the property that you've never seen.  That's common.  Risky, but happens.  But I would definitely look at the papers, want to know what it is that I'm buying, need to know if it's legit, etc....

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

This is getting into understanding the entrepreneur.  "If" statements are chicken little

I'd say supposing the existence of something in the future is just as much an "if".

true.

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

That's homesteading.  I don't know what else your trying to say.

Not if it's already considered someone else's property.

Oh.  I see.  That goes without saying.  Well if it's somebody else's property, then it can't be homesteaded that not only violates the semantics of the word homesteaded, but the concept as well.

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

Jackson LaRose:

That is, the Hobbsean state of nature would result without some sort of inalienable privileges to anchor a society to.

I don't know what you're trying to say.

I'm saying bothering with property rights assumes that without them, chaos would be imminent, much like a statist saying "without the state, chaos would be imminent".

One need not know that property rights already do exist, but their human action will play it out.  In other words, I don't need to know that I'm walking while I walk.

Reply

filc replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 5:00 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

That's homesteading.  I don't know what else your trying to say.

Not if it's already considered someone else's property.

Oh.  I see.  That goes without saying.  Well if it's somebody else's property, then it can't be homesteaded that not only violates the semantics of the word homesteaded, but the concept as well.

This is what I was getting at in my earlier post regarding the concept of "State Purchases".

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 5:01 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

Well if it's somebody else's property, then it can't be homesteaded that not only violates the semantics of the word homesteaded, but the concept as well.

But the meaning of "property" in that context is subjective.  You may consider something your property, while I consider it mine.  I don't know how you could qualify it absolutely.

wilderness:

One need not know that property rights already do exist, but their human action will play it out.

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

Reply

filc replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 5:57 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

One need not know that property rights already do exist, but their human action will play it out.

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

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

Reply

wilderness replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 6:01 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

Well if it's somebody else's property, then it can't be homesteaded that not only violates the semantics of the word homesteaded, but the concept as well.

But the meaning of "property" in that context is subjective.  You may consider something your property, while I consider it mine.  I don't know how you could qualify it absolutely.

the meaning of any word is not subjective.  it has an absolute meaning or else any particular word is useless and be defined as pink-mops or porchlights, when in reality I'm trying to talk about rivers.  If it's a semantics issue that an individual is concerned about indefinitely, then it is impossible for such an individual to communicate effectively.

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

One need not know that property rights already do exist, but their human action will play it out.

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

human action

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:45 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

Even toddlers that cannot even talk or walk exhibit signs understanding a primitive level property, ownership, and rights. 

I think you are taking a leap to assume infants can conceptualize "rights".  They seem to desire possession, but they don't seem to understand the possession of others.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:50 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

the meaning of any word is not subjective.  it has an absolute meaning or else any particular word is useless and be defined as pink-mops or porchlights, when in reality I'm trying to talk about rivers.  If it's a semantics issue that an individual is concerned about indefinitely, then it is impossible for such an individual to communicate effectively.

What?

wilderness:

human action

On order, but from what I understand about praxeology, it's a descriptive method.  Normative conclusions don't result from applying it.

Reply

wilderness replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:32 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

the meaning of any word is not subjective.  it has an absolute meaning or else any particular word is useless and be defined as pink-mops or porchlights, when in reality I'm trying to talk about rivers.  If it's a semantics issue that an individual is concerned about indefinitely, then it is impossible for such an individual to communicate effectively.

What?

That doesn't help.

Jackson LaRose:

wilderness:

human action

On order, but from what I understand about praxeology, it's a descriptive method.  Normative conclusions don't result from applying it.

Unless it's a norm to apply what is descriptive.

Reply

filc replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

Even toddlers that cannot even talk or walk exhibit signs understanding a primitive level property, ownership, and rights. 

I think you are taking a leap to assume infants can conceptualize "rights".  They seem to desire possession, but they don't seem to understand the possession of others.

Does a baby not cry when you take it's pacifier from it? If the baby was not concerned with currently occupying it's pacifier I should think it would not cry.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Sat, Feb 20 2010 9:52 AM

rated by 0 users

filc:

Does a baby not cry when you take it's pacifier from it?

Yeah, but simply because it covets what you took.  I find it hard to believe that the baby thinks "hey, this jerk just violated my rightful claim to this thing".  There is a difference.

Reply

filc replied on Sat, Feb 20 2010 11:33 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

Does a baby not cry when you take it's pacifier from it?

Yeah, but simply because it covets what you took.  I find it hard to believe that the baby thinks "hey, this jerk just violated my rightful claim to this thing".  There is a difference.

I'm pretty sure I said "Exhibits primitive signs of knowing".  Go back and re-read what I said.

Reply

MarketFundamentalist replied on Sat, Feb 20 2010 11:51 AM

rated by 0 users

The only thing that stops "the average Joe" from becoming a billionaire today is just plain stupidity and lack of virtue and welfare nanny state does not help by encouraging such traits.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Sat, Feb 20 2010 1:03 PM

rated by 0 users

MarketFundamentalist:

lack of virtue

?

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Sat, Feb 20 2010 1:04 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

I'm pretty sure I said "Exhibits primitive signs of knowing".  Go back and re-read what I said.

Even so, you seem to be interpreting behavior based on your biases.  I'd like to see some scientific evidence, otherwise this is strictly hearsay.

Reply

MarketFundamentalist replied on Sat, Feb 20 2010 1:05 PM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

MarketFundamentalist:

lack of virtue

?

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Sat, Feb 20 2010 1:11 PM

rated by 0 users

MarketFundamentalist:

You need to be virtuous in order to be a true businessman.

Define virtuous, and why?

Reply

filc replied on Sun, Feb 21 2010 12:00 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

I'd like to see some scientific evidence, otherwise this is strictly hearsay.

It's not hearsay. It's not a rumor I've heard of. It's easily visible, have you not seen what happens when you take candy from a child?

The concepts of property exists between occupatin and time. The occupation is the use of the object from a person or persons, the time is the time spent using it. Human's do not homestead property permenantly, it is eventually passed through the ages amongst many hands. Children however exhibit shorter time preferences, thats why they show such behavior. But the actions they take show specifically rational actions one would take with a primitiev concept of property in mind, whether they realize thats what it is or not.

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.

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. There is no need for you to be irrationalyl stubborn. Or are you just playing devils advocate. You actually have to argue that children don't get upset when thigns are taken from them. I don't think any scientific evidence is necessary there.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Sun, Feb 21 2010 12:17 AM

rated by 0 users

filc:

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.

This kid has already been socially conditioned to have a concept of property.  That's like me saying Asians are naturally collectivist, due to the large number of communist regimes.

filc:

have you not seen what happens when you take candy from a child?

Yeah, they want it back, it could be my candy, if they want it, they want it.  I don't understand the leap you are taking to call this a concept of ownership.

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.

Are you a flat-earther?

filc:

There is no need for you to be irrationalyl stubborn.

LOL.  No, there sure isn't.

filc:

Or are you just playing devils advocate.

Is it that hard to believe that there might be people who derive a different interpretation of the behavior of children?

filc:

You actually have to argue that children don't get upset when thigns are taken from them.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying that children getting mad when you take stuff from them has nothing to do with violating the child's sense of property, or ownership. The kid wanted it, now they don't have it.  Simple as that.

Reply

MarketFundamentalist replied on Sun, Feb 21 2010 12:48 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

Define virtuous, and why?

Virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps his values. - Ayn Rand

Reply

filc replied on Sun, Feb 21 2010 1:58 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

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

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? That the child was trained to cry at the exact moment that the pacifier was removed? Or can we safely assume that the toddler simply wants the the pacifier back. The toddler seeks to occupy the use of that pacifier over a certain duration of time. The very principles which define property.

Jackson LaRose:

That's like me saying Asians are naturally collectivist, due to the large number of communist regimes.

This is very non-sequitur. Exhibiting signs of the concept of property has nothing to do with one's economic or political affiliation. Even communists, collectivists, and the like understand and operate under a concept of property. Though it may not be private. But if such was the case then we would have to assume, by your statement, that Asian toddlers do not cry when a pacifier is taken from them. I doubt that is the case.

Why do you retort with such a ridiculous statement?

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

have you not seen what happens when you take candy from a child?

Yeah, they want it back, it could be my candy, if they want it, they want it.  I don't understand the leap you are taking to call this a concept of ownership.

I'm shocked that you do not comprehend the link you just demonstrated. Thanks.

Jackson LaRose:

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.

Are you a flat-earther?

I'm not sure I know what a flat earther is. Though I am almost positively sure you mis-understood what I was saying. Please review the following lecture.

My statements to you are not hypothetical.

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

There is no need for you to be irrationalyl stubborn.

LOL.  No, there sure isn't.

You laugh ir-respectfully, and continue.

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

Or are you just playing devils advocate.

Is it that hard to believe that there might be people who derive a different interpretation of the behavior of children?

In what other way would you interpret such behavior? The conditions of occupation and time are conditions of property. Can you explain a different interpretation to me without it being a semantical game on the description of property?

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

You actually have to argue that children don't get upset when thigns are taken from them.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying that children getting mad when you take stuff from them has nothing to do with violating the child's sense of property, or ownership. The kid wanted it, now they don't have it.  Simple as that.

Which is the fundamental point of property. To ascertain who has what, at what point in time.Your statement above seems to agree with me that children exhibit a primitive understanding of property. That is the occupation of scarce objects over scarce time.

Please excuse my grammer on the earlier post. It was done in haste.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Mon, Feb 22 2010 1:23 PM

rated by 0 users

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? That the child was trained to cry at the exact moment that the pacifier was removed? Or can we safely assume that the toddler simply wants the the pacifier back. The toddler seeks to occupy the use of that pacifier over a certain duration of time. The very principles which define property.

Please read what you wrote, and what I responded to.

filc:

 But if such was the case then we would have to assume, by your statement, that Asian toddlers do not cry when a pacifier is taken from them. I doubt that is the case.

You are egregiously misunderstanding what I've stated.

filc:

I'm shocked that you do not comprehend the link you just demonstrated. Thanks.

What is the link?

filc:

I'm not sure I know what a flat earther is. Though I am almost positively sure you mis-understood what I was saying.

I just wasn't sure if you rely on arbitrary scientific reports to conclude th Earth is round, or not.

filc:

In what other way would you interpret such behavior? The conditions of occupation and time are conditions of property. Can you explain a different interpretation to me without it being a semantical game on the description of property?

Yeah, If I own the pacifier, and I lend it to a baby for an hour, and then take it away, the baby will still be pissed.  I think that is pretty good evidence that the baby could really give a crap whether or not it "owned" the pacifier, it still wants it.

filc:

Which is the fundamental point of property. To ascertain who has what, at what point in time.Your statement above seems to agree with me that children exhibit a primitive understanding of property. That is the occupation of scarce objects over scarce time.

Then the concept of property is completely meaningless, if at any instant, the possessor of an object would be considered it's owner, until possession is transferred.

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Mon, Feb 22 2010 1:31 PM

rated by 0 users

filc:

My statements to you are not hypothetical.

Than as your boy Hoppe states in like the first 2 mins. of that video, you assume your deductions are perfect, that is, your ability to perceive and comprehend "reality" is perfect, implying you view yourself as close enough to omniscience to make absolute statements.  Sorry, I don't buy that.

Reply

Brainpolice replied on Mon, Feb 22 2010 3:35 PM

rated by 0 users

MarketFundamentalist:

The only thing that stops "the average Joe" from becoming a billionaire today is just plain stupidity and lack of virtue and welfare nanny state does not help by encouraging such traits.

And with this kind of hyper-elitist attitude (which isn't justifiable in either case), it's no wonder why so many people don't like libertarianism. The poor are poor because they're stupid and lazy and the rich are rich because they're smart and productive? Can you say "oversimplification"? I can think of tons of reasons other than this simple formula for what may function as a barrier to people getting wealthier, such as scarcity itself and barriers to entry. I can also think of plenty of other possible contributing factors to some people's wealth other than this formula, such as inheritance and political favoritism.

You're pretty much dropping the systematic context in which people live from the picture. It's certainly not necessarily something innate, given the fact that people are born into circumstances beyond their control and function within the context of political and economic systems that skew the playing field. One would hope that libertarians would be more focused on demonstrating the degree to which state intervention destroys wealth rather than vulgarly proclaiming the multitude to be stupid and immoral while exalting whoever happens to be rich and powerful as the ubermensche manifested.

Reply

Stranger replied on Mon, Feb 22 2010 3:45 PM

rated by 0 users

MarketFundamentalist:

The only thing that stops "the average Joe" from becoming a billionaire today is just plain stupidity and lack of virtue and welfare nanny state does not help by encouraging such traits.

There's a burned down carcass of a plane in Austin, TX that says otherwise.

Reply

filc replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 11:00 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

My statements to you are not hypothetical.

Than as your boy Hoppe states in like the first 2 mins. of that video, you assume your deductions are perfect, that is, your ability to perceive and comprehend "reality" is perfect, implying you view yourself as close enough to omniscience to make absolute statements.  Sorry, I don't buy that.

So you want me to provide you a study with 1000 examples of babies crying when a pacifier is taken from them? Are you seriously being this stubborn? Are you being this stubborn because you like to argue and prefer to be right? That you cannot humbly consider what I am saying? Or are you just being stubborn for the fun of it?

Reply

Jackson LaRose replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 11:19 AM

rated by 0 users

filc:

So you want me to provide you a study with 1000 examples of babies crying when a pacifier is taken from them?

What does that have to do with anything?  You still observe this outcome through your bias.  It is stricly presumption that this phenomena has anything to do with property rights. 

filc:

Are you seriously being this stubborn?

I'm sorry, I just don't see the correlation between a concept of property rights, and a baby's covetous nature.

filc:

Are you being this stubborn because you like to argue and prefer to be right?

I do like to argue, but that is besides the point.  I just don't see how the correlation is so obvious.

filc:

That you cannot humbly consider what I am saying?

Hey man, you picked the fight, not me.  I did consider what you are positing, and I think it makes no sense to leap to the conclusion that a baby has a sense of property, just because it cries when it doesn't get it's way.

filc:

Or are you just being stubborn for the fun of it?

No, the fun is just a side effect of reading the ridiculous amount of confidence you hold in your drawn conclusions.

Reply

filc replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 11:28 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

Yeah, If I own the pacifier, and I lend it to a baby for an hour, and then take it away, the baby will still be pissed

Thank you for confirming  yet again my thesis.

Jackson LaRose:

I think that is pretty good evidence that the baby could really give a crap whether or not it "owned" the pacifier, it still wants it.

Irrelevant and besides the point I am making. The question is, why do babies cry when the pacifier is taken from them. You seem to be in left field in responding to almost everything I have stated.

Jackson LaRose:

Then the concept of property is completely meaningless, if at any instant, the possessor of an object would be considered it's owner, until possession is transferred.

Again your missing the point of the argument entirely, and your still wondering around lost in left field. It's not about title transfers, ownership transfers, ect....

It's about the trivial concept, that babies understand yet you do not, that objects are scarce, and time is scarce. That needs can be addressed by employing those scarce objects and placing them into occupation over a scarce set of time. Regardless of who owns the actual object, which is a latter part of the necessity of property, 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. 

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

Jackson LaRose:

Yeah, If I own the pacifier, and I lend it to a baby for an hour, and then take it away, the baby will still be pissed.  I think that is pretty good evidence that the baby could really give a crap whether or not it "owned" the pacifier, it still wants it.

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

Jackson LaRose:

Then the concept of property is completely meaningless, if at any instant, the possessor of an object would be considered it's owner, until possession is transferred.

Ownership is just a latter part to the necessities of property. You seem to be entirely oblivious to all of the points I have presented.

Jackson LaRose:

I just wasn't sure if you rely on arbitrary scientific reports to conclude th Earth is round, or not.

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. 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.

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. There are others on this forum like Wilderness for example or Esuric, that when wrong continue to debate in a positive manner to better themselves, respect their opponent, and better those around.

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. All while not really presenting a case. You seem more interested in making this a flame war between you and me, putting words in my  mouth with a terrible flat-lander analogy. Which by the way doesn't even make sense in context here. It's this more frequent adolescent behavior that really squelch's my desire to continue and participate. 

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

Reply

filc replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 11:30 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

So you want me to provide you a study with 1000 examples of babies crying when a pacifier is taken from them?

What does that have to do with anything?  You still observe this outcome through your bias.  It is stricly presumption that this phenomena has anything to do with property rights. 

Your asking for scientific evidence, a posteriori, Thats what a 1000 baby study would be. 

Jackson LaRose:

I'm sorry, I just don't see the correlation between a concept of property rights, and a baby's covetous nature.

Then state so respectfully instead of dragging me a long a 3 page nonsenseical argument. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and just leaving it at that if you are incapable of explaining why you disagree.

Jackson LaRose:

I do like to argue, but that is besides the point.  I just don't see how the correlation is so obvious.

The last several pages of this petty fiasco would state otherwise.

Jackson LaRose:

Hey man, you picked the fight, not me.  I did consider what you are positing, and I think it makes no sense to leap to the conclusion that a baby has a sense of property, just because it cries when it doesn't get it's way.

I didn't pick any fight. I simply made a statement which seemed to bother you. You engaged me saying my statement was far fetched but have yet to explain why.

Jackson LaRose:

No, the fun is just a side effect of reading the ridiculous amount of confidence you hold in your drawn conclusions.

Thanks.

Reply

filc replied on Tue, Feb 23 2010 11:31 AM

rated by 0 users

Jackson LaRose:

filc:

So you want me to provide you a study with 1000 examples of babies crying when a pacifier is taken from them?

What does that have to do with anything?  You still observe this outcome through your bias.  It is stricly presumption that this phenomena has anything to do with property rights. 

Your asking for scientific evidence, a posteriori, Thats what a 1000 baby study would be. 

Jackson LaRose:

I'm sorry, I just don't see the correlation between a concept of property rights, and a baby's covetous nature.

Then state so respectfully instead of dragging me a long a 3 page nonsenseical argument. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and just leaving it at that if you are incapable of explaining why you disagree.

Jackson LaRose:

I do like to argue, but that is besides the point.  I just don't see how the correlation is so obvious.

The last several pages of this petty fiasco would state otherwise.

Jackson LaRose:

Hey man, you picked the fight, not me.  I did consider what you are positing, and I think it makes no sense to leap to the conclusion that a baby has a sense of property, just because it cries when it doesn't get it's way.

I didn't pick any fight. I simply made a statement which seemed to bother you. You engaged me saying my statement was far fetched but have yet to explain why.

Jackson LaRose:

No, the fun is just a side effect of reading the ridiculous amount of confidence you hold in your drawn conclusions.

Thanks.