What is property?

Malachi replied on Sun, Sep 16 2012 12:21 PM

I also exit the discussion, since I have come to question whether discussion boards are used for discussion at all....

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)

| Post Points: 5

Posts 2,258

Points 34,610

Anenome replied on Sun, Sep 16 2012 12:24 PM

Malachi:
I have now created land as a product of labor. Do I own the island
you mean that useless pile of dirt in the middle of the water? You cant own it, it was made to be useless. ;-)

Haha :) he said land can't be owned because it cannot be a product of labor. I called his bluff, explaining a kind of land, man-made islands, that are only ever a product of labor, thus destroying his assertion utterly, and no response.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 2,258

Points 34,610

Anenome replied on Sun, Sep 16 2012 12:28 PM

Papirius:

I exit the discussion, being that I have come to doubt whether the concept of (right to) property is justified at all.

How will you live then? If owning property means the right to dispose of something and exclude all others from the use of that property, what exactly do you think is happening when you eat a sandwich or drink some water?

If you have no right to property then you have no right to sequester food and water from the rest of humanity inside your stomach.

And the reason we have a right to land is because without the right to land you cannot obtain the food or the water.

This is what I'm talking about. You are not thinking about the real world implications of your philosophical musings. You have to actually touch back with reality lest you go off on a trail through the woods and get lost.

If you don't own yourself you would not be able to control yourself. The very fact that you and no one but you were able to type out that post proves that you own yourself.

And if you cannot own property then you cannot feed yourself either.

Try again.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 275

Points 4,000

HabbaBabba replied on Sun, Sep 16 2012 12:29 PM

http://mises.org/community/forums/p/31194/488842.aspx#488842

I exit the discussion, being that I have come to doubt whether the concept of (right to) property is justified at all.

Hah! Called that one.

| Post Points: 5

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Sun, Sep 16 2012 2:13 PM

How will you live then? If owning property means the right to dispose of something and exclude all others from the use of that property, what exactly do you think is happening when you eat a sandwich or drink some water?

You falsly presuppose that only property gives you a right to exclusive use of something.

If you don't own yourself you would not be able to control yourself.

Same false presupposition.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 2,493

Points 39,355

Malachi replied on Sun, Sep 16 2012 4:36 PM

You falsly presuppose that only property gives you a right to exclusive use of something.

Papirius, the right to use something exclusively is a social convention. We call it "property." what exactly are you unsure of?

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)

| Post Points: 20

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 3:37 AM

the right to use something exclusively is a social convention.

Argumentation ethics shows is to be an ethical axiom. It just mistakenly identifies it as a property right.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 165

Points 2,745

Serpentis-Lucis replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 5:33 AM

Ethics presuppose property rights. Without property rights then how can you determine if something has been stolen for instance?

| Post Points: 20

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 5:52 AM

Ethics presuppose right to exclusive use, and that doesn't imply property, but possession.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 165

Points 2,745

Serpentis-Lucis replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 7:00 AM

Possession doesn't necessarily imply the exclusive right of use either. If Bob steals something, Bob clearly now has possession of the object, it doesn't mean that he has the legit exclusive right to use it though.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 7:15 AM

Possession right is the right to deny use of something because you are using it, i.e. it is a right to exclusive use. If Bob steals something means that the he took something that was being used without consent of that user.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,922

Points 79,590

Autolykos replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 9:33 AM

Papirius:
Possession right is the right to deny use of something because you are using it, i.e. it is a right to exclusive use. If Bob steals something means that the he took something that was being used without consent of that user.

Some of us use the term "possession" in a descriptive way, rather than a normative way. But I think I can adopt your semantics here.

Would you say that, if one has the right to "use" something (ignoring for the moment what's meant by "use"), would you also say that one then has the right to the fruits of that "use"? And would you say that one also has the right to give up his right to "use" the thing in question?

Finally, I'd appreciate a response to this post.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 9:52 AM

Some of us use the term "possession" in a descriptive way, rather than a normative way. But I think I can adopt your semantics here.

I'd say it's actually both in this sense, in which Proudhon and Tucker used it.

Would you say that, if one has the right to "use" something, would you also say that one then has the right to the fruits of that "use"?

What right? To property? I now don't see how is property justified to come into existence in the first place. Seems only by a social contract. I'll have to read and contemplate some more on Lockean "labor-mixing" and "improved-value" theories.

(ignoring for the moment what's meant by "use")

I've allready told you that use is physical, it has to do with the purpose of the item, e.g. food is used by eating, you are not using by watching it.

And would you say that one also has the right to give up his right to "use" the thing in question?

You stop using it, you abandon it, and thus everyone else has the right to use it.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,922

Points 79,590

Autolykos replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 10:33 AM

Papirius:
I'd say it's actually both in this sense, in which Proudhon and Tucker used it.

So once again you're mixing descriptivity and normativity together? Apparently Proudhon and Tucker were, too.

Papirius:
What right? To property? I now don't see how is property justified to come into existence in the first place. Seems only by a social contract. I'll have to read and contemplate some more on Lockean "labor-mixing" and "improved-value" theories.

As I see it, "right to the fruit(s) of use" means that, if anything new develops from your use of something, you also have the right to use the new thing(s). The term seems to have its roots (no pun intended) in agriculture, as can be seen by the word "fruit" itself. So having the right to the fruits of using an area of farmland would mean having the right to use the crops that you grow on it. If the right to use is the base case of ownership, then the right to the fruit(s) of use is the inductive step.

Another example is where, if you have the right to the fruit(s) of use over some raw materials, that means you have the right to use what you fashion those raw materials into.

Papirius:
I've allready told you that use is physical, it has to do with the purpose of the item, e.g. food is used by eating, you are not using by watching it.

So you're saying that, if I have bread in my refrigerator that I'm not currently eating, I'm therefore not using it, and therefore everyone else is entitled to take it out of my refrigerator so he can eat it?

Aside from that, do you think there's a way to objectively determine the purpose(s) of a given item? You seem to believe that the Aristotelian notion of the "final cause" or telos holds for everything.

Papirius:
You stop using it, you abandon it, and thus everyone else has the right to use it.

Are you talking about in the state of nature, or under a social contract, or both?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 12:29 PM

So once again you're mixing descriptivity and normativity together?

I'm going around it, like Hoppe did. To violate my exclusive use of my body is not wrong because of the fact that only I can use my body, but because it an a priori norm of argumentation to respect other people's exclusive use of their bodies, and because argumentation is the only way of justifying anything, it follows that "people have right to exclusive use of their bodies" is an ethical axiom.

As I see it, "right to the fruit(s) of use" means that, if anything new develops from your use of something, you also have the right to use the new thing(s). The term seems to have its roots (no pun intended) in agriculture, as can be seen by the word "fruit" itself. So having the right to the fruits of using an area of farmland would mean having the right to use the crops that you grow on it. If the right to use is the base case of ownership, then the right to the fruit(s) of use is the inductive step.

Another example is where, if you have the right to the fruit(s) of use over some raw materials, that means you have the right to use what you fashion those raw materials into.

Which is all redundant. You have the right to use anything that is not used (assuming that there's no property in the picture).

So you're saying that, if I have bread in my refrigerator that I'm not currently eating, I'm therefore not using it, and therefore everyone else is entitled to take it out of my refrigerator so he can eat it?

You're using the refrigirator, so no, but something like that. I'm currently not certain if property (distinct from possession) is at all justified.

Aside from that, do you think there's a way to objectively determine the purpose(s) of a given item? You seem to believe that the Aristotelian notion of the "final cause" or telos holds for everything.

Are you talking about in the state of nature, or under a social contract, or both?

In the state of nature. I thought that argumentation ethics show that property rights exist in state of nature, but I have realized that it acctually show that possession rights exist in state of nature, as I said, I need to think a bit more about "labor-mixing" and "added-value" theories to see and come to a conclusion if property is justified in the state of nature, or just as a mere societal construct.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,922

Points 79,590

Autolykos replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 12:57 PM

Papirius:
I'm going around it, like Hoppe did. To violate my exclusive use of my body is not wrong because of the fact that only I can use my body, but because it an a priori norm of argumentation to respect other people's exclusive use of their bodies, and because argumentation is the only way of justifying anything, it follows that "people have right to exclusive use of their bodies" is an ethical axiom.

There's absolutely no way of going around the is-ought problem. Even though both descriptive and normative positions can be argued logically, they constitute entirely orthogonal kinds of argument. While arguments can only continue so long as their participants respect each other's exclusive uses of their bodies - at least with respect to the arguments at hand - that doesn't mean that one is a priori obligated to either respect anyone else's exclusive use of his body at any/all time(s) or to ever engage in an argument with anyone.

Papirius:
Which is all redundant. You have the right to use anything that is not used (assuming that there's no property in the picture).

That's your position, not mine. Clearly I'm assuming there's property in the picture.

Papirius:
You're using the refrigirator, so no, but something like that. I'm currently not certain if property (distinct from possession) is at all justified.

Justified according to which premises?

You didn't answer my question about the Aristotelian notion of telos.

Papirius:
In the state of nature. I thought that argumentation ethics show that property rights exist in state of nature, but I have realized that it acctually show that possession rights exist in state of nature, as I said, I need to think a bit more about "labor-mixing" and "added-value" theories to see and come to a conclusion if property is justified in the state of nature, or just as a mere societal construct.

So you'd have no problem per se with a social contract that asserts the anarcho-capitalist notion of property? I just want to be clear on this.

By "the state of nature", do you mean "in the absence of any social relations whatsoever"? Or what? Sorry but I just realized that I don't quite understand what you mean by that term after all.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

| Post Points: 50

Posts 62

Points 990

Vanitas Nomen replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 1:09 PM

You're using the refrigirator, so no, but something like that. I'm currently not certain if property (distinct from possession) is at all justified.

So a meal kept in the refrigerator where one works is fair game?

| Post Points: 5

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 1:47 PM

that doesn't mean that one is a priori obligated to either respect anyone else's exclusive use of his body at any/all time(s) or to ever engage in an argument with anyone.

It means it is unjustifiable not to. Beause in order to justify anything you have to do it by argumentation, and respecting people's exclusive use of their bodies is an a priori norm of argumentation. If I attack you, I've just attacked you, I haven't proven that it's justified; trying to argue and justify not respecting other people's exclusive use of their bodies is like trying to argue and justify that conversations don't exist- a performative contradiction, meaning that it's opposite (respecting people's right to exclusive use of their bodies; admiting that conversations exist) is an axiom. Man, an anti-propertarian has to explain Hoppe to a Propertarian.

Justified according to which premises?

Any rationalist.

You didn't answer my question about the Aristotelian notion of telos.

Don't know.

So you'd have no problem per se with a social contract that asserts the anarcho-capitalist notion of property? I just want to be clear on this.

Being were talkin about a social contract, not about rationally proving something right or wrong, I do have a problem with any capitalism, as do pretty much all people who are not capitalists.

By "the state of nature", do you mean "in the absence of any social relations whatsoever"?

Property existing in a state of nature means that existence of property is a fact proved by rational argument. Property in a social contract is a preference, just a convention among people.

So a meal kept in the refrigerator where one works is fair game?

Yep. It's ironic that that's one of the few things I disagreed with Rousseau (there being no property in state of nature), thought that Locke had the rational view, and I was thrilled to find Hoppes proof of it, it just turned out it wasn't a proof.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 50

Posts 2,493

Points 39,355

Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 4:17 PM

So its justifiable for me to track down a given individual, shoot him, and eat him, as he obviously wasnt using the nutritionally rich muscles and organs inside his skin as long as he isnt physically active, right? After all, once I start using his body (signified by the tangible bullets I put inside him) then he surely wont be using it to challenge my claim of use. And the fact that he was ambulatory one second prior to me beginning to use his body has no bearing as long as he isnt physically active at the instant my projectiles impact him.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)

| Post Points: 35

Posts 62

Points 990

Vanitas Nomen replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 5:03 PM

So you're saying that, if I have bread in my refrigerator that I'm not currently eating, I'm therefore not using it, and therefore everyone else is entitled to take it out of my refrigerator so he can eat it?

You're using the refrigirator, so no, but something like that. I'm currently not certain if property (distinct from possession) is at all justified.

So a meal kept in the refrigerator where one works is fair game?

Yep. It's ironic that that's one of the few things I disagreed with Rousseau (there being no property in state of nature), thought that Locke had the rational view, and I was thrilled to find Hoppes proof of it, it just turned out it wasn't a proof.

I'm now confused.
If the bread is in 'my' fridge, someone else isn't justified in taking the bread because I am using the fridge - - - using it because it is in 'my' house?

However if the bread is in a fridge at my work-syndicate, anyone can take the entire loaf(stated as a meal in my first example).
As far as I know in both scenarios I am still using the fridge, the only difference seems to be where the fridge is, and/or who has 'ownership' of the refrigerator.
So, in the first example, I own the fridge, and I am using it, thus no one can take the bread, on the other hand, as in the second example, I don't own the fridge, and I am using it, thus any one can take the bread. To me this seems to affirm property.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 2,493

Points 39,355

Malachi replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 5:06 PM

No, you have to be in the act of tangibly using the refrigerator, disposing of a sandwich by leaving it there doesnt count. You need to use it as a bb gun target until lunchtime.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)

| Post Points: 20

Posts 62

Points 990

Vanitas Nomen replied on Mon, Sep 17 2012 5:12 PM

Ahh yes Malachi.

The fundamental problem is revealed: How do we define what it means to use a refrigerator. For it cannot simply be putting an item within it's confines so as keep the items cool, nay!

| Post Points: 5

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 6:57 AM

So its justifiable for me to track down a given individual, shoot him, and eat him, as he obviously wasnt using the nutritionally rich muscles and organs inside his skin as long as he isnt physically active, right?

If I haven't stoped using and abandoned my body (which can basically be done only by suicide) and I'm alive- I'm using my body, meaning I have not vaived my the right to possession (/ the exclusive use) over my body. I will not answer again to idiotic/ trolling posts similar to this one.

As far as I know in both scenarios I am still using the fridge, the only difference seems to be where the fridge is, and/or who has 'ownership' of the refrigerator.

Who has the possession over the fridge. You have possession over a house because you're using it, and thus possession over stuff inside. Workplaces are therefore possession of the workers as a collective, being that they are the users.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 1,389

Points 21,840

vive la insurrection replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 7:10 AM

Justified according to which premises?

Is there any point talking to someone with a Rousseau avatar? The only thing of interest about him, is he was somewhat of a precursor to the great, titanic egoists who would follow a few decades later. Other than that, the dude is a ninth rate crank who wants us naked in the jungle banging drums. What use is there in such people?

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle

| Post Points: 20

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 7:36 AM

You obviously have no idea what Rousseau wrote, and it doesn't matter if I have Hitler or Rothbard or Bugs Bunny on my avatar, that doesn't make me right or wrong, arguments do.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 62

Points 990

Vanitas Nomen replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 8:08 AM

Who has the possession over the fridge. You have possession over a house because you're using it, and thus possession over stuff inside. Workplaces are therefore possession of the workers as a collective, being that they are the users.

Ok so, I have possession over a house because I am using it---not necessarily. What if I am not home? On vacation are folks free to come by and raid my cupboard?

In the case of a workplace being in possession, that seems hard to accept inasmuch as a workplace cannot have ownership of something because a workplace isn't using anything, if it's defined as simply a workplace. If you say, well its a company who bought the refrigerator and thus is 'using' the refrigerator, well, maybe not. What if I am the only person who has a sandwhich cooling out in the fridge? In the case of the syndicate, maybe all 10 members chipped in and bought the fridge---who then has justification to eat my sandwhich now?

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,922

Points 79,590

Autolykos replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 8:29 AM

Papirius:
It means it is unjustifiable not to. Beause in order to justify anything you have to do it by argumentation, and respecting people's exclusive use of their bodies is an a priori norm of argumentation. If I attack you, I've just attacked you, I haven't proven that it's justified; trying to argue and justify not respecting other people's exclusive use of their bodies is like trying to argue and justify that conversations don't exist- a performative contradiction, meaning that it's opposite (respecting people's right to exclusive use of their bodies; admiting that conversations exist) is an axiom.

One isn't a priori obligated to justify his actions, either in general or to anyone in particular. Furthermore, justification is always done in the context of one or more premises - propositions that are simply taken as given. If one rejects a particular set of premises, the justification presented to him won't stand in his eyes, even if it's logically consistent with that set of premises. In other words, there's no "ultimate" justification for anything. Finally, it's possible to simply assume that something is justified - i.e. to take the proposition "X is justified" as a premise, not as a conclusion.

Papirius:
Man, an anti-propertarian has to explain Hoppe to a Propertarian.

There can be a difference between what one person said and what another person understood him as saying. But thanks for finally starting to do what you refused to do in another thread.

Papirius:
Any rationalist.

Could you please elaborate on this?

Papirius:
Don't know.

Well it certainly sounds to me like the Aristotelian notion of "final cause" or telos is implicit in your (again implicit) definition of "use". You've implied that things necessarily have only specific purposes. Whereas my definition of "use something" is "act with or upon something", your definition of it seems to be "act with or upon something in accordance with (one of) its purpose(s)". Does this sound accurate to you?

Papirius:
Being were talkin about a social contract, not about rationally proving something right or wrong, I do have a problem with any capitalism, as do pretty much all people who are not capitalists.

So you wouldn't want any social contract that asserts the anarcho-capitalist notion of property to exist at all? Even if you were in no way a part of it?

Papirius:
Property existing in a state of nature means that existence of property is a fact proved by rational argument. Property in a social contract is a preference, just a convention among people.

If you agree that property is a normative concept, how can it be a fact (i.e. a phenomenon imposed upon the mind from outside)? This again sounds like you're trying to go around the is-ought problem. I'm sorry but that's impossible - no matter which way you turn, the is-ought problem will be staring back at you.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 8:37 AM

Ok so, I have possession over a house because I am using it---not necessarily.

Not necessarily what?

What if I am not home? On vacation are folks free to come by and raid my cupboard?

In state of nature it seems that there is not ethical objection to it.

In the case of a workplace being in possession, that seems hard to accept inasmuch as a workplace cannot have ownership of something because a workplace isn't using anything, if it's defined as simply a workplace.

Wow, thank you for that insight. Now please direct to where anyone said that a workplace uses something.

who then has justification to eat my sandwhich now?

I don't see any rational defense of property as a fact of ethics, therefore in the state of nature, you have possessions only of the things you use. The moment you abandon them, you have waived your right to possession (/to exclusive use), and it can be then used by anyone else. Any other way of things to happen would have to be by a convention among people who would agree on a centain period of a possibility for you to continue to use something, or would agree to accept the concept of property and then respect each other's property.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 8:49 AM

One isn't a priori obligated to justify his actions, either in general or to anyone in particular.

So, what's you answer, moral nihilism?

Furthermore, justification is always done in the context of one or more premises - propositions that are simply taken as given. If one rejects a particular set of premises

Premises are true or false regardless of anyone's acceptance of those premises.

Could you please elaborate on this?

No.

your definition of it seems to be "act with or upon something in accordance with (one of) its purpose(s)". Does this sound accurate to you?

Seems so.

So you wouldn't want any social contract that asserts the anarcho-capitalist notion of property to exist at all? Even if you were in no way a part of it?

Why does it matter if I am a part of it?

If you agree that property is a normative concept, how can it be a fact (i.e. a phenomenon imposed upon the mind from outside)?

If a concept is true it is a fact.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 62

Points 990

Vanitas Nomen replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 9:02 AM

Ok so, I have possession over a house because I am using it---not necessarily.

Not necessarily what?

Not necessarily using it, seems this is no longer relevant anyhow in light of the preceding question and follow up answer.

In the case of a workplace being in possession, that seems hard to accept inasmuch as a workplace cannot have ownership of something because a workplace isn't using anything, if it's defined as simply a workplace.

Wow, thank you for that insight. Now please direct to where anyone said that a workplace uses something

Who has the possession over the fridge. You have possession over a house because you're using it, and thus possession over stuff inside. Workplaces are therefore possession of the workers as a collective, being that they are the users.

Here you don't 'say' tha a workplace uses something, but how does a workplace have possession over workers, because they are 'using' the workers? If I have possession over a house because I am using it, how do I not have possession over a workplace fridge when I am clearly using it by having a sandwhich stay cold inside it? To 'use' a fridge, requires one to effectively 'abandon' the sandwhich inside it. Do I have to literally be inside the fridge holding the sandwhich to not abandon it?

who then has justification to eat my sandwhich now?

I don't see any rational defense of property as a fact of ethics, therefore in the state of nature, you have possessions only of the things you use. The moment you abandon them, you have waived your right to possession (/to exclusive use), and it can be then used by anyone else. Any other way of things to happen would have to be by a convention among people who would agree on a centain period of a possibility for you to continue to use something, or would agree to accept the concept of property and then respect each other's property.

If I have a motorcyle battery charging on a tender and I leave the prescence of the battery and the tender I am abandoning it?
If I park my car after I go to work it's now in a 'state of nature'?

| Post Points: 35

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 9:15 AM

Here you don't 'say' tha a workplace uses something, but how does a workplace have possession over workers, because they are 'using' the workers?

Workplaces are [therefore] possession of the workers as a collective, being that they (the workers) are the users (of the workplace).

how do I not have possession over a workplace fridge when I am clearly using it by having a sandwhich stay cold inside it? To 'use' a fridge, requires one to effectively 'abandon' the sandwhich inside it.

Tough luck. The consequences are not important, just correct principles.

If I park my car after I go to work it's now in a 'state of nature'?

If people around haven't agreed to respect the convention of property that you like, everything you don't directly use seem to be legitimately open game for them.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,922

Points 79,590

Autolykos replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 9:41 AM

Papirius:
So, what's you answer, moral nihilism?

Yes. But moral nihilism in no way means (to me, at least) that moral judgement is impossible. It simply means that moral judgements aren't facts about the world.

Papirius:
Premises are true or false regardless of anyone's acceptance of those premises.

Then by "true" and "false" you mean something other than "logical consistency" and "logical inconsistency", respectively. So what do you mean by "true" and "false"? I suspect that you mean "factual" and "counter-factual", respectively, but I could be wrong.

Papirius:
No [I won't elaborate on this].

Why not? Are you not interested in helping me to understand your thinking? If that's the case, then what point do you have in discussing with me?

Papirius:
Seems so.

Okay, can you prove that everything necessarily has only one or more specific purposes?

Papirius:
Why does it matter if I am a part of it?

Well I gathered from what you wrote earlier that you'd be tolerant of at least some diversity in social contracts. I was wondering how far your tolerance went. But from a logical standpoint, if you think it's legitimate for a group of people to form any social contract among themselves, then you must think it's legitimate for them to form a propertarian social contract.

Papirius:
If a concept is true it is a fact.

Yet if by "true" you mean "factual", then this is just a tautology. It doesn't add anything.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 62

Points 990

Vanitas Nomen replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 9:42 AM

how do I not have possession over a workplace fridge when I am clearly using it by having a sandwhich stay cold inside it? To 'use' a fridge, requires one to effectively 'abandon' the sandwhich inside it.

Tough luck. The consequences are not important, just correct principles.

Not for me, most people seem to agree on the principle of private property where I work, I've never had my lunch stolen from the fridge ::shouldershrug::
So it's of no concern that there will be consequences of any given principle(s)? Also what is the prerequisite for a principle to be correct? You are saying that the princple of property aside from possession is not correct, and or there is no principle for it, right?

If I park my car after I go to work it's now in a 'state of nature'?

If people around haven't agreed to respect the convention of property that you like, everything you don't directly use seem to be legitimately open game for them.

I guess I should be grateful that despite not having contact with all humans in my area to agree on a convention of property, my vehicle remains, as of yet, not in the possession of someone other than myself.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 2,258

Points 34,610

Anenome replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 11:02 AM

Papi: "Who has the possession over the fridge. You have possession over a house because you're using it, and thus possession over stuff inside. Workplaces are therefore possession of the workers as a collective, being that they are the users."

But they are not the first users, they came along after that property was already owned and thus cannot have a higher claim on it than the first user who took it out of a state of nature and the people he voluntarily passed it on to.

Furthermore, the workers are using that area as a privilege in the course of their work on someone else's property. They are being paid to exchange the product of their labor, to not claim as their own the product of their labor. And they do so willingly because the owner allows them access to capital goods that greatly multiply their prooductivity, meaning they could not command nearly such a wage on their own. Such capital goods including the store or work location, tools and raw materials they work on and with, including that fridge and the work area generally.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.

| Post Points: 5

Posts 2,258

Points 34,610

Anenome replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 11:23 AM

Malachi:
So its justifiable for me to track down a given individual, shoot him, and eat him, as he obviously wasnt using the nutritionally rich muscles and organs inside his skin as long as he isnt physically active, right? After all, once I start using his body (signified by the tangible bullets I put inside him) then he surely wont be using it to challenge my claim of use. And the fact that he was ambulatory one second prior to me beginning to use his body has no bearing as long as he isnt physically active at the instant my projectiles impact him.

Logically then, if someone's asleep they become a non-owner of their body can can be justly deprived of life! >_-

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.

| Post Points: 5

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 1:01 PM

Yes. But moral nihilism in no way means (to me, at least) that moral judgement is impossible. It simply means that moral judgements aren't facts about the world.

Basically- there's no such thing as right and wrong there are just personal subjective unprovable preferences about what is wrong or right. We have nothing to talk about further.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 1:05 PM

I guess I should be grateful that despite not having contact with all humans in my area to agree on a convention of property, my vehicle remains, as of yet, not in the possession of someone other than myself.

The joys of threat of violence.

But they are not the first users

Irrelevant. Once the first user stops using something, it can be taken to be used by anyone else.

they came along after that property was already owned

Is property justified at all? I don't know of sound arguments that justify it's existence.

Logically then, ....

"Idiotically" maybe.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 20

Posts 421

Points 7,165

Phi est aureum replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 1:16 PM

@Papirius

Seeing as you don't seem to be in favor of anarcho-capitalism, what are you in favor of?

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 172

Points 4,070

Papirius replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 1:27 PM

Don't really know. I was a mutualist minarchist until now, but besides one of my leftist friends refuting my arguments in favor of state, on socratic dialectic meetings I participate with some people, my acceptance of self-ownership principle has been refuted too, so I would have to see some arguments about property being justified at all and then go for that; at this moment I guess the only option would be accepting some form of stateless social concract, but would have to wheigh out their arguments.

Suum cuique

| Post Points: 5

Posts 4,922

Points 79,590

Autolykos replied on Tue, Sep 18 2012 1:47 PM

Papirius:
Basically- there's no such thing as right and wrong there are just personal subjective unprovable preferences about what is wrong or right. We have nothing to talk about further.

Sure we do - at least if you ask me. Why do you think otherwise?

With all due respect, I think your search for an ultimate objective (i.e. factual) basis for right and wrong will be in vain. But I'm still not sure what you mean by "true" and "false" - or "factual" and "counter-factual", for that matter. Believe it or not, but I'm honestly interested in finding out what you mean by those terms.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.