TheRobin

haven't seen the latest post before my post so:To me the question seems a bit like asking "how do we restitute the people for all the moeny stolen in the form of taxation?". First, there's no "we". "We" didn't steal anything (that also applies to the land). Secondly, I don't understand the idea of "distributing the land", as that would mean ownership and the obligation to end that ownership.But anyone who owns something (including soil and earth) by principle of usage/creation can't justly be made to give up that ownership. And all other claims of ownership are illegitimate anyway, so there's no need to give up ownership (as there is none to begin with).So I have a hard time understanding where a need for redistrbution would apply here in the first place.And to bring up again another question I asked earlier: Can you explain to me where you see the difference in things like guitars and computers and things like earth and rocks that you seem to apply different principles of how ownership can and is established?

I remember Dayna once saying that her oldest kid spent a good year mostly playing minecraft and they didn't interfere with it at all but where supportive of that hobby. They even went with him to meet the creator of the game at one point.And at some point he was just done with it and never took it up again.As someone who doesn't have kids I'm curious: what exactly do you think is the problem when a child plays a lot of videogames?I mean, I'm an adult and I sometimes play a lot of videogames, so if I had kids I don't think I personally could come up with a good reason as to why they shouldn't be allowed to play if they want (seeing as I'd do just the same).In the same way that, if I was a total gamer-dad and my kid was into more sporty activities I wouldn't want to impose my preference for not doing that much sport and rather playing more videogames on him :)But, I get, that it's always a lot easier to critique from the outside, so I'm really curious what it looks like from your perspective as parents and what the reasoning behind it is.on a personal side note: I think I have learned more about solving problems by using reason and evidence by playing videogames than sitting in school or reading fiction. Since games are all about figuring out how they work (observation, deducing general rules and principles) and then trying to apply those practically (experimentation). So I'd say it's a really nice and fun way of learning how to learn and dedcut rules from completely different situations (as most games are different in what one has to do and how it works so basically whenever you start a new game the process begins anew).I can't say (and I don't want to claim) that this is a general rule, as it might be just my personal bias. Or maybe I was (and still am from time to time) drawn to play a lot of videogames because I like to figure out principles and rules and experiment in the first palce and not the other way around.

Again, I'd say that's where the part of "modified the environment" comes into play.That's why I said that "land" is too vague a term to be useful. That's why I said, "if you plow a field, you have created a plowed field, so you own the plowed field". Or if you create a tunnel you have created a walkable area within a hill/mountain that wasn't there before so you own this area.In regards to the deer question: I also don't see how someone could reasonably claim ownership of a part of land because they killed some deer on it. Because they neither created something nor modified the environment.But can you answer me the question I asked before about your principle of common ownership? Because it seems to me its about "I live next to it, so I own it", and that doesn't make much sense to me either. (And is just as arbitrary imo). Or what is the principle that gives someone ownership by simply being in relative close proximity to it?

So that you could understand what you're talking about instead of making things up, about material you haven't read? Unopened books are mysteries, not certain knowledge. Well, again, I've read the introduction on the amazon page. Unless you want to tell me it has nothing at all to do with the actual content of the books and that the content uses a completely unrelated epistemology, then my claim is still valid.

I am guessing the site's rule prohibit such a thing, but it really would be a valid social experiment to see how much people really are willing to spend their own money in deliberately violent acts. That is, without the usual statist euphemisms like protection, security, defense, stabilizing etc. I think it would be a much more intersting experiment if those same euphemism would be used, but uttered by us mere mortals and not our holy deity the government. Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but I think that most people don't respond well to claims of open usage of violence when proposed by mere individuals who aren't politicians (and in the absence of any political context)

Well, I guess given that one of the authors he links is Weishaupt you were spot on. But as every secret society with crazy plans to take over the world: They usually have a whole set of ideas to ethically validate that what they're doing is not only moral, but absolutely necessary So I'd guess mentioned philosophy comes from those same Illuminati (or at least is claimed to come from those).

The work seems to be based on an invalid premise. This is what is adressed in the mentioned podcast/video.One doesn't need to read through 2000 pages of mathematical theory if it's based on the assumption that 2+2=5.Equally any philosophy that's based on a form of platonic realm is invalid. Since basically it claims to be above common reason, yet uses said reason to be communicated. Basically the author already invalidates his own philosophical claim (that mathematics is the only truth or a higher truth), by using anything but mathematics to communicate it. Furthermore you can't derive anything about the real world simply by using mathematical axioms, so whatever the author derives out of that has nothing to do with our lives and the world we live in by definition.So, why would anyone need to read the books to adress those issues?

From the description it seems to be a reasoning that is based on some form of Platonic Realm. This has already been adressed in the "introduction to philosophy"-series (I think it was the second one about Metaphysiks/Reality).You might wanna check that one.

Are you really intersted in finding a valid principle for landownership? You ignore a good part of the questions that would help me understand your reasoning or principle behind your conclusion. You cherry pick sentences, ignore half of it and then distort the rest of it so you don't have to respond to what I actually wrote.

I'm not sure what you meant with "any arbitrary homestead principle". I gave a clear principle and I still fail to see what the supposed issue is. If someone creates and maintains a plowed field, he owns it. If he ignores it to the degree that it can no longer reasonable called a "plowed field" (i.e. when it's mostly indistinguishable from any non-previously-plowed field) then logically he can no longer claim ownership of a (now non-existent) plowed field.And if that person continues to maintain those fields, then how is that any different from any other business?You seem to completely accept the usual principles in ownership in any other area, so what is the reason for the exception of this particular environment from the principle?The idea that "if I live next to it, I own it, together with everyone else who lives next to it" doesn't apply in any other case, so why here?

Maybe it will help you more if you focus more on exploring the feelings that come up than the cocnept itself. Since the concept is obviously bogus, all that's left is a vague pleasent (or sometimes not so pleasent) feeling anyway. My personal theory would probably go something like this: The idea plays with the hope for closeness and intimacy with other people. Something quite healthy IF the people in question are also healthy, good, nice, loveable, etc. So it kind of toys with the notion of "Wouldn't it be great if all people were actually good?", which, certainly, would be really great and something to wish for. But, since not everyone is actually good, nice, loveable etc. it's equally unhealthy to simply pretend they are and treat them as if they're good anyway. For one thing it's not healthy for one's self, since one exposes onesself to abusive and exploititative people, and on the other hand it's also quite disrespectful to those who actually are good and nice people. In a way it's like the communist idea of everyone deserving equal pay regardless of whether they actually do anything productive or just play videogmes all day.

xelent has summed it up pretty neatly, so I'm not gonna repeat what he already wrote. But, fundamentaly: How is that any different from renting/selling any other part or product of ones labour? And from a purely economic/efficiency standpoint: Isn't that exactly what you want to reduce the costs anyway? If a person can plow 10 times as many fields in the same time as most people plow one field, then all the other people will save a lot of time and money simply buying or renting the plowed field from that person, thus increasing overall profit and efficiency.

I think the ambiguous term here is "land". What does that include and what not? Does it include the plants and trees? How many meters deep does it count? If there's an oil reserve 500 meters below surface of the land, does someone who uses the land on the surface also get the right to use that below? If not where is the cutoff point? Same goes for the area above the ground of course.I've never been too exposed to any homestead principle, but what makes sense to me is the following (and I hope this isn't that infamous effect of knowing so little, that I assume I know more than average ): Usually when one makes use of a part of the environment, one either places stuff there that wasn't there before (like planting plants that grow things) and/or one modifies some aspect of the environment to make use of the modified version (like plowing a field, making a mining shaft). In both instances one has effectively creates something that wasn't there before and can claim ownership of the creation. So if I plow a field, I own the plowed field. If I plant some fruittrees, I own the fruit trees.I'm not really clear in what regards that applies to the question of owning "land" the way you mean it (because as I said, it seems quite the vague term to me), but it seems it solves the problem of ownership when it comes to ownership of some part of our environment.

The free market is based on the principle that you can do with your stuff whatever the hell you want. So how does that not apply to what Stef's doing here?

I think I get the ambivalence.On the one hand some good observations about how modern advertising capitalizes on the general low self-esteem of people by trying to tell them what they supposedly need to be succesful.On the other hand no concrete thing that he isolated as a root problem. So naturally if the guy only has a foggy and vague idea about the problems his anger will be projected equally at a foggy and vague class of people (here: the advertisers).Quite sad that such beautiful anger gets wasted at such an ugly idea of who supposedly controls our lifes.

If someone doesn't pay for the food they ordered then that's theft, so they already didn't respect the non-aggression principle there. Assuming they would instead have snuck directly into the kitchen and grabbed some food and tried to run off. Would you also be concerned then that there was no mutual agrrement of dispute resolution, or would you accept that using force to stop them from escaping was justified?

I don't see why there wouldn't be something as an "implicit contract" in your restaurant example. I also don't see why signing a piece of paper is necessary for an agreement to be valid and binding.Unless a contract is something more than an agreement between indiviuals, in which case, please tell me what the difference would be.

To dumb it down again a little: In regards to your original question I'd say that most fiction ever produced falls into the category of logically consistent but trumped by evidence. In general I found it very helpful when I started making the distinction that logic is something that applies to concepts and empirical evidence is just a fancy word for stuff that's not someones personal imagination So logic tells you whether the concepts you use are logical or illogical, correct/valid/meaningful or incorrect/invalid/meaningless. And empirical reality tells you what claims are true or false. Since it's the claims that are true or false, in order to actually mean anything they need to be logical. That also conveniently keeps me from ever having to argue whether 2+2=5 is true or not

Philosopher: "So, according to the Divine Right of Kings, we have to obey the Kigns wishes, right?" King :"right" Philosopher: "So do you obey every other Kings wished then?" King "What, no, sure not" Philosopher: "So, it's not good to obey the wishes of Kings then?" King: "Well, it's good for everyone else to do that." Philosopher: "So, what's the relevant difference between you, the King, and everyone else then, that allows for this?" King:" I was chosen by God to lead everyone else." Philosopher: "Ok, can you prove that?" King: "...well..." Philosopher :"Okay, so basically you're a dude just like everyone else, but you claim WE get to do what YOU want, but YOU don't have to obey any rules at all?" King: "..well....erm..." I'm not sure what you mean by "morals" then, if you say they're nothing more than an excuse to inflict violence. Simply using the word "morals" doesn't automatically make the claim valid (or about morals it seems). I might as well use the word "cat" describe the Easter Bunny at that point.

And who would own it, if everyone had these generators? (Because by that logic that would also mean, that everyone who has a knive would own everyone else, because basically everyone is able to stab someone in their sleep)

I don't think you're missing anything here.The terms and concepts used in those claims are completely contradictory, making the claims meaningless. So all they do is try to work with the emotional connotation to get people to behave in ways they normally wouldn't and/or that is not in their best interest.

well, they do want everyone to follow their rules at all times, how is that not a universal?But what I meant is that if there are different rules for person A and person B. And if person A and B both can make up any rules they want without principles than naturally they will contradict at some point. So there is a contradiction there. And if you don't want that contradiction then you'll inevidably have to start making claims that are the same for all individuals regardless of sex,age,costume etc.Basically if they wish for their morals to be more than an excuse to use violence against peaceful people they have to start from some principles. So unless they can show how logically person A must be treated the exact opposite way of person B they lose their case and their theory falls.

I think you're missing the point then. Sure, people CAN make up anything, but you can point them towards to contradiction in their thoughts and call it incorrect. Thus evaluating their moral theory.Same with physics, people can make up any story that invalidates basic physical laws or properties, it's just that they're incorrect in their assertions.But to use your own example, people DO expect everyone to follow their moral rules (like that you can't resist taxation for instance, because they call it moral), so by definition they do already accept that it must be based on principles that are binding for everyone. (Else they wouldn't call it morals, but merely opinion)

But if it isn't universal, why would they expect anyone else to accept the theory?If non-universal moral theories would be valid and respected, literally anyone could make up literally anything and no one would be right to stop anyone from doing whatever they want to do (while at the same time anyone could stop anyone as well).So any moral theory that doesn't apply universally is contradictory from the start (or will lead to inevidable contradictions)