bugzysegal

*tries to figure out how to avoid the poisoned well* I'm not sure I understand your argument fully. Are you saying that I think "The man poolside has no choice, but to throw a life preserver?" If so, that is not what I think. Any choice that could be moral or immoral, must be left to the discretion of the person making it. Otherwise it wouldn't be a choice, right? This seems not to be what you mean. So I am a bit confused. Or are you saying my assessment of the morality of the situation, and my utterance of that assessment is instantiating self-ownership, thus(in the case of the poolside man) rendering my limiting of the right to act as one chooses according to the NAP, as inconsistent. This latter assessment begs the question of whether I think self-ownership is anything more than a fiction, or at the least it assumes that I don't think such a thing.

Hmm, Labmath may contend that the ambiguity contained within words renders them meaningless, but that might be stronger than what he said throughout this discussion. I. of course, would say that inherent ambiguity is not problematic, simply demonstrated by the fact that we use these words. I point to a barn and say "tree" and you know I'm an idiot. Conversely, you say "Hey look at that tree over there" and I will locate the nearest tree and evaluate what peculiarities may have caught your eye. It might be true that one, all arguments are arguments about definitions, and that two in some sense these arguments will often be fruitless where they seek to dig beneath the inherent foundation-less axioms they are built upon. In stead, if you want to know what a word means, yes for an approximation you can consult a dictionary, but if you want the full course on when to use a word, look to how others do and see if your practice is playing the game correctly.

If I could throw my two cents in here, I think Socratic interrogation is one of the very methodological approaches that is functionally limited. Hammering away for definitions will eventually lead to exhausting the questioned persons patience. Labmath, are you doing this intentionally to demonstrate the overarching argument you were making from the beginning? That the appeal to axioms is a dead end? That's meta as fuck.

And operating under the assumption that consent has been given is a subjective process. The term doesn't having meaning outside its use between individuals. The point is, property rights aren't objective in the way you think they are. Meaning is use, no more or less. If a word is used in some way, it as objective a use as any other use of another word shared between others similarly.

Err, Ok so technically the Higgs-boson only accounts for the mass of electrons right? The protons and neutrons are due to other inter-quark forces right? but for the argument I was simplifying(misrepresenting of course) to statements about higgs-boson affected particles falling. Oh, definitely. I think dsayers and samuel and I disagree about whether or not they exist at all. But your if/then statement I don't at all contradict.

I do not omit opportunity cost. Bill Gates would lose approximately $11,000 dollars for the ten seconds it would take to throw someone a life preserver. That is peanuts to him and this of course scales depending on your capacity to earn. What you ignore by simply saying this is ad populum is that every meaning from every word simply comes from how it is used. There are specific instances of specialized language, (like scientific or mathematical language), where words take on a meaning by a certain sub-set of language speakers, but even in those instances, the meaning of those words comes down to how they are used. For the sake of argument I'll grant you your definition of property rights and self ownership. Can you respect property rights and have an economy without consent? Go ahead and point to how "consent" is any less up to subjective interpretation than "negligible risk according to a reasonable person." If you don't think there are problems of assessing consent, talk to any contracts lawyer in the world. I can give you a nice dictionary definition of "negligible" and "risk," but it wouldn't help; and in the same way your definition of "consent" won't help you in many cases of contract disputes.

Guilt or innocence can be preserved in a stateless society, though perhaps they don't have to be. The cop thing, obviously yeah, they are supposed to do no wrong...or at least it's advisable that private security officers act more reliably with integrity than the average person. Unfortunately due to the state monopoly that's not how it works, but there's no reason it couldn't work that way. In fact Stef pointed to private security in Detroit, noting that they had fast response with low complaints and highly qualified professionals. Also, there were dramatically lower reported instances of matters being solved through violence. "Law-abiding-citizens" simply haven't been caught breaking laws yet. I don't necessarily think people support the "in-group" "out-group" in as regimented a fashion as you portray. Brehon law was a system of private law that worked through the awarding of damages. It took place during a period of Irish anarchy from 700 to 1700 (roughly). There were no jails and I think it was basically like a cross between a classical court system and DROs. Cool stuff. So as to the actual question of the thread, no not really. These words would still be applicable in a stateless society that had conflicts to resolve. Are they currently words only used by state courts, because they have the monopoly on the court system? Well yeah. Are there performative contradictions in the state of nature? Was there ever a time in the period when man was developing language, before which there were no words for property or ownership? Were men and women doing anything contradictory when they would wander over to neighbors and take food they had bunched together? These concerns of being frightened and cleaning up some glass should be way low on the list of things the homeowner is concerned about. The fact that some persons life was saved, whereas there could have been a senseless death should be enthralling, The person who sees someone dangling in front of their window and nails boards across the window so there is no way the guy can break in, is not just an asshole. they are evil. Are they the greatest kind of evil, well no. Regular murder is worse than letting die. For one, someone who goes out and murders is a way bigger potential threat than someone who just won't help you, or will actively arrange their property so that you can't help yourself. That being said, if evil has a meaning, the above fits into it.

And this is where problems arise!

Gravity isn't a given. Gravity has been proven(for the sake of argument) to exist wherever a higgs boson interacts with matter. If you can prevent the higgs fields from being operative, then something will not fall when dropped. We have a mechanistic connection between the theory and the effect and it is in that way limited. If you could demonstrate that the higgs field could never be suspended or affected...and could demonstrate the same thing with consciousness and our actions, you would have an analogy.

if there are property rights, they by definition ought to be respected. When we are conducting an inquiry into the origins of where those rights arise, whether they exist at all, we can't assume their existence in the arguments describing the basis of how they function. 1. Do we own ourselves? 2. Yes, because we alone control our actions 3. But what if we don't own our actions(necessarily)? 4. Doesn't matter because to change who owns our actions you would have to violate property rights. 2 has to be proven before we can assert 4.

I agree! But also companies are using the internet and their vast budgets to spread disinformation via forums just like this one. The weird thing is I can't foresee a way of monetizing counter-measures.

So aside from the fact that corporations' liability shield is a fiction, the fact that business can act as they do presents a plethora of problems. To cut to the chase, misinformation, the suppression of information, and dangerous/damaging business practices make for a nasty cocktail. One of the best parts of the market is that price is a fluid and agile reflection of value. It also transmits information quite effectively. How will a free-market world combat the likes of those who would inhibit the free transfer of information?

First of all "psychic" powers are as laughable as you make them out to be, sort of. While it could be true that consciousness will never be fully understood by science, motor control most likely will be. If what creates ownership is some link between my consciousness and my actions, when this link is severed, what is to say of self-ownership? Also how does this link get made? and more importantly, the fact that this link exists doesn't mean it ought to right? While our actions are out of the reach of technology for now, I don't assume they will be for long. As you know from our other conversation, I prefer a morality that doesn't rely on these very murky grounds. What I would be very interested to see is if most people used "ownership" "property" and "self-ownership" (if they even have such a concept already) in the way that property rights theorists do.

Ok so this is where I get stuck: I own(control in an inalienable fashion) myself and to that extent, the effects of my actions. Therefore I have property rights and violation of these property rights is immoral. But what if someone controls myself(body through the mind)? This is a violation of the property rights established by me owning myself. <This is circular no?

"objective" literally adds nothing to the conversation. Do you want to know what a reasonable risk is? Survey how these words are used. you'll get as good a definition as any other. "Objective" gives the illusion that any language is steady or stagnant. Just because "reasonable risk" is fuzzy at the edges doesn't mean it's boundless. Try

So an example of a negligible cost would be throwing a life saver to someone, or shouting "hey lookout," Money isnt the kind of cost that needs to be negligible. Life is the cost that must be negligible, So no compulsion to dive into a burning building. Risk to one's own life is tangible in cases like that. "negligible" is as objective as "consent" or any other word. If a reasonable person would use the word in the same way, then you are using it correctly. Meaning is use.

This is one of the most frustrating and difficult subjects in philosophy/science. Daniel Chalmers: http://consc.net/papers/facing.html Sam Harris (who is a materialist!): http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii

My fault, these issues overlap or they digress...If ADD weren't a total myth I'd say I have it lol

1. It would allow you to deter immoral, psychopathic behavior. You are creating self-interested reasons to save drowning people who are right in front of you. 2. Slippery slope. I would restrict it to immediately impending danger with minimal or negligible cost to the actor. 3. Accidents happen, they shouldn't cost lives if they don't have to. (If you're ever drowning I hope you don't reach for your own bootstraps and that someone helps you out of the situation) 4. Reasonable people can assess immediate impending danger with minimal cost as easily as they can assess consent. 5. In all other cases I would defer to market forces, consent, choice, or however you like you pie.

Whats kind of different about situations like these is that any effort you could put into forcing the person to do something, would be effort you would better spend just helping. The coercion comes after the act when other people are around.

Ok problem one: this person glosses over how we own ourselves. 2. The argument from self-ownership to the ownership of property is also not explicit. I am responsible for my actions. I own my actions. This is mere substitution(tautological). Even if you do own your actions, which needs to be explained, why do the consequences of those actions now belong to you? 3. You also have to demonstrate that self-ownership, unlike ordinary ownership, is inalienable. 4. A duty to preserve the lives of those who it would cost us little to help outweigh the standard negative rights we typically observe. How am I avoiding a principle? Moreover, I was merely surveying intuitions. Is a yes or no too much to ask for? Furthermore, you are not using your property, your property is in the process of ceasing to exist. Necessarily the world is better off with you alive.

Before anything, is that a no? Were you in no way compelled to think a wrong had been done? In this scenario I didn't make it a child. Many adults do not know how to swim. I suppose the pretext is that this is a community that is not bound by some government. However, let's say there is something like a local court system that awards damages(or maybe something more akin to a DRO if you prefer that). I would say it's perfectly reasonable to have this person pay massive restitution damages.

Ok, quick survey of anyone who is reading this...A is drowning B happens by and notices. B also notices a life preserver near by. B continues on about his day. Clearly B is a sociopath or psychopath, take your pick of vague psychological terms, but do you think there is something more to be said here? Has a wrong been committed? Yes or no? Please just give me your immediate intuitive reaction.

"Using property rights as justification despite.." does that not better reflect my meaning without being manipulative? Was my post deleted? Also can you make the case for the scope of property rights being absolute as far as I asked in that deleted post? Moderator, if you would allow me, I would couch the language of my argument in terms you deem appropriate. What's flabbergasting to me is that the moral theory you espouse, can't describe why someone would be wrong for doing so. This is as powerful an intuition as "murder is bad" to me. By Stefan's own declaration "I do have great respect for the ethical instincts of mankind. The near-universal social prohibitions on murder, rape, assault and theft are facts that any rational ethicist discards at his peril." I simply am adding non-contractual obligatory help of a fellow person in peril to that list. Who are you to say I'm wrong? Am I equivocating murder and letting die? No, but I don't have to.

Now who's begging the question? First sentence, agreed. Could you clarify the subsequent deduction please? How does a person's capacity to reason make them property, let alone property of themselves? Again I am limiting the extent to which property rights can be applied. That's the premise of this entire thread. You don't make your point by saying self-ownership and ownership are both necessary apply to all moral problems. You can easily claim that property rights and ownership are theories that apply to all similar sets of circumstances, but I am looking at dissimilar ones. Again you can respond by saying these are unlikely even to the point of being highly unlikely. They are not so unlikely as to render the moral considerations irrelevant. You ought to save a person drowning, despite desiring to keep your cloths dry more than saving the life of another.