labmath2

Land ownership is always tricky. For me it boils down to two concerns. 1. If you own land, do you set the rules for anyone else entering or occupying the land or are you required to still follow common law? 2. Why should new born be exempted from the rules? If a landlord rents out land under certain conditions and a couple living on it have three children. The couple die and the rent stops coming, Can the landowner kick the occupants off the land despite the fact that they did not enter into a contract with him? If the children should choose to stay, are they obligated to follow the rules set by the landowner? Depending on your answer to those 2 questions, government may or may not be a legitimate land owner.

The problem with argumentation ethics is that it is hard to pin down what it is. Can you list the conditions one has to accept to engage in arguments? Because performative contradiction relies on strict dependency of action performed on proposition put forward, sometimes things that appear to be performative contradiction aren't. A mute person could very well type into a machine that speaks for him or through some machine attached to his body saying "i am mute." While this is a kind of funny idea, it relies strictly of the meaning of the proposition (mute) and the action performed (speak/produce sound).

I have had many interaction with others on this forum about UPB, and i have made little headway because there appears to be slightly different interpretations of the book floating around. For a book that is meant to address such an important issue, it is not very clear and concise. I think the problem could be resolved in one of two simple ways, either Stefan writes an appendix where terms and expressions are explained or a shorter version for the book where he does not focus as much on the arguments, but explains the conclusions and simply references the original for arguments. If he really has time though, the best way, in my opinion, is to simply add syllogism trees to each section outlining the propositions and the conclusions presented in the sections. I would love to hear what others think about this and if you think there are other ways it could be done with less work, feel free to comment and if you think it should not be made more clear and concise because it is already clear and concise as it is, feel free to chuckle at me.

i actually think this is easier to grasp. My only objection to it is that i do not think anyone wants most of the things they do to become universal law, i certainly do not.

The argument she putting forward, which i tried putting forward at some point in this forum is that objective truths are known only by two methods, by observation or by definition. The case mice are mammals is true by definition, hence why some may consider it a non argument. Or take another example, 2+2=4, is also true by definition. However, that rock falls when its dropped is true by observation. This is the main difference between science and philosophy. When something is put forward in science, they tell you what is observation and what is definition. The reason why she sees all arguments as subjective is because we only argue about things that are not true by definition or by observation. Edit: There is one more way something can be true, by collective interaction, and that is where we get morality, economics politics...

The problem here again is lack of clarity. I will define the two other words in UPB since you have been gracious enough to define preferable. Universal-of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. Behavior-the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others. The first concern is the use of the word Universal, since it does not have to mean applicable to all people (even Stefan conceded that not everyone is treated the same under UPB), so who gets to define the "particular group" The second concern as stated by TDB, preferable to whom? Everyone? We can certainly say If you want to go to Spain from the U.S. it's preferable to go by plane than by boat, but we could be wrong since we do not know the intention of the hypothetical traveler. If said traveler is transporting cars or does not care how long the journey takes, a ship can be better or just as good as a plane. The third is of course that claim of beliefs have nothing to do with claims of behavior. Instead of stating there is no UPB, a rather clever person would rephrase as its is universally preferable belief that there is no universally preferable behavior, hence avoiding the inherent contradiction. Of course our hypothetical debater would be engaging in sophistry since he does not actually present evidence against UPB. The passage that sticks out for me in UPB that exaplains UPB is this "When I say that some preferences may be objective, I do not mean that all people follow these preferences at all times. If I were to argue that breathing is an objective preference, I could be easily countered by the example of those who commit suicide by hanging themselves. If I were to argue that eating is an objective preference, my argument could be countered with examples of hunger strikes and anorexia. Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what they always do prefer. To use a scientific analogy, to truly understand the universe, people should use the scientific method – this does not mean that they always do so, since clearly billions of people consult ancient fairy tales rather than modern science for “answers.” There is no way to achieve truth about the universe without science, but people are perfectly free to redefine “truth” as “error,” and content themselves with mystical nonsense." If UPB is in fact what people should prefer, then it is itself a normative claim. The difficulty is in determining how one should prefer to behave without taking into account each person's individual aims.

Ownership today is a legal claim. To shift ownership from legal to ethical construct, one must redefine ownership in such a way that people know what is necessary and what is sufficient for ownership. The problem some people have with claims of ownership over natural resources, very much like the reason Stefan rejects IP, is the use of force to get others to comply to a set of rules they may not agree to. This does not mean there is no case for ownership, but ownership should at least entail current use which makes it rather difficult for someone else to use the resource. The case can be made for self-ownership as a foundation for ethical property rights, but that is language manipulation at best. Do i own my body because i control it, or control it because i own it? The answer there is pretty clear, i own it because i control it. What about land, do i own it because i control it, or control it because i own it? Here the answer is more elusive, since control and ownership are essentially the same thing. Someone who has a land they are not using is engaged in the same act as those who enforce IP. They are making a property scarce by restricting its use. The problem with the idea of ownership as is well understood today is problem of planting flags. I can build a house i never have to use and it will remain mine forever. I can homestead land just to wait till some new natural resource is discovered on it that can make me money. There is no obligation to use the resource to retain ownership over the resources. This does not mean you have to do something with the resource every year, but some time limit has to be set, otherwise we are just inviting property trolls to screw up the value of things.

I can understand why you think it is a problem i created, but i think it is a problem of ambiguity. I can say i own myself, but that gives you no information about me. If i tell you i own the car you are looking at, if it confers no obligation, then fact that i own it tells you almost nothing about it. I can equally use a less ambiguous phrase, i control my body or i paid for the car. The problem of using own is that, as you define it, it means i control myself or control that car. When i then ask you to define control, you give this answer which is also ambiguous.

The only problem i have with the instances where you make is claims that have ought embedded in them is that you are using an IS claim to describe something that isn't really there. That i wrote a book or control my body confers no obligation to others. After all, they can go around saying they wrote the book or attach some contraption to my body to control it. However, when i say i own that book, it tells others anyone who wishes to use the book should consult me first, in the same way when i say i own my body it tells others anyone who wishes to engage with my body should consult me first. I could be wrong, but for me the rule of thumb is this, if there is a clearer word (verb) as opposed to own, then that word is a criteria for ownership, but is different from ownership. Ownership often refers to the right to x (the clearer word). So with many things, like car or ones body, ownership entails the right to control/use.

Because is and ought are mutually exclusive.

Would you in light of your statement then agree that ownership is not an is claim, but a normative claim of "legitimate ownership." PS. i noticed you did not define "control" or "in control."

Glad we got past the first hurdle, now you will have to explain in what sense control of our bodies is sufficient for self ownership but not sufficient for property ownership. In what sense the thief is in control of the car, but does not control it. I prefer if you start be defining the terms "control" and "in control." In what sense does the manufacturer or legitimate owner control the time and labor that went into the car in the present. After we deal with the topic of control, then we also have to deal with role of time and labor in ownership which is another beast (to give you a glimpse, think about the children).

So the logic is sound, the syllogism, just not the conclusion? Or is ownership not exclusive control? To make the logic clearer Exclusive control of x is by definition x ownership The car thief exclusively controls the car Therefore, the car thief owns the car.

Correct me where i am wrong. Instance Exclusive control of ones body is by definition self ownership Generalized Exclusive control of x is by definition x ownership. Instance Exclusive control of car is by definition car ownership (The person driving the car must be the owner of the car) The car thief becomes the owner the moment he drives away in it

I am confused. Do you think their reasoning is invalid? I suggest you read the whole thing, even if you disagree, to at least get the full sense of arguments against the position that property rights cannot be denied without performative contradiction. Their strongest counter argument comes at the end where one could see a slave argue one position or the other, without owning (normative claim) himself/herself. The only necessary condition for said slave to argue is to control certain organs on his body, which does not grant him/her ownership anymore than animals control of their body prevents their enslavement.

I think ROBERT P. MURPHY AND GENE CALLAHAN do a good Job of disproving property rights as imagined by Stefan (it seems to me he uses HANS-HERMANN HOPPE’S property rights claim). Here is the article where they refute that argument. Although, again i am not sure this addresses Stefan's argument since he never actually defines ownership. https://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf

How do you define own in those instances? If you mean have responsibility for, then one owns what one has responsibility for, which makes the question of ownership even more complex.

These words are sometimes used in ways that may not refer to their standard definition, so can someone please put up the definition as used in the book, that would be great. 1. Universal 2. Behavior 3. Consistent 4. Ownership 5. Aggression 6. Ethics 7. Morality

I think the car example does two things. 1. ownership is not a necessary condition for control-the thief controlling the car 2. control is not a necessary condition for ownership- the owner watching the thief drive away the car.

I think all forms of the use of the word ownership is normative. Any instance where ownership is an "is" claim, there is a more precise description (like in the case of self ownership=self control, self ownership is affected by any condition that affects self control like mental disability). In all other instances of the use of ownership, it is a consequence of interactions and predetermined conditions of property rights and in this sense, it is normative. I am not sure Stefan makes a distinction between the two since even his use of self ownership (at least to my knowledge) exceeds simple self control. I think he uses self ownership to encapsulate both control and responsibilities to ones existence(influence on one's surroundings) as it affects others.

It is often much easier to follow comments if you start the thread from the beginning. There are a couple of issues that the thread starter wanted to address and one of them was whether all humans were treated the same under UPB.

There are distinctions that even stef allows in enforcing UPB, like the child exception, the mentally retarded exception, force exception(threat of force), and mentally unbalanced exception (bipolar, schizophrenic ...) and if i am not mistaken, punishment exception.

I would rephrase the question as "how far removed from an action does one have to be to avoid taking responsibility for the action?" We would all agree that murder is immoral. What if i did not murder someone, i just put snakes in their apartment? is that far enough removed that i can be absolved of responsibility? To bring it back to his discussion, knowing that if i blow up the moon, it would have effects on a lot of things (like tide) that could have catastrophic effects on humanity, does the act become immoral. I think an easier example would be setting fire in a forest without knowing how far it would burn through the forest possibly affecting people's ability to hunt or nearby towns.

This creates a short term approach to ethics and we will inevitably get into problems. The American ancestors used the same approach when they got rid of the English monarchs only to establish a government that became the very thing that oppresses Americans today.

Is it immoral under UPB to physically prevent someone from commiting suicide? There are two ways i conceptualize this. I take my preference and universalize it without contradiction and physical impossibility, then this does not necessarily violate UPB since i can say it is universally preferable to live. However, if i use the NAP, it seems i only care about the preference of others, and not mine, so stopping the person from committing suicide will violate NAP.