Why is UPB behavior preferable?

[square4]

Yes, I suppose the point has nothing to do with whether the proposal really makes sense or not, just does it pass the tests, and if so, does that create some sort of contradiction?

 

Indeed. It also doesn't make sense to me, but is our common sense on this subject objective? At least, the proposed rule is now feasible; most people don't violate it.

 

Well, as long as we are quibbling, now I can own the entire planet Earth, so long as it all qualifies as "shared."

 

When you would use force to get exclusive control over it, it wouldn't be shared. And if that area would be more than a proportional part of the earth, it would violate the rule. Does that mean that personal property rights of areas larger than about 20,000 square meters are not enforceable?

[TDB]

Indeed. It also doesn't make sense to me, but is our common sense on this subject objective? At least, the proposed rule is now feasible; most people don't violate it.

I'm not sure you've convinced me it is feasible. I'm not sure what land qualifies, or how to make the calculation of what the limit should be. I notice you are not pursuing the "avoidable" issue.  

When you would use force to get exclusive control over it, it wouldn't be shared.

I don't know what you mean. If I own an apartment building, do I have exclusive control over the land where it is located, assuming I got it by buying it? Is it ownership the proposition prohibits, or control, or exclusivity? Is an apartment building shared by your standard or not? If I put apartment buildings on all my land, does your proposal limit me or not?

And if that area would be more than a proportional part of the earth, it would violate the rule. Does that mean that personal property rights of areas larger than about 20,000 square meters are not enforceable?

What about "state owned" land, land owned by corporations or other groups, etc.?Maybe we should toss out the proportionality angle, and just put a completely arbitrary limit on maximum land ownership. Would that pass the UPB tests? "no one may own more than one square inch of land."How about that?

[Mister Mister]

  I had a hard time understanding UPB after just reading the book, it was too abstract for me to get in theory.  But after seeing it demonstrated by Stef, by Socrates, by children, and many others, it has started to make sense.  It isn't so much a claim about how everyone ought to behave, but a tool, a weapon, against false ethics used by sociopaths and narcissists and predators and parasites of the human kind, as well as the ignorant and cowardly who repeat them.  When some behavior is imposed on you as an obligation, a virtue is claimed, or one is accused of vice, extract the principle, reverse it, and attempt to universalize it.  Ask "Is it universalizeable?  And does the criticism apply to the accuser?"  This is the Socratic method basically, applied to moral claims.  Children do this all the time.  Older children will impose rules which have been imposed on them both on other children and on adults, "you should share that."  "don't hit"  "be nice" and so on, and get really angry when those same adults who imposed the rules in the first place then change them.  UPB as I understand is not so much as the final say in ethics, as a methodology for calling these people on their BS.  Typical propaganda like "healthcare is a right", or "taxation is legitimate because you use or benefit from government services" fail this test - making things which require other peoples' time and energy and expertise a "right" divides mankind into those with a moral obligation and those with a right so it is not universal.  If the government can tax you for services which "benefit" you without needing your agreement, why cant I paint peoples houses, clean their cars, deliver them sandwiches give them backrubs, etc. and demand a legal right to whatever I decide it costs?  Again it is not universal.  From this follows the question, "Ok, so if ethics are commonly used just to manipulate and prey upon people, are there any reasonable behaviors which can actually be expected from EVERYONE?".  Actions prohibited by the Non-Aggression Principle seem to fall into this category, it is reasonable to expect this behavior of everyone - even those who would knowingly violate the NAP with no remorse still don't want others to violate it against them - as Stef has pointed out any thief or any murderer would prefer to be the ONLY thief and murderer in society (i.e. the King).  Beyond that we can establish conditional rules in relationships based on values and preferences, such as "tell the truth", "show up to work on time", "you must like Pink Floyd" and so on, but we don't have the right to impose these on those who don't agree.  Sorry I may have not explained this to the satisfaction of the most rigorous thinker but this is how I have come to understand it and found it very useful.

[square4]

I'm not sure you've convinced me it is feasible. I'm not sure what land qualifies, or how to make the calculation of what the limit should be. I notice you are not pursuing the "avoidable" issue.

 

What land qualifies? all land above sea level (without distinction). The calculation and limit are stated in my previous post. About the "avoidable" issue: I was hoping one of the UPB experts would chime in to answer your UPB questions about it. Maybe an idea to start a topic about the avoidability issue in the Philosophy section? In relation to the proportionality rule: If one person claims more land than proportional for himself, this is indeed avoidable by going to another place that he hasn't claimed. But suppose that people universally claim more than proportional (except yourself), than you are locked out of the possibility of owning land, and it becomes unavoidable. So a problem with using avoidability as a criteria is that when you universalize a behavior, a lot of behaviors become practically unavoidable, but not necessarily immoral.

 

I don't know what you mean. If I own an apartment building, do I have exclusive control over the land where it is located, assuming I got it by buying it? Is it ownership the proposition prohibits, or control, or exclusivity? Is an apartment building shared by your standard or not? If I put apartment buildings on all my land, does your proposal limit me or not?

 

The action "using land exclusively" means that you take active measures (fences/force) to ensure exclusivity. Now I think about it, the rule would actually make more sense, if it would also include situations where the land owner would possibly allow other people on its land. So the rule would then be: "People should not control a more than proportional share of the land area of the earth." Exclusive use is only one form of control. Consuming a resource, for example food, is an ultimate form of control, and it doesn't involve force, but land cannot be consumed.

 

What about "state owned" land, land owned by corporations or other groups, etc.?

 

In that case, we would have to divide the amount of land by the number of people that collectively control it. For example, a married couple could together own a double amount, without contradiction if it is universalized.

 

Maybe we should toss out the proportionality angle, and just put a completely arbitrary limit on maximum land ownership. Would that pass the UPB tests? "no one may own more than one square inch of land."How about that?

 

Controlling exclusively more than one square inch of land can be universalized without contradiction. On the other hand, controlling more than proportional cannot be universalized. Murder and rape are examples of controlling a more than proportional amount of human bodies. Only controlling one body can be universalized, hence self-ownership.

[TDB]

What land qualifies? all land above sea level (without distinction). The calculation and limit are stated in my previous post.

If we are including untenable inaccessible land, maybe we should include the surface of the Moon and Mars?

About the "avoidable" issue: I was hoping one of the UPB experts would chime in to answer your UPB questions about it. Maybe an idea to start a topic about the avoidability issue in the Philosophy section?

Yeah, I am not optimistic. But maybe I will.

In relation to the proportionality rule: If one person claims more land than proportional for himself, this is indeed avoidable by going to another place that he hasn't claimed. But suppose that people universally claim more than proportional (except yourself), than you are locked out of the possibility of owning land, and it becomes unavoidable.

It's avoidable so long as someone will sell you some. And let's face it, some people live their whole lives without even considering buying land. How is not owning or controlling a proportionate share of land unavoidable?

So a problem with using avoidability as a criteria is that when you universalize a behavior, a lot of behaviors become practically unavoidable, but not necessarily immoral.

I'm not clear what you mean. Is the land thing an example? Are there others? 

The action "using land exclusively" means that you take active measures (fences/force) to ensure exclusivity. Now I think about it, the rule would actually make more sense, if it would also include situations where the land owner would possibly allow other people on its land. So the rule would then be: "People should not control a more than proportional share of the land area of the earth." Exclusive use is only one form of control. Consuming a resource, for example food, is an ultimate form of control, and it doesn't involve force, but land cannot be consumed.

Makes a bit more sense, still aesthetics. 

Controlling exclusively more than one square inch of land can be universalized without contradiction. On the other hand, controlling more than proportional cannot be universalized. Murder and rape are examples of controlling a more than proportional amount of human bodies. Only controlling one body can be universalized, hence self-ownership.

How can you be sure I not controlling more than one body?