UPB Ethics/aesthetics, avoidability, violence, property

[TDB]

In UPB, the line between ethics and aesthetics is important, but for me it is hard to understand. Violence, consent, and maybe other factors combine into avoidability? Two issues are unclear. How precisely do we draw the line between ethics and aesthetics? And how does this distinction connect to the derivation of UPB?

Ethics is the subset of UPB which deals with inflicted behaviour, or the use of violence. Any theory that justifies or denies the use of violence is a moral theory, and is subject to the requirements of logical consistency and empirical evidence, page 49. Aesthetics applies to situations that may be unpleasant, but which do not eliminate your capacity to choose. Page 50Morality is defined as an enforceable subset of UPB, page 76. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality,” page 125.Force violates the moral requirement of avoidability, page 118. This capacity for escape and/or avoidance is an essential characteristic differentiating aesthetics from ethics, page 50.Non-violent actions by their very nature are avoidable. Page 48. For the moment, we can assume that any threat of the initiation of violence is immoral, but the question of avoidance – particularly the degree of avoidance required – is also important. Page 51.We will use the term aesthetics to refer to non-enforceable preferences – universal or personal – while ethics or morality will refer to enforceable preferences. Page 48.

Pages 48-52 discuss this topic, but I have read it many times and still feel confused. Can someone help me make sense of this? Stef's discussion of avoidance seems to go to great length to show that the line is fuzzy, there are cases where someone is the victim of violence but they could have reasonably avoided it. He gives concrete examples, but does not explain where the line is drawn, or why. I could understand more easily if the line involved consent or violence. Consent mostly works, as if you don't consent to something in the category of aesthetics, you can opt out. You can't opt out of violence if you are the victim of assault, robbery, etc. OTOH, I can easily imagine someone trying to elevate aesthetics to ethics, just by shrieking "I do not consent to this bridge party!" Violence also works, except it is a bit vague in cases of sneak-thievery or fraud, where deception replaces physical violence.In any case, whichever concept we use to distinguish between ethics and aesthetics, what is the justification? How does it connect to the derivation of UPB from the prerequisite norms and concepts of debate? If we select one of these concepts without reference to the derivation, that would be begging the question. Is nonviolence a normative prerequisite of argument, and how does that translate into "violence is categorized as ethics?"

[dsayers]

One of the reasons I avoid UPB is because it seems to me to be an unnecessarily complex way of stating something that's relatively simple. I accept that this may be intellectual sloth on my part.

 

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. It's that simple. The proof and explanation requires a few mores words, but not many.

 

Where's the line between aesthetics and morality/ethics? Is it binding? If not, it's aesthetics. If it is, it is morality/ethics. I like ice cream is not binding upon you. I own myself IS binding upon you because it means you cannot steal, assault, rape, or murder me without engaging in the internally contradictory conclusion of simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

 

Off topic, I'm glad I was led into stating it that way as I think I've finally chosen a position on whether or not noise pollution is a violation of property rights.

 

Back on topic, it is unclear to me as to where avoidability enters into it. Pardon me if this is a result of my lack of exploration of UPB. I can avoid being punched in the face by you by always staying at greater than arm's length. This doesn't make punching me in the face moral.

[TDB]

Want to call into the show about it?

My bandwidth is too unreliable.

[ParaSait]

The line lies at the question: Can it be avoided without retaliatory force? Can it be avoided by simply saying "no"? In that case, it's aesthetics.

The reason why it's aesthetics and not ethics is because if nothing is inflicted, there is no internal inconsistency to be found if you universalize the behavior. (remember, ethics must be universal)

[NotDarkYet]

Aesthetics start where property violations end.

[TDB]

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. It's that simple. The proof and explanation requires a few mores words, but not many.

I'd love to read your version.

Where's the line between aesthetics and morality/ethics? Is it binding? If not, it's aesthetics. If it is, it is morality/ethics. I like ice cream is not binding upon you. I own myself IS binding upon you because it means you cannot steal, assault, rape, or murder me without engaging in the internally contradictory conclusion of simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

The two examples you give are not close to the boundary between morality and aesthetics. Can you think of examples that illustrate bindingness more clearly? "Binding" is not immediately more clear than "avoidable", at least for me. When I think of examples of using that word, I think of binding promises, which are enforcible by a court, or at least backed up by some serious consequence. Stef uses it differently in his book, from context he seems to mean something like "undeniable" or "logically required."This discussion comes from a thread where Square4 is arguing for a moral proposition about not owning or controlling more than a proportionate area of land, and I objected that I thought his proposition qualifies as aesthetics, not ethics, but I was not able to explain clearly because, well, I am not sure I understand how Stef draws that line. I think I can predict the result in that case, but I can't explain how we would determine whether some proposition is ethics or aesthetics. What is it about Square4's proposal that is avoidable or not inflicted or not binding or whatever? What does it mean in the context of his proposal "it is not UPB to own/control more than a proportionate amount of land?"

Back on topic, it is unclear to me as to where avoidability enters into it. Pardon me if this is a result of my lack of exploration of UPB. I can avoid being punched in the face by you by always staying at greater than arm's length. This doesn't make punching me in the face moral.

Yeah, Stef mentions stuff like that in the book, but I never figured out how he wants to deal with it. He mentions several examples, like if someone invites you to stand next to a cliff so he can push you off, or someone who lives thousands of miles away threatening to kill you if you come close, or a guy who leaves his wallet on a park bench, etc.

The line lies at the question: Can it be avoided without retaliatory force? Can it be avoided by simply saying "no"? In that case, it's aesthetics.

So, if I am at a party and someone is boring me with a shaggy dog story, and I say "you're boring, go away" but he just keeps on yammering, should we categorize that as ethics, because I said "no" but he didn't stop?

The reason why it's aesthetics and not ethics is because if nothing is inflicted, there is no internal inconsistency to be found if you universalize the behavior. (remember, ethics must be universal)

I am tantalizingly close to understanding what you wrote, but can't quite get there. If it has to do with internal inconsistency, why not just go ahead and use the UPB tests to reject it on those grounds, rather than categorizing it as aesthetics and rejecting it without even bothering to do the tests? Some Aesthetic propositions also can be universalized, but because of avoidability or inflictedness, they do not get treated as part of morality. Violating them is annoying, but not evil.If "nothing is inflicted" is the critical fact, Stef should have talked about that more. And I'm not sure it is much clearer to me, as some violations of APA or even my personal preferences seem like "inflictions" to me, although I can usually avoid them by running away. Of course, I can run away from robbers just like I can run away from social torture, the difference being a robber might injure me for running away, while a bore usually would not.

Aesthetics start where property violations end.

Your distinction is admirably clear, concrete, and credible. Unfortunately, it does not match up with what Stef wrote in the UPB book. Also, given his purpose in writing the book, he could not use property rights to define a critical distinction that he later uses as part of his argument to justify property rights. That would be "begging the question."

[ParaSait]

So, if I am at a party and someone is boring me with a shaggy dog story, and I say "you're boring, go away" but he just keeps on yammering, should we categorize that as ethics, because I said "no" but he didn't stop?

When I said "simply saying no", I mean that in a broad sense. Obviously, it also includes walking away. The point is, you don't need to use violence to enforce your preference of not having that guy bore you.

(If walking away doesn't work, and it becomes clear that he's coercing you into listening to his shaggy dog story, then it's harassment and it becomes a question of ethics. Of course, that's a pretty ridiculous scenario, this isn't ever gonna happen in real life )

[TDB]

When I said "simply saying no", I mean that in a broad sense. Obviously, it also includes walking away. The point is, you don't need to use violence to enforce your preference of not having that guy bore you.(If walking away doesn't work, and it becomes clear that he's coercing you into listening to his shaggy dog story, then it's harassment and it becomes a question of ethics. Of course, that's a pretty ridiculous scenario, this isn't ever gonna happen in real life )

I might be able to avoid a robbery or murder attempt without using violence, but that doesn't mean we should categorize robbery or murder as aesthetics. Is it proportionality? I don't remember Stef discussing it this way, but his ethical violations all have in common the possibility of defensive violence. Is that somehow the real criterion, that if violence is an appropriate proportionate response to the violation, the rule is part of ethics, if the violation does not justify a violent response, it is aesthetics? This makes some sense, but in this context it seems like begging the question, since UPB is supposed to justify all this, not depend on some prior moral concept about proportionality of responses. hmmm...

[ParaSait]

You cannot avoid robbery or murder without defending yourself. It's true that violence isn't the only option, you can also flee or set an alarm in your home, but the possible options you're left with are all forms of defense either way.

The things you can do to avoid the guy with the annoying story aren't forms of defense. It's more like just not associating. Choosing not to associate is an option here, because the association isn't inflicted (unless his intent is harassment).

[TDB]

You cannot avoid robbery or murder without defending yourself. It's true that violence isn't the only option, you can also flee or set an alarm in your home, but the possible options you're left with are all forms of defense either way.The things you can do to avoid the guy with the annoying story aren't forms of defense.

Seems to me there is a bit of overlap, since I can run away from all the above. So we moved from trying to understand the distinction between ethics and aesthetics to trying to understand the distinction between defense and whatever that other stuff is that is not defense but protects me from the crashing bore.Do you agree with me that Square4's proposal is aesthetics? Can you explain why it is not ethics?

[ParaSait]

Seems to me there is a bit of overlap, since I can run away from all the above. So we moved from trying to understand the distinction between ethics and aesthetics to trying to understand the distinction between defense and whatever that other stuff is that is not defense but protects me from the crashing bore.

Well, the reason we moved there is because you're nitpicking about it.

 

So, as for the distinction between ethics and aesthetics, let's put things straight. Ethics deals with the objective and universal principles. Aesthetics deals with the subjective preferences. If I say that murder is wrong, that's an ethical statement (and it's correct according to UPB, because murder cannot be universalized as a rule, etc...). If I say that I prefer green apples over red ones, or that I think the guy with the story is annoying, then those are aesthetic statements. Green apples aren't objectively better than red ones and the guy with the story isn't objectively annoying.

If something is ethically wrong, then aesthetics isn't even a question. I can't subjectively prefer that someone murders me in any way (or else it's not proper to call it murder). However, if something is ethically right, then aesthetics becomes the question.

 

So how do you know whether or not aesthetics is a question? Look at whether it's ethical or not. And the line between the ethical and the unethical lies in the use of force, which you can argue is identifiable by whether or not self-defense is the only option.

[cynicist]

So, if I am at a party and someone is boring me with a shaggy dog story, and I say "you're boring, go away" but he just keeps on yammering, should we categorize that as ethics, because I said "no" but he didn't stop?

 

Do you realize that you are intentionally going around in circles trying to distract yourself with abstract details or questions already answered in the book?

[TDB]

So, as for the distinction between ethics and aesthetics, let's put things straight. Ethics deals with the objective and universal principles. Aesthetics deals with the subjective preferences.

I like your statement, but did you base it on something from the UPB book, or is this something else? And now we need to distinguish between objective and subjective. Is it universlaizability? Stef pointed out several examples of APAs (aesthetically positive actions, but basically means universalizable aesthetics, e.g. "Be on time"). The objectivity Stef is trying for consists of facts implied logically from logic itself, plus norms and principles implied by the act of arguing.

the line between the ethical and the unethical lies in the use of force, which you can argue is identifiable by whether or not self-defense is the only option.

Is this answer based on the UPB book, or are you rolling your own? It's not that I don't care what you think, but that I've been trying to figure out UPB, and I want to know whether I'm getting the Stef-approved version or a hybrid. There is a confusing discussion of self-defense on page 87, but I don't think I can squeeze out an interpretation that matches what you wrote.

Do you realize that you are intentionally going around in circles trying to distract yourself with abstract details or questions already answered in the book?

I'm trying to get people to help me understand the book, which I find confusing. Do you have an answer to my question about why we categorize square4’s proposition as aesthetics, or do you just want to shame me?I think I can answer why we categorize "don't murder" as ethics. If someone shoots me, I can't choose to avoid it. (I might survive the attempted murder by running away if I am lucky, but somehow that isn't the kind of avoidance that matters.) And we categorize "don't be late" as APA because if someone inflicts their lateness on me, I can just stop associating with that person. Am I on the right track? But I do not have a good grip on the principle, so that I can confidently tell square4 why his proposal doesn't qualify as ethics.

[dsayers]

I'd love to read your version.

 

You have the capacity for reason, therefore you own yourself. People are not fundamentally different in this regard, therefore everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape and murder are immoral because they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else.

 

This discussion comes from a thread where Square4 is arguing for a moral proposition about not owning or controlling more than a proportionate area of land, and I objected that I thought his proposition qualifies as aesthetics, not ethics, but I was not able to explain clearly

 

Self-ownership is the root of ownership. You own yourself, therefore you own the effects of your actions (the money you earn with your labor, the car you buy with your money, etc). Referencing a "proportionate area of land" breaks universality in two ways. The first being that it's essentially saying that you own the effects of your actions, but only up to a certain point. The second being differentiating land from all other forms of property.

[cynicist]

Do you have an answer to my question about why we categorize square4’s proposition as aesthetics, or do you just want to shame me?

 

Neither, as I don't want to encourage this intellectual defense of yours.

 

Quoting from UPB (p. 48) under the heading of UPB: ETHICS OR AESTHETICS?,

 

Non-violent actions by their very nature are avoidable.

 

Ethics is the subset of UPB which deals with inflicted behaviour, or the use of violence.

 

In general, we will use the term aesthetics to refer to non-enforceable preferences – universal or

personal – while ethics or morality will refer to enforceable preferences.

 

It is universally preferable (i.e. required) to use the scientific method to validate physical theories, but we cannot use force to

inflict the scientific method on those who do not use it, since not using the scientific method is not a violent action.

 

I don't believe that you are having this much trouble with these ideas while also being intelligent enough to think about them without something in your history preventing you from doing so.

[TDB]

You have the capacity for reason, therefore you own yourself. People are not fundamentally different in this regard, therefore everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape and murder are immoral because they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else.

I like this, but UPB is supposed to use logic to justify property along with prohibitions against murder, etc., not use property to justify prohibitions against murder, etc. So this explains the conclusions of UPB, but doesn't quite do what Stef wants UPB to do.

Referencing a "proportionate area of land" breaks universality

So whether or not we categorize it as ethics or aesthetics, it flunks universality.

Quoting from UPB (p. 48) [...]I don't believe that you are having this much trouble with these ideas while also being intelligent enough to think about them without something in your history preventing you from doing so.

Yeah, I quoted some of that in the original post, and reviewed pg 48-52 before that. Maybe it's something in my history. Maybe I'm just not that intelligent. Maybe I am so accustomed to a certain way of thinking, that it's hard to think differently."Non-violent actions by their very nature are avoidable." Venn diagram, small circle (non-violence) inside large circle (avoidable)."Ethics is the subset of UPB which deals with inflicted behaviour, or the use of violence." Does the "or" indicate that inflicted behavior and violence are different and are to be combined (ethics = inflicted behavior + violence, inflicted != violence), or is it a rhetorical flourish, clarifying that (inflicted behavior = violence)?"In general, we will use the term aesthetics to refer to non-enforceable preferences – universal orpersonal – while ethics or morality will refer to enforceable preferences." Are "non-enforceable preferences" preferences that can be realized without force, or preferences you are prohibited from enforcing?"It is universally preferable (i.e. required) to use the scientific method to validate physical theories, but we cannot use force to inflict the scientific method on those who do not use it, since not using the scientific method is not a violent action." Implying that we can inflict something (presumably restitution, or punishment, or at least self-defense/enforcement) on people who use violence, right?

[cynicist]

or is it a rhetorical flourish, clarifying that (inflicted behavior = violence)?

 

Yeah it's just another way of saying the same thing. Ironically, the purpose of that was to add clarity since people aren't used to seeing the phrase 'inflicted behavior'. 

 

"In general, we will use the term aesthetics to refer to non-enforceable preferences – universal or

personal – while ethics or morality will refer to enforceable preferences." Are "non-enforceable preferences" preferences that can be realized without force, or preferences you are prohibited from enforcing?

 

Yeah this just confirms that it's a defense to me. It's really not as complicated as you trying to make it out to be. Ethics refers to enforceable preferences, and enforceable means that it's acceptable to compel compliance/obedience. A non-enforceable preference would then logically be one where it's not acceptable to compel obedience. This is explained on that very same page (p. 48) using this example:

 

It is universally preferable (i.e. required) to use the scientific method to validate physical theories, but we cannot use force to

inflict the scientific method on those who do not use it, since not using the scientific method is not a violent action.

 

So yes to your last question.

 

Maybe it's something in my history. Maybe I'm just not that intelligent. Maybe I am so accustomed to a certain way of thinking, that it's hard to think differently.

 

I have to second Mike's suggestion of calling into the show with a question. There is no doubt in my mind that the difficulty you are experiencing with understanding UPB is emotional and connected to your history. That's not to say that UPB is not difficult, it certainly was for me, but judging by your posts I don't think your intelligence is the problem.

[TDB]

I have to second Mike's suggestion of calling into the show with a question.

Thanks for answering. Last time I called in my connection went flakey and it wasted Stef's time and mine. That's kind of an excuse. Conversing with Stef on air makes me tense.

[dsayers]

I like this, but UPB is supposed to use logic to justify property along with prohibitions against murder, etc., not use property to justify prohibitions against murder, etc. So this explains the conclusions of UPB, but doesn't quite do what Stef wants UPB to do.

 

I made it clear up front that I'm not touching UPB and why. If it's confusing to you and somebody else's explanation is not so confusing, I'm not sure why you'd continue to pursue the one you find to be problematic.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "justify prohibitions." By prohibitions, do you mean legislations? Because they're unnecessary. When somebody commits murder, they are demonstrating that they accept property rights, and therefore denoting that their act is immoral. As for justify, you cannot have immorality (or crimes if you'd prefer) without property rights. How could you know that murder was wrong if the life that was snuffed out didn't belong to the person who took it?

 

So whether or not we categorize it as ethics or aesthetics, it flunks universality.

 

I apologize for the ambiguity. You said you thought it was aesthetics but couldn't explain why. I was providing for you the explanation. If it is not universal, it cannot be binding. Because it breaks universality, you know that he's saying that he's not comfortable with people having a disproportionate amount of land, not that it's immoral for somebody to do so. Or that if he's trying to say it's immoral, he is incorrect.

[TDB]

I made it clear up front that I'm not touching UPB and why.

I still managed to misinterpret you. Fair enough.

If it's confusing to you and somebody else's explanation is not so confusing, I'm not sure why you'd continue to pursue the one you find to be problematic.

Well, the different strategies accomplish different goals. I think it would be valuable for me to understand UPB so that if I fully agree, I can explain it to others, if I have minor disagreements I could make helpful suggestions to fix the problems I found, or if I thought it was a hopeless failure, I could make that clear and start looking for other options. Stef has enough credibility that I was not willing to dismiss him out of hand, but not so much credibility that I am willing to just take his word for it. I want to figure it out.

I'm not sure what you mean by "justify prohibitions." By prohibitions, do you mean legislations?

No. I'm not sure how to make it more clear. Each of the moral propositions that pass the UPB tests prohibits some behavior. Stef is careful to avoid committing to any specific enforcement mechanism, punishment, etc., other than to defend the idea of self-defense. Or at least, that is how I am remembering it. According to UPB, murder is prohibited to moral agents. Right?

you cannot have immorality (or crimes if you'd prefer) without property rights. How could you know that murder was wrong if the life that was snuffed out didn't belong to the person who took it?

If you are saying, every sort of moral prohibition can be interpreted as a violation of a property right, I agree. If you are saying, everyone knows this, and agrees that property rights are morally justified and they are willing to think of morality in these terms, I do not agree. I am not willing to just ignore those who consider the ordinary conception of property rights to be flawed and in need of justification, I want to give them a convincing answer.

I apologize for the ambiguity. You said you thought it was aesthetics but couldn't explain why. I was providing for you the explanation. If it is not universal, it cannot be binding.

So a universalizable proposition might not qualify for the ethics category, but if it cannot be universalized, it definitely fails to qualify. That is clear.

[square4's proposition is] essentially saying that you own the effects of your actions, but only up to a certain point.

So, apparently UPB concludes that you own the effects of your actions, period, full stop, no exceptions? Is this one of the axioms derived from pure argument? Where did it come from?On page 76 Stef wrote:

Since we own our bodies, we also inevitably own the effects of our actions, be they good or bad. If we own the effects of our actions, then clearly we own that which we produce, whether what we produce is a bow, or a book–or a murder.

He makes a conclusion, but leaves out the explanation. Also, he is using "own" in an unusual way. By committing murder or theft, we now "own" something, but what we own is not a physical object in reality, not the body of our victim or the loot in our bag, but responsibility for an historical truth. So if I smash a hole in your wall, I don't own the hole that I have made, in the sense that I can control it or sell it. I own the hole in the metaphysical sense that I am responsible for it, not that I possess or control it legitimately. So the hole is an effect of my actions that I *do not* own in the strictly commonplace sense of ownership. So, why shouldn't owning too much land also qualify as an exception to his principle?

[square4's proposition breaks universality by] differentiating land from all other forms of property.

Does this break universality? I've been interpreting Stef's (rather strong) version of universality to mean the proposition must apply to all moral agents, at all times, in all places, but not necessarily in all circumstances. (It is the difference in circumstances that differentiates between murder and killing in self-defense, for instance.) So square4 can claim that his proposition applies to all persons, all places, all times, what is the problem?Why shouldn't we treat land differently from other property, since in many ways it actually is different? Or perhaps we could also prohibit ownership of "too much" of anything? That seems a bit ridiculous, but which principle of UPB prevents it, which test does it fail?

Ethics refers to enforceable preferences, and enforceable means that it's acceptable to compel compliance/obedience. A non-enforceable preference would then logically be one where it's not acceptable to compel obedience.

So in various places, Stef draws the line between ethics and aesthetics using enforceability, use of violence, and avoidability. Does that mean they all agree on where the line is drawn, in all cases?

[dsayers]

According to UPB, murder is prohibited to moral agents. Right?

 

I was upset to read this, assuming the question was aimed at me. I don't know what UPB says. I feel I've been clear on this point. And I still am not sure as to what you mean by prohibit. Of course the fact that murder is immoral doesn't render somebody incapable of inflicting it. Murder is internally inconsistent because it's the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

 

why shouldn't owning too much land also qualify as an exception to his principle?

 

Can you logically explain why the earning of property through investment of your time and labor would go from being righteous to suddenly being a crime against everybody else? Can you clarify where that line is drawn and why?

 

Why shouldn't we treat land differently from other property, since in many ways it actually is different?

 

Again, the onus is upon him or in this case, you if you want to argue his position. In what way is land different from a car, a refrigerator, or your body?

[TDB]

I was upset to read this, assuming the question was aimed at me. I don't know what UPB says. I feel I've been clear on this point.

The topic of this thread is UPB ethics and aesthetics. Thank you for giving me your non-UPB derivation of morality, based on the foundation of self-ownership. I think I understand it, as it is admirably brief and clear. Since you seem to wish to avoid UPB, maybe you should start ignoring this thread? I will answer your other questions in the context of my quest to understand UPB, so be forewarned. 

And I still am not sure as to what you mean by prohibit. Of course the fact that murder is immoral doesn't render somebody incapable of inflicting it. Murder is internally inconsistent because it's the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

When I mentioned moral prohibitions, I was thinking of UPB. For instance, "don't murder." I consider this to be a prohibition. It describes an action that a moral agent may not legitimately take. No enforcement mechanism, formal or informal, is necessarily implied. Another example: I have been in restrooms or gas stations where a sign was posted that said "smoking is prohibited on these premises." In that case, it was not a moral prohibition. Perhaps it was a legal prohibition, or simply a policy of the property owner. Presumably in that case the cops might have been called to enforce it if I had violated the prohibition too flagrantly, I am not sure. 

Can you logically explain why the earning of property through investment of your time and labor would go from being righteous to suddenly being a crime against everybody else? Can you clarify where that line is drawn and why?

No. Maybe square4 would like to take a shot. I wanted to know why (I think) Stef would categorize it as aesthetic, and I did not understand how it flunked his version of universality. Apparently, you were not referring to his version of universality? 

Again, the onus is upon him or in this case, you if you want to argue his position [that land is unlike other sorts of property].

I want to understand how UPB deals properly with his case, which seems unusual. If UPB says land must be treated the same as other ordinary objects, I'd like to see where that principle came from. 

In what way is land different from a car, a refrigerator, or your body?

It doesn't move. Land ownership has lots of little quirks from common law practice and from the odd nature of land, which I would know all about if I was a lawyer. Perhaps most of these are warpage cause by the state, but probably not all. Have you ever bought land? It's different. You can dig up all the rocks and soil on your land, until you have a mine shaft, but your land is still there. You can dig so deep that it turns into a volcano, and it's still your land. This seems unusual to me. If I take a car apart and sell the parts, I don't have a car any more. And mineral rights. If there is oil under my property, that complicates matters in a way not possible with refrigerators.Land is different from my body because my body is different from all other sorts of property, in that I cannot legitimately sell my body, at least, not the same way I can sell anything else and just cease any connection to my former property. If I sell my body, my consciousness must either go with my body or cease. That is not the case when I sell my land.