A critique of property rights

[kenshikenji]

i say you should define what IS property instead of saying what property should be. property rights do not exist outside of explicit contract.

 

[jpahmad]

Kenshikenji, the self detonating nature of your argument surfaced clearly at the 10 minute mark.  You contradicted yourself. 

 

     

     Statement :  "Your imposing this cost on the rest of society when you invoke rights and you can't do that in a free market"

 

 

                Isn't "you can't do that" a normative claim?  Why are you allowed to make a normative claim and the person who  had their shoes taken can't make a normative claim?

 

                Also, people who "believe in a free market" are making normative claims.  To "believe in" is a normative claim. 

At the 14 minute you say that someone who has a signed contract with you, will not break it because they want to "protect their reputation."  How could this person be living on the same planet as the person who took my shoes through force and is not worried about reputation?  This makes no sense.

If property rights are not valid in a positive sense, as you claim, then how could self-ownership be valid in a positive sense?  If we rely on "what is" to guide us, and not what "ought to be", then we certainly can't point to self-ownership as being valid.  I could simply say that I didn't sign the contract (even though I did).  I could say that I was possessed or that the person I was yesterday is not the person I am today.

[kenshikenji]

Kenshikenji, the self detonating nature of your argument surfaced clearly at the 10 minute mark.  You contradicted yourself. 

 

     

     Statement :  "Your imposing this cost on the rest of society when you invoke rights and you can't do that in a free market"

 

 

                Isn't "you can't do that" a normative claim?  Why are you allowed to make a normative claim and the person who  had their shoes taken can't make a normative claim?

 

                Also, people who "believe in a free market" are making normative claims.  To "believe in" is a normative claim. 

At the 14 minute you say that someone who has a signed contract with you, will not break it because they want to "protect their reputation."  How could this person be living on the same planet as the person who took my shoes through force and is not worried about reputation?  This makes no sense.

If property rights are not valid in a positive sense, as you claim, then how could self-ownership be valid in a positive sense?  If we rely on "what is" to guide us, and not what "ought to be", then we certainly can't point to self-ownership as being valid.  I could simply say that I didn't sign the contract (even though I did).  I could say that I was possessed or that the person I was yesterday is not the person I am today.

at the ten minute mark i was making some implications that were not inherently contradictory. i was implying that libertarians claim (their INTERNAL SUBJECTIVE IDEAL) that imposing an ideal thru implicit contract (force) is wrong, but by endorsing an implicit contract to enforce what they call "rights" contradicts their claim (imposing rights).  and thats what i meant by "you cant do that".  it is a positive claim based on logic.  you cant hold both positions at once and remain logically consistent. but also, i believe ALL normative claims are derived from positive claims (objectives) so somewhere the line blurs. but this is not one of those cases.

 

with respect to the 14 min mark, i was just explaining the mechanism in how such behavior is eroded, not eliminated, since our world and the actors in them are not perfect.  so my claim is the free market already has natural mechanisms, in the form of market action, that discourages both contract violation and aggression.  as time goes on, these mechanisms become more efficient, especially with information costs going to 0, this will ensure reputation plays more of a factor instead of entities like DROs or other arbitration services.  but this topic is best for another video. i did have another conversation about what i believe where i get into how people protect themselves in a free market here.

https://youtu.be/mB5wimQFGKk?t=46m19s

 

so again, if you define "self" as your mind AND body AND labor, then to own yourself you must be able to exclude others from those things ALL at once.  if one of those criteria is not met you do not own yourself in a positive sense.i claim all you need is "Self"-interest to guide you.  and when i say "Self" it is different defiition than the one i first game. "Self" is your definition. it is everything that describes you including all your genes and your memes.  but i will talk about my ego-utilitarian philosophy in another video. just accept that brief explanation for now or ask specific questions like you are doing now.  remember, i referenced what is called a "repeated game". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game 

once you break a contract obligation it affects your reputation  and the next time you try to get into a contract. contracts are your ability to transact and get profits from comparative advantage and the gains from mutually beneficial trade.  by acting only for the short term you may gain more by breaking a contract, but in the long run with perfect information and open your reputation, youll lose in the end.  again i kinda get into that with the video debate i pasted above.

[john cena]

Is agreeance to adhere to the NAP not a society wide social contract? If 95% of people (non psychopaths) agree to this, it will be impossible for a person to live inside society without caring for their reputation. Sure they can not care and live in the woods.. but at that point who cares?

[kenshikenji]

Is agreeance to adhere to the NAP not a society wide social contract? If 95% of people (non psychopaths) agree to this, it will be impossible for a person to live inside society without caring for their reputation. Sure they can not care and live in the woods.. but at that point who cares?

 a social contract and NAP are not compatible.  you cannot have implicit contracts with NAP or a free market. a free market would generate an explicit contract where it is seemingly profitable for both participants in the contract. but i generally agree with your statement, only that i believe it will be an explicit contract and not a social one, and that because SELF interest that people will cooperate to get rid of net negative actors in society

[shirgall]

NAP is a chosen positive obligation, and its adherents are welcome to defend themselves from those that do not choose to follow it. No need for any higher order construction.

[kenshikenji]

NAP is a chosen positive obligation, and its adherents are welcome to defend themselves from those that do not choose to follow it. No need for any higher order construction.

nap is not a principle if there exists circumstances where you would yourself violate it. nap is currently at best only a rule of thumb

[shirgall]

nap is not a principle if there exists circumstances where you would yourself violate it. nap is currently at best only a rule of thumb

 

Self-defense is not a violation of NAP.

[kenshikenji]

Self-defense is not a violation of NAP.

i wasnt referencing self defense. i was specifically referencing when aggression was in your self-interest. like in a lifeboat senario.

[shirgall]

i wasnt referencing self defense. i was specifically referencing when aggression was in your self-interest. like in a lifeboat senario.

 

If it's in your self-interest, but it's a violation of the principle, then the principle is supposed to govern. The principle governs because it is the right thing to do. Lifeboat scenarios are fun thought experiments, but are a waste of time compared to other things you could be doing.

[kenshikenji]

If it's in your self-interest, but it's a violation of the principle, then the principle is supposed to govern. The principle governs because it is the right thing to do. Lifeboat scenarios are fun thought experiments, but are a waste of time compared to other things you could be doing.

lifeboat senarios demonstate that there is a critical point where aggression becomes profitable. if you aggress during a hypothetical, there exists a median value that is less beneficial that you would still agress.  if you would slap your child in the face for a trillion dollars that implies there exists a dollar amount less than a trillion that would represent the point where anything above you would still slap your child for. the only correct principle is "self" interest. this is what nature selects for.  this is the true "right" thing to do because anything else leads to relative extinction.  NAP is religion. if a principle cannot be sustained during any even remotely possible senario, then it never was a principle. NAP is a RULE OF THUMB AT BEST. "self" interest is actual science. people who just declare something like non-aggression correct without any rationale, are the same people who declare the ten commandments as principle.  

[shirgall]

lifeboat senarios demonstate that there is a critical point where aggression becomes profitable. if you aggress during a hypothetical, there exists a median value that is less beneficial that you would still agress.  if you would slap your child in the face for a trillion dollars that implies there exists a dollar amount less than a trillion that would represent the point where anything above you would still slap your child for. the only correct principle is "self" interest. this is what nature selects for.  this is the true "right" thing to do because anything else leads to relative extinction.  NAP is religion. if a principle cannot be sustained during any even remotely possible senario, then it never was a principle. NAP is a RULE OF THUMB AT BEST. "self" interest is actual science. people who just declare something like non-aggression correct without any rationale, are the same people who declare the ten commandments as principle.  

 

Lifeboat scenarios represent false choices by limiting options. They limit freedom of action. I'll ignore the remaining invective of your post and claim we're done here.

[Alan C.]

The problem that anti-propertarians have with private property is that they have none of their own, and they're envious of others, so they resort to mental gymnastics to justify expropriating from others what they, themselves, contributed nothing to produce.

[kenshikenji]

Lifeboat scenarios represent false choices by limiting options. They limit freedom of action. I'll ignore the remaining invective of your post and claim we're done here.

absolutely not, again i was simply explaining why the intermediate value theorem holds with lifeboat senarios.  not only that, but if a moral theory that accounts for ALL senarios including lifeboats exists, then it is much superior than religion like nap.  and this moral theory does exist. its called "self"-interest as i have explained in the video.  every time someone presents a hypothetical to test a moral theory they are restricting choice.  that is what a moral theory is meant to resolve. for you to weasel out of it just declaring them illegitimate is a fallacy.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_value_theorem

The problem that anti-propertarians have with private property is that they have none of their own, and they're envious of others, so they resort to mental gymnastics to justify expropriating from others what they, themselves, contributed nothing to produce.

who said i was anti-property?  apparently you cannot distinguish someone who is against property rights from someone who is against property. people who are against implicit/social contracts and the state and endorse property rights are hypocrites. and youre misrepresenting my argument. i am not making the case for expropriating from others. im making the case that it is not anyone's responsibility other than one's self to defend one's own property.  and you should not defend property if you cannot meet the cost.  this is the true free market solution. not this religious declaration of rights.

[Guest Gee]

Yeah, nah.

 

NAP is axiomatic, predicated upon the illegitimacy of the initiation of force by the person subjected to said force.

 

Dreaming up a scenario whereby it is in someones best interest to initiate force does not make any use of force legitimate to the person upon whom force is being initiated and so does not invalidate NAP.

 

Also the intermittent value theorem does not apply as NAP is not a continuous function, it is step discontinuous upon the inclusion of force.

[kenshikenji]

Yeah, nah.

 

NAP is axiomatic, predicated upon the illegitimacy of the initiation of force by the person subjected to said force.

 

Dreaming up a scenario whereby it is in someones best interest to initiate force does not make any use of force legitimate to the person upon whom force is being initiated and so does not invalidate NAP.

 

Also the intermittent value theorem does not apply as NAP is not a continuous function, it is step discontinuous upon the inclusion of force.

these senarios do exist in history.  again, if a moral theory has holes and calls its self a principle or universal, is contradicting itself.  there is no true axiom other than natural law.  if you cant argue that an axiom is based on natural law, then just declaring it an axiom is a cop out.

 

costs and benefits are a continuous function, especially if i adjust the benefit in terms of money.

[Guest Gee]

Stuff it, waste of time.

[kenshikenji]

Stuff it, waste of time.

especially when you dont know what axioms are based on.  axioms always have reasoning, they are either made to avoid contradictions to help deduce logical truths  or through empirical observation.

 

 just the fact that money can be made to be continuous makes costs/benefits continuous.  but you dont seem to really know what youre talking about.

[Guest Gee]

especially when you dont know what axioms are based on.  axioms always have reasoning, they are either made to avoid contradictions to help deduce logical truths  or through empirical observation.

 

 just the fact that money can be made to be continuous makes costs/benefits continuous.  but you dont seem to really know what youre talking about.

 

Nah, it's a waste of time because your back chaining your theories, changing facts in order to suit your erroneous hypothesis which is why you must now try to invalidate NAP and UPV, because your hypothesis, being erroneous, requires the invalidation of all things valid. Indeed as I mentioned previously, your theories required the invalidation of logic itself which is why all that is logical must fall before the madness of your theory. 

You've convinced yourself that your right and reality is wrong and that is why this is a waste of my time.

[kenshikenji]

Nah, it's a waste of time because your back chaining your theories, changing facts in order to suit your erroneous hypothesis which is why you must now try to invalidate NAP and UPV, because your hypothesis, being erroneous, requires the invalidation of all things valid. Indeed as I mentioned previously, your theories required the invalidation of logic itself which is why all that is logical must fall before the madness of your theory. 

You've convinced yourself that your right and reality is wrong and that is why this is a waste of my time.

you cant invalidate logic.  seems you dont even have a grasp on what logic is.  it is immutable. youre a waste of your own time.

[Mister Mister]

^I'm glad you guys came to this conclusion, as I did.  Kenshi, I strongly suspect you want to frame the discussion as if your theories are perfectly logically sound, moreover they are obvious to anyone of a certain intelligence.  This way, when people inevitably reject them, you can tell yourself it's because they lack the intelligence or rationality to understand what is so perfectly obvious and true to you, not because of any deficiency in your communication style, which is confusing and often insulting, or any deficiency in the theory itself.  This leads me to believe that you don't actually want to change anyone's minds, as, if that were the case, you would show some degree of self-reflection, some doubt in your style of communication, but rather I think you want to reinforce some emotional belief that no one can understand you because you are smarter than everyone.  Even if you are right and we are wrong, you have not learned nor show the desire to learn the humility, the tact, the diplomacy, the empathy, necessary to communicate why your ideas are true and why they are important for us to accept.

Rather than show the vulnerability of loneliness and frustration of having core beliefs at odds with everyone else, with which most of us can sympathize, you want to invite us into this world where if we will just accept one more change of definition in some fundamental concept, watch one more video, process one more confusing abstract argument, THEN we will understand you, and if we don't, it's completely our fault and not yours.  So I think it would be cruel for us to continue to enable this emotional drug of self-superiority, to continue to play your game of chess based on rules only you understand, to pretend that it is productive and useful to "debate" your theories, rather than get to the core issue of why you want to play this game.