Regular everyday life.

[bugzysegal]

Stefan's arguments against the likes of Peter Joseph and others held up to scrutiny, particularly the pragmatic arguments come to mind. Later I read the excellent book Anarchy, State, and Utopia.  In it is an elegant pragmatic argument for voluntarism.

 

Here's a thought that occurred to me a very long time ago, that I hadn't given consideration since before my Libertarian leanings:

 

We are animals born into a world and we claim we "own" things...that there is some magic property that makes things well...property. We flap our mouths and scuttle about on the surface of a planet, rearranging the furniture.The fact of the matter is, we simply borrow everything for a time and then we die. Ownership isn't anything we actually point to, but a method of organizing goods efficiently so as to say who can do what with what, and get on with our lives. That being said, the Sun will extinguish and our solar system will go cold, with all the ownership on this little blue planet having counted for nothing. Even if by some miracle the species escapes our local galactic neighborhood, over the course of time, our likelihood of survival in asymptotic fashion approaches zero. Everything anyone has ever borrowed during their life span will return to the melting pot that is the observable universe. The very atoms that make us up will be churned back into the cosmic stew. What then could be said of ownership? 

 

Sentience bound by our biological shells, has our minds isolated requiring we resort to the pragmatism of property rights. 

 

Don't know that I feel much different about all this. Perhaps these kinds of thoughts use to lean me elsewhere on the political spectrum. If this isn't convincing that's ok. I just don't think property matters in a few billion years.

[Koroviev]

Does anything matter in a few billion years? Does it matter in a few billion years if I murder someone today? My point is how is this helpful...at all? It's just like trying to talk about morality for animals, it only applies to humans.

[labmath2]

I suppose pragmatism is many philosophers' answer to how we test the superiority of a moral proposition. The alternative is to accept moral propositions without external proof.

[Koroviev]

I don't see what the point would be of a moral proposition that was not pragmatic? Thought experiment maybe but would any answer change anything about the way you, or anyone else lives? Isn't it just like saying there's a rock outside of our universe that we could never sense the presence of or know anything about. I mean sure there could be, but who cares.

[Mister Mister]

Stefan's arguments against the likes of Peter Joseph and others held up to scrutiny, particularly the pragmatic arguments come to mind. Later I read the excellent book Anarchy, State, and Utopia.  In it is an elegant pragmatic argument for voluntarism.

 

Here's a thought that occurred to me a very long time ago, that I hadn't given consideration since before my Libertarian leanings:

 

We are animals born into a world and we claim we "own" things...that there is some magic property that makes things well...property. We flap our mouths and scuttle about on the surface of a planet, rearranging the furniture.The fact of the matter is, we simply borrow everything for a time and then we die. Ownership isn't anything we actually point to, but a method of organizing goods efficiently so as to say who can do what with what, and get on with our lives. That being said, the Sun will extinguish and our solar system will go cold, with all the ownership on this little blue planet having counted for nothing. Even if by some miracle the species escapes our local galactic neighborhood, over the course of time, our likelihood of survival in asymptotic fashion approaches zero. Everything anyone has ever borrowed during their life span will return to the melting pot that is the observable universe. The very atoms that make us up will be churned back into the cosmic stew. What then could be said of ownership? 

 

Sentience bound by our biological shells, has our minds isolated requiring we resort to the pragmatism of property rights. 

 

Don't know that I feel much different about all this. Perhaps these kinds of thoughts use to lean me elsewhere on the political spectrum. If this isn't convincing that's ok. I just don't think property matters in a few billion years.

neither does rape or even nuclear war.  so what?  property matters to me and you and billions of other people living on earth right now.  I remember a kid in high school putting forth this argument.  A few years later I heard he committed suicide.  I don't mean to shock you, and I realize this is not an argument, but your post made me think of him.

[NotDarkYet]

For somebody experiencing pain now, that now is everything.  

 

The fact that they they will die someday doesn't mean we are OK with inflicting pain.

 

Would you agree with that?

[Guest Gee]

So in the long run we are all dead?

 

Where have I heard the before......

[bugzysegal]

Was on my way to a funeral when I wrote this. I don't think it's fatalism though, but a very stark realism.

For somebody experiencing pain now, that now is everything.  

 

The fact that they they will die someday doesn't mean we are OK with inflicting pain.

 

Would you agree with that?

Pain can often be bad. Empathy is important undoubtedly. Property rights are extremely useful in distributing resources, but they are a convention...at least in my estimation.  Useful and important, yes, but ultimate determinants of morality? I think not. Do you have to look to economics and voluntarism to say why a person donating a kidney is good? What does it really mean to say we have come to own something? Has reality changed to reflect that event? Before I am born, I owned nothing, and when I die I will again own nothing. Isn't everything really just borrowed? By borrowed, I mean we use it for a while and then we don't, not something along a sliding scale of ownership to non-ownership.

[dsayers]

I just don't think property matters in a few billion years.

 

This is a performative contradiction. If you felt that influence a billion years from now was a valid standard, you would not be attempting to influence the thoughts of others in the present.

[bugzysegal]

I don't see what the point would be of a moral proposition that was not pragmatic? Thought experiment maybe but would any answer change anything about the way you, or anyone else lives? Isn't it just like saying there's a rock outside of our universe that we could never sense the presence of or know anything about. I mean sure there could be, but who cares.

I agree.

This is a performative contradiction. If you felt that influence a billion years from now was a valid standard, you would not be attempting to influence the thoughts of others in the present.

Actually I misspoke "I don't think property will matter in a few billion years." Also I'm not saying something as simple as property only matters to the living. The notion of ownership bespeaking something about the nature of reality is non-sense since it would wink out of existence without the world changing.

[Will Torbald]

Ownership isn't anything we actually point to, but a method of organizing goods efficiently so as to say who can do what with what, and get on with our lives. That being said, the Sun will extinguish and our solar system will go cold, with all the ownership on this little blue planet having counted for nothing.

 

There really isn't any physical or material link between a person and its property. In that way, yes, flapping our mouths to make a theory of property rights is in the realm of rationalizations and not empirical evidence. There is no experiment that proves it materialistically, nor can we observe a tiny silver chain connecting my car to myself. We just cross our fingers, lock our doors, and hope no one steals it. No amount of magical writing will change that, no amount of logic and sweat poured by libertarians will keep a criminal outside my window if it wants my stuff. The world will end, meaning your life will end and all your achievements and all of humanity's achievements will be forgotten, is a very liberating thought. Since in the end nothing will matter, we are not obligated to act in any meaningful way either. Go eat a hot dog, watch TV, get a girlfriend, and watch the end of it all with cool sunglasses.

[bugzysegal]

There really isn't any physical or material link between a person and its property. In that way, yes, flapping our mouths to make a theory of property rights is in the realm of rationalizations and not empirical evidence. There is no experiment that proves it materialistically, nor can we observe a tiny silver chain connecting my car to myself. We just cross our fingers, lock our doors, and hope no one steals it. No amount of magical writing will change that, no amount of logic and sweat poured by libertarians will keep a criminal outside my window if it wants my stuff. The world will end, meaning your life will end and all your achievements and all of humanity's achievements will be forgotten, is a very liberating thought. Since in the end nothing will matter, we are not obligated to act in any meaningful way either. Go eat a hot dog, watch TV, get a girlfriend, and watch the end of it all with cool sunglasses.

I take it the last bit of your statement was tongue-in-cheek. Again for me this wasn't about fatalism, it was about a reality check when discussing the immutable nature of ownership. Realism and pragmatism are no sins. That being said, I don't take theories of self ownership and property lightly.  

[dsayers]

no amount of logic... will keep a criminal outside my window if it wants my stuff

 

This is like saying that airplanes are proof that gravity is not objective and universal. Even though while flying, the airplane is under the same gravitational forces (adjusting for proximity).

 

If you own yourself, you own the effects of your labor, you own whatever you trade for. For somebody else who owns themselves to take that from you without your consent is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. The fact that they can still physically do it doesn't make it any less of a performative contradiction.

[Will Torbald]

This is like saying that airplanes are proof that gravity is not objective and universal. Even though while flying, the airplane is under the same gravitational forces (adjusting for proximity).

 

If you own yourself, you own the effects of your labor, you own whatever you trade for. For somebody else who owns themselves to take that from you without your consent is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. The fact that they can still physically do it doesn't make it any less of a performative contradiction.

 

It's a comment on the pragmatic use of having a theory of ethics vs a physical security system. I could argue with the thief that what he is doing is immoral all I can while he gives me strange looks, and he would still take my wallet. Ethics' only achievement is the ability to say "what you are doing is bad", but that never prevented anyone who doesn't care from doing something bad.

[bugzysegal]

It's a comment on the pragmatic use of having a theory of ethics vs a physical security system. I could argue with the thief that what he is doing is immoral all I can while he gives me strange looks, and he would still take my wallet. Ethics' only achievement is the ability to say "what you are doing is bad", but that never prevented anyone who doesn't care from doing something bad.

That is abundantly true. Though perhaps it may guide is in our own decision making, no?

If you own yourself, 

Thats a big "if." The best descriptions of self ownership seem to come down to certain inalienable autonomy.  I think the inalienability of our autonomy may be jeopardized by advents of neuro-science one day. Where does this right come from? Is it magic, or merely an evaluation of who is occupying a body? Would an AI own itself? 

 

Also the scope of what self-ownership implies is not immediately cleared even if the inalienability argument survives(but let's not open up that can of worms).

[Will Torbald]

That is abundantly true. Though perhaps it may guide is in our own decision making, no?

 

Only if we care. If we don't care, we just do it anyway. If a person cares, there's reason and judgement, and it will likely choose the moral path. In that way it only leaves two paths: You don't care and you do immoral things, and if you care you try not to (but you can still error or lose judgement emotionally). So morality is utterly ineffective at convincing people not to do bad things when they are bad, and only mildly effective at guiding people who care towards not messing up.

[dsayers]

It's a comment on the pragmatic use of having a theory of ethics vs a physical security system. I could argue with the thief that what he is doing is immoral all I can while he gives me strange looks, and he would still take my wallet. Ethics' only achievement is the ability to say "what you are doing is bad", but that never prevented anyone who doesn't care from doing something bad.

 

No, you said that property is an invalid concept because it can be violated. Saying that morality doesn't physically prevent violations is like saying that a shirt doesn't keep your feet warm. It's not its purpose.

[Mister Mister]

bugzy, if you wanted to argue against the universality of property rights, why not just come out with it?  why come at it with this "nothing will matter in a billion years" stuff, and then move on when a number of people pointed out how ridiculous that approach is?  I found it kind of annoying and it seems to me a little manipulative.

yes, property is a social convention, like the scientific method, language, or the rules of chess.  nobody I've ever heard take a principled stand in defense of property rights, has said otherwise.  nevertheless, property rights in 99% of cases, follows a reasonable and consistent methodology, which everyone can follow and agree to, even a 3 year old.  and the 1% of gray areas, are important and worth talking about, but I'm not sure what angle you're really taking.

  my frustration with your previous posts is, "where is all this going"?  Is there a conclusion you're getting at?  Are you defending taxation, or Syndicalism, or spanking, or something like that?  I'm just wondering where you are trying to take us, and I would appreciate if you would come out with it, so we know why this is even worth discussing.

[bugzysegal]

bugzy, if you wanted to argue against the universality of property rights, why not just come out with it?  why come at it with this "nothing will matter in a billion years" stuff, and then move on when a number of people pointed out how ridiculous that approach is?  I found it kind of annoying and it seems to me a little manipulative.

 

yes, property is a social convention, like the scientific method, language, or the rules of chess.  nobody I've ever heard take a principled stand in defense of property rights, has said otherwise.  nevertheless, property rights in 99% of cases, follows a reasonable and consistent methodology, which everyone can follow and agree to, even a 3 year old.  and the 1% of gray areas, are important and worth talking about, but I'm not sure what angle you're really taking.

 

  my frustration with your previous posts is, "where is all this going"?  Is there a conclusion you're getting at?  Are you defending taxation, or Syndicalism, or spanking, or something like that?  I'm just wondering where you are trying to take us, and I would appreciate if you would come out with it, so we know why this is even worth discussing.

Totally fair. I am skeptical about the nature of self-ownership and from there extending to ownership strictly in moral terms. Markets are lovely things that work extremely well in the overwhelming majority of cases. However, the idea of clinging to ownership in the immediate presence of human suffering seems short sighted.It's humans vs. the universe and we already know who will win. I'm not saying let's tax people, have a government, or spank kids. If you see a drowning kid that's not your own, it is wrong not to save them if it would merely get your cloths wet and go against your wishes no to get your cloths wet. Do we have to donate all of our spare change, or worse live minimalist lives giving all our other income to help charities? No, because in general our concerted efforts and happiness contribute to greater overall value in the lengths of our lives. It's a weak claim, but a claim none-the-less. Ownership is useful, not absolute.

 

Also, as I said I was on the way to a funeral, so the long view popped into my mind (though the connection was not a conscious one at the time.)

[Will Torbald]

No, you said that property is an invalid concept because it can be violated. Saying that morality doesn't physically prevent violations is like saying that a shirt doesn't keep your feet warm. It's not its purpose.

You're extrapolating my comments. I said no amount of logic will stop a criminal, because criminals reject logic in the first place. Since it is possible to have irrational behavior, rational theories won't affect those with no regard for rationality. I need a fence, alarms, and security outside my property - not a philosophical scroll of parchment in order to repel aggressors.

[dsayers]

the idea of clinging to ownership in the immediate presence of human suffering seems short sighted

 

"Clinging to* reality... seems short sighted." This makes no sense. Violating property rights creates human suffering.

 

*I know "clinging to" is manipulative language. I was meeting author at the standard he put forth.

 

If you see a drowning kid that's not your own, it is wrong not to save them

 

As if anybody who could swim wouldn't try to save a drowning person. You keep trying to work backwards to make utilitarianism fit instead of starting from first principles to see what accurately describes the real world. Source

 

IF somebody who could swim (a factor your claim doesn't even address) chose not to get involved with somebody drowning, you could ostracize them and encourage others to do the same. However, unchosen positive obligations are unethical. Everybody suffers in our statist world every day. So I don't even know what "everybody is COMPELLED to help everybody else always" would even look like.

 

no amount of logic will stop a criminal

 

And I said it's not its purpose, making this point meaningless. Your initial claim was

 

There really isn't any physical or material link between a person and its property. In that way, yes, flapping our mouths to make a theory of property rights is in the realm of rationalizations and not empirical evidence.

 

You are saying that property rights are meaningless because they cannot physically stop violations of them, even though nobody has ever suggested that is its purpose. Not to mention that the moment you speak of property rights being violated, you are accepting property rights as valid. Which is interesting because by making these non-sensical statements, you're trying to rationalize your rejection of property rights while referring to rationalizations as if they are not useful. And there IS empirical evidence of property rights. You made these posts (you own your body). You chose to make them knowing full well what you were doing. You are responsible for them.

[Will Torbald]

And I said it's not its purpose, making this point meaningless. Your initial claim was

 

 

You are saying that property rights are meaningless because they cannot physically stop violations of them, even though nobody has ever suggested that is its purpose. Not to mention that the moment you speak of property rights being violated, you are accepting property rights as valid. Which is interesting because by making these non-sensical statements, you're trying to rationalize your rejection of property rights while referring to rationalizations as if they are not useful. And there IS empirical evidence of property rights. You made these posts (you own your body). You chose to make them knowing full well what you were doing. You are responsible for them.

 

Property rights are not material. That is my argument. There is no material link between my body and the stuff I own. Therefore there are no empirically obserable signs that a chair is my chair just by studying the chair. Which is why property rights are only rationalizations, whether they are useful or not I don't really care. Strictly speaking I am my body. There is no ghost me that owns body me. I am responsible for the actions I do with my body, but I am not the master of a body and the body who is a slave at the same time. I = My body. Not I + My body.

[Koroviev]

Property rights are not material. That is my argument. There is no material link between my body and the stuff I own. Therefore there are no empirically obserable signs that a chair is my chair just by studying the chair. Which is why property rights are only rationalizations, whether they are useful or not I don't really care. Strictly speaking I am my body. There is no ghost me that owns body me. I am responsible for the actions I do with my body, but I am not the master of a body and the body who is a slave at the same time. I = My body. Not I + My body.

 

But then aren't you saying that you aren't responsible for the results of your actions?

[bugzysegal]

 

"Clinging to* reality... seems short sighted." This makes no sense. Violating property rights creates human suffering.

 

*I know "clinging to" is manipulative language. I was meeting author at the standard he put forth.

 

"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. 

 

As if anybody who could swim wouldn't try to save a drowning person. You keep trying to work backwards to make utilitarianism fit instead of starting from first principles to see what accurately describes the real world. Source

 

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.

[Will Torbald]

But then aren't you saying that you aren't responsible for the results of your actions?

Since I am making materialistic arguments, I don't see how that follows. If I push a rock there is no question that I did that. If I were to chop down a tree and make lumber then I made that lumber. There is just no way to prove that I made that lumber by looking at the lumber. You would have to have seen me doing it, or other kind of indirect evidence to know. I could be typing this message from a stolen mobile phone, and you wouldn't be able to tell. As a materialist the only distinction from property and non property is either a social construct in the exchange of goods, or the direct evidence of authorship of an action or a thing. I could then take my lumber, give it to you and say "it's now yours" and we'd agree - but nothing has changed in the object, just our understanding of it - out rationalizations of it.

[Koroviev]

Right, but there's no material link between you and the actions of your body either. By that line of thought if I stole something from you without direct evidence that I stole it wouldn't I then not be responsible? The same "direct link" exists when you push a rock as does when you leave a pile of lumber unattended, the only time it is obvious your pushed the rock is when you are in the act of pushing it. The only difference would whether or not someone saw you take the action. If I come across a house while someone is away at work wouldn't that then mean no one owns that house because they are not building and or buying it at that point in time?

[Will Torbald]

Right, but there's no material link between you and the actions of your body either. By that line of thought if I stole something from you without direct evidence that I stole it wouldn't I then not be responsible? The same "direct link" exists when you push a rock as does when you leave a pile of lumber unattended, the only time it is obvious your pushed the rock is when you are in the act of pushing it. The only difference would whether or not someone saw you take the action. If I come across a house while someone is away at work wouldn't that then mean no one owns that house because they are not building and or buying it at that point in time?

But this happens all the time in the world. People keep money they find on the street and say it's "theirs" now. Nobody will question it when you use the five dollars to buy something. If you leave a house abandoned eventually hobos are going to move in. Which is why you need security.

 

Imagine that I leave the lumber alone, and a scheming man sees it, takes it, and sells it to you on the premise that it was his property. You'd be convinced it is your lumber now. Later on I see you with the lumber I made, and immediately assault you in a fit of justified anger through the property rights theory. However since you believe it is your lumber as well you react in defense of your believed property rights and stab me, and kill me.

 

All from rationalizations of property of no empirical nature. If there were such a thing there would be no confusion in who owns what.

 

The only thing I'd say is non transferable is authorship of goods and services. If I make a painting that's something I authored. Selling the painting would transfer ownership, not authorship. It still is nonetheless an unproved claim without evidence, which is why artists sign their work and strive for unique styles to make it clear that they made it.

[Koroviev]

But this happens all the time in the world. People keep money they find on the street and say it's "theirs" now. Nobody will question it when you use the five dollars to buy something. If you leave a house abandoned eventually hobos are going to move in. Which is why you need security.

 

Imagine that I leave the lumber alone, and a scheming man sees it, takes it, and sells it to you on the premise that it was his property. You'd be convinced it is your lumber now. Later on I see you with the lumber I made, and immediately assault you in a fit of justified anger through the property rights theory. However since you believe it is your lumber as well you react in defense of your believed property rights and stab me, and kill me.

 

All from rationalizations of property of no empirical nature. If there were such a thing there would be no confusion in who owns what.

 

The only thing I'd say is non transferable is authorship of goods and services. If I make a painting that's something I authored. Selling the painting would transfer ownership, not authorship. It still is nonetheless an unproved claim without evidence, which is why artists sign their work and strive for unique styles to make it clear that they made it.

 

I absolutely agree but from the material standpoint the only property would be your physical body, as you've said, but would take away any responsibility you'd have for actions that were not directly observed (i.e. murder moves into the grey area when no one sees it). 

 

If you find $5 on the ground and do not give it back when someone asks for it well then technically you've taken their property. 

 

Why is painting a picture any different from chopping firewood? There are different efforts involved but fundamentally they are exactly the same you could paint the Mona Lisa then leave it unattended someone could still take it and try to sell it to you. There's still no material proof that it's yours.

[dsayers]

Property rights are not material.

 

"Four" is not material. Like, so what? Concepts not existing is not proof the don't accurately describe the real world.

 

Strictly speaking I am my body.

 

Except that you're not! You are your consciousness. Since consciousness is an emergent property of matter, we couldn't even say (for sure) that you are your brain or you are the aggregate of the firings between neurons in that brain. The moment you die, your body is physically identical to the moment before, when you were still alive. So at the same time, you were claiming no physical tie to a chair based on the chair alone while claiming a physical tie to your body based on that body alone.

 

If I say to you that all men are mortal and Socrates was a man, do you need for their to be a physical tie between Socrates and his mortality in order to accept it? No! It logically follows. Just as IF you own your body THEN you own the effects of your voluntary use of that body. If this means you invest your time and energy into fashioning a chair or trade with somebody who has, then that is your chair. It logically follows! Yes, if you set a random chair in the middle of the forest, there would be no way of knowing whose chair that is. So what? What does that matter?

 

"Consciousness is an emergent property of matter" no less accurately describes the real world than "the gravitational pull of Earth is 9.8 m/s every second."

Was my post deleted?

 

It does look that way. Earlier, there were two identical posts. Perhaps there was a database error where trying to delete one deleted both. I'd ask staff about it.

 

What's flabbergasting to me is that the moral theory you espouse, can't describe why someone would be wrong for doing so.

 

Right, which I already pointed out. You keep going back to "wrong" as if this is compatible with what I'm saying. Saying "theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights" isn't saying that it's wrong.

 

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?

 

I wish you could see that this is the beauty of objective morality: I am nobody to say that you are wrong; YOU are telling me that it's internally inconsistent You are choosing to use your property to declare that others cannot choose how to use their property. Hence unethical proposition as all unchosen positive obligations are. Please, check out alex's video on this. I already understood the ideas when I first watched it, but I think it does a good job of attaching a coherent description of it:

[bugzysegal]

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.

[SamuelS]

"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.

I'm ambivalent about engaging here and likely will not respond further but there's an element of UPB/ethics that your example omits. If you are acting contrary to UPB, my shooting you can be an effective remedy, however if you are refusing to act, shooting you won't get you moving.

[SamuelS]

If a wrong has been done, what can be done to correct it? Can we force the man to swim out and save the child? Hardly!

[bugzysegal]

If a wrong has been done, what can be done to correct it? Can we force the man to swim out and save the child? Hardly!

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. 

[Will Torbald]

"Four" is not material. Like, so what? Concepts not existing is not proof the don't accurately describe the real world.

 

 

Except that you're not! You are your consciousness. Since consciousness is an emergent property of matter, we couldn't even say (for sure) that you are your brain or you are the aggregate of the firings between neurons in that brain. The moment you die, your body is physically identical to the moment before, when you were still alive. So at the same time, you were claiming no physical tie to a chair based on the chair alone while claiming a physical tie to your body based on that body alone.

 

If I say to you that all men are mortal and Socrates was a man, do you need for their to be a physical tie between Socrates and his mortality in order to accept it? No! It logically follows. Just as IF you own your body THEN you own the effects of your voluntary use of that body. If this means you invest your time and energy into fashioning a chair or trade with somebody who has, then that is your chair. It logically follows! Yes, if you set a random chair in the middle of the forest, there would be no way of knowing whose chair that is. So what? What does that matter?

 

"Consciousness is an emergent property of matter" no less accurately describes the real world than "the gravitational pull of Earth is 9.8 m/s every second."

 

 

 

1 - I made that point to follow into the argument. It doesn't deserve examination on its own.

 

2 - Consciousness emerges from brains, not just matter. A lump of coal doesn't have consciousness. If my consciousness emerges from my brain, the I would actually be the property of my body, not the way around. Do you understand that? If my brain makes my consciousness it is my brain who owns me. I would be a servant, not the master. But then you want me, the consciousness, to own the brain, the creator of my consciousness, back at it. That can't be true at the same time. Someone's got to own something, and the other to be the servant.

 

2,1 - But I reject that notion on the contradictions and paradoxes it creates. I would also cease to exist when I fall asleep, when I'm unconscious, when I'm in a coma, or when I'm under anesthesia. Since I no longer exist, it would be fair game to plunder my body since there is no consciousness to own it. And I doubt you would support that. But that's what follows from your reasoning.

 

3 - When I die, no, my brain and the rest of my body is not the same as it was when it was living. Life is a metabolic process, in constant motion and chemical reactions, respiration, synapses, action. A dead brain is incapable of all that. It is broken. It is not the same as a living brain. Otherwise it would be alive.

 

4 - Since I am my body then I am responsible for the actions done with it. This doesn't contradict owning actions, or owning the effects of actions. It simply refines the theory to something material and real, not rationalistic.

 

5 - The chair, the lumber, and so on is important as an example of how rationalizations of property rights do not matter in the material world. Therefore a material theory of property is more appropriate.

 

6 - I am a colony of trillions of differentiated cells of the same genome all working together to survive as one meta-organism. That meta organism forms a brain that manifests a consciousness at certain times of the day to create a state of awareness. When it doesn't, it's asleep or unconscious. I am that colony of cells, that body. The consciousness is like the sound I make with my vocal chords, just an effect of my brain. I am the hands, not the clap. I am the stomach, not the burp. I am the butt, not the fart. I am the brain, not the thought.

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.

 

Nothing wrong with that. No one is under the obligation to save anyone's life. The man could have been committing suicide, and you would have interrupted his voluntary desire and right to end his life.

[dsayers]

 

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.

 

Way to avoid the first principle that a=a is true and a!=a is false. I'm done with you. I apologize to those who might find what you say convincing, as they were the primary reason I was bothering.

 

Oh and governments aren't binding. And damages accrue to the responsible party. I can't swim. That doesn't mean I get to use my property to deny others use of their property. It would be like saying to you that language isn't useful.