Nick900 Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Could the idea of property rights be considered the initiation of force? When you've got something and you deny the use of it to others are you initiating force indirectly by not sharing it? If you don't give food to a starving person, if you build a wall around a bunch of resources needed to make cancer medication, etc ... How does UPB/Free market/Anarchism handle this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCLugi Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Could the idea of property rights be considered the initiation of force? When you've got something and you deny the use of it to others are you initiating force indirectly by not sharing it? If you don't give food to a starving person, if you build a wall around a bunch of resources needed to make cancer medication, etc ... How does UPB/Free market/Anarchism handle this? There's much more detail to say about it but I'll start with this. If I need your spleen and you don't share it with me are you initiating force against me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Could the idea of property rights be considered the initiation of force? When you've got something and you deny the use of it to others are you initiating force indirectly by not sharing it? If you don't give food to a starving person, if you build a wall around a bunch of resources needed to make cancer medication, etc ... How does UPB/Free market/Anarchism handle this? No. You and everyone else already have property rights by virtue of the fact you have bodies that occupy space and contain resources. The fact that someone might get to use a resource might is unlucky for others. But that's just reality. Build a wall around a bunch of resources and property rights are not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick900 Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 No. You and everyone else already have property rights by virtue of the fact you have bodies that occupy space and contain resources. The fact that someone might get to use a resource might is unlucky for others. But that's just reality. Build a wall around a bunch of resources and property rights are not the same thing. I'm mainly concerned with natural resources and the like, I don't think anybody would object to the spleen point mentioned above but there does seem to be a distinction in denying someone the use of something that won't hurt you if they need it ... like the bottled water salesman in the desert thing stef mentioned. How is the building of the wall different if you are claiming those resources to be your own? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'm mainly concerned with natural resources and the like, I don't think anybody would object to the spleen point mentioned above but there does seem to be a distinction in denying someone the use of something that won't hurt you if they need it ... like the bottled water salesman in the desert thing stef mentioned. How is the building of the wall different if you are claiming those resources to be your own? The human is a natural resource. If you;re only concerned with "natural resources" then why are you bringing in bottled water emergency ethics scenarios? Who decides what hurts and what doesn't? You? What resources would I be claiming to be my own? Apples? soil? Air? Water? Diseases? Risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick900 Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 The human is a natural resource. If you;re only concerned with "natural resources" then why are you bringing in bottled water emergency ethics scenarios? Who decides what hurts and what doesn't? You? What resources would I be claiming to be my own? Apples? soil? Air? Water? Diseases? Risk? The point I was going to make is if you can establish a scenario in which property rights is a violation of the NAP, wouldn't that justify the state? If a free market would leave someone to die because they can't afford something wouldn't it justify the welfare system? If you can justify forcibly taking the bottled water in the emergency example you can justify tax? (Or not... I don't know, tis just a thought) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Could the idea of property rights be considered the initiation of force? When you've got something and you deny the use of it to others are you initiating force indirectly by not sharing it? If you don't give food to a starving person, if you build a wall around a bunch of resources needed to make cancer medication, etc ... How does UPB/Free market/Anarchism handle this? UPB can only handle moral theories, not specific actions. If you build a wall around a tree, UPB has nothing to say about that. If you say "People have the right to refuse food that they own to other people" that is a theory, not an action. At the most fundamental level, yes, people can refuse food they own to a starving person, and that would be allowed in the theory of property rights. Absolutely. What you ignore is that A) that never happens, B) you'd have to be a huge douchebag to do it, C) maybe the person starving is a confirmed evil criminal and is suffering the consequences of his ostracism, D) a starving man can always negotiate something in exchange for food, E) the stream of events leading to starvation most likely already includes immoral behaviors and reckless decisions which would make the question of "what happens at the end of a series of immoral events?" irrelevant to a moral discussions because morality works from a "all things being equal" state, as in a "assuming nothing immoral has happened before my scenario" way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The point I was going to make is if you can establish a scenario in which property rights is a violation of the NAP No you can't. If a free market would leave someone to die because they can't afford something wouldn't it justify the welfare system? If you can justify forcibly taking the bottled water in the emergency example you can justify tax? A welfare state could leave someone to die too so that argument fails. Secondly, why do you think an appeal to emotion is valid argumentation? Don't you think your premises and conclusion should stand on their own and not completely rely on people's sympathy for dying people? What kind of manipulator are you that you'd try to exploit people's compassion this way or try to make them appear heartless just to prop up a fallacious argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Could the idea of property rights be considered the initiation of force? If you choose not to have sex with somebody, have you initiated the use of force against them? if you can establish a scenario in which property rights is a violation of the NAP This is one of dangers of using shorthand like "NAP" when you don't understand it. NAP is shorthand for "theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent." The only way to determine this is if property rights are valid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fezjones Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 no because its not universally applicable. because somebody's want is not being met, it doesnt entail that i ought to satisfy them and by not satisfying im commiting force. if i want to have sex with your wife, she rejects me, is she initiating for against me? assuming she is initiating force, am i justified to rape her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ottinger Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 A similar question and hypothetical was hashed out in this thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46162-plz-help-me-with-ayn-rands-property-right-vs-starvation-debate/#entry422730 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick900 Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 If you choose not to have sex with somebody, have you initiated the use of force against them? This is one of dangers of using shorthand like "NAP" when you don't understand it. NAP is shorthand for "theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent." The only way to determine this is if property rights are valid. Could the case not be made that you don't own yourself? ... To own something, someone has to own it ... objects can't own objects ... isn't being human above just being property? You can say "I own X" which is valid, but to say"X owns X" saying that you own yourself is just redundant because you are yourself. UPB can only handle moral theories, not specific actions. If you build a wall around a tree, UPB has nothing to say about that. If you say "People have the right to refuse food that they own to other people" that is a theory, not an action. At the most fundamental level, yes, people can refuse food they own to a starving person, and that would be allowed in the theory of property rights. Absolutely. What you ignore is that A) that never happens, B) you'd have to be a huge douchebag to do it, C) maybe the person starving is a confirmed evil criminal and is suffering the consequences of his ostracism, D) a starving man can always negotiate something in exchange for food, E) the stream of events leading to starvation most likely already includes immoral behaviors and reckless decisions which would make the question of "what happens at the end of a series of immoral events?" irrelevant to a moral discussions because morality works from a "all things being equal" state, as in a "assuming nothing immoral has happened before my scenario" way. If you come up with a moral theory called UPB and then say you're justified in not helping someone who needs it, but then everyone who uses UPB would give food anyway because of some other moral theory that says you should give food ... doesn't it kind of just bypass UPB and use the moral theory that states you should give food? Maybe the person is evil or whatever, but wouldn't that be a consequentialist argument ... you're not giving him food because he did X. If this is the case are you not building a moral system called UPB which is great on paper but then basically ignoring it when dealing with people in the real world? I get that UPB is logically consistent but if everyone is basing their actions on a specific event rather than some abstract moral principle, what's the point in it? Why not just abandon the abstract principle and act based on consequences? UPB may result in people starving because they take property rights to the extreme Consequentialist arguments may result in people starving because its subjective and open to corruption How is UPB beneficial over any other system? (I think I will listen to the UPB audiobook again after this but I'll just throw my thoughts out here anyways... best way to learn is to be completely destroyed by people who are smarter right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertyblues Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Could the case not be made that you don't own yourself? ... To own something, someone has to own it ... objects can't own objects ... isn't being human above just being property? You can say "I own X" which is valid, but to say"X owns X" saying that you own yourself is just redundant because you are yourself. If you come up with a moral theory called UPB and then say you're justified in not helping someone who needs it, but then everyone who uses UPB would give food anyway because of some other moral theory that says you should give food ... doesn't it kind of just bypass UPB and use the moral theory that states you should give food? Maybe the person is evil or whatever, but wouldn't that be a consequentialist argument ... you're not giving him food because he did X. If this is the case are you not building a moral system called UPB which is great on paper but then basically ignoring it when dealing with people in the real world? I get that UPB is logically consistent but if everyone is basing their actions on a specific event rather than some abstract moral principle, what's the point in it? Why not just abandon the abstract principle and act based on consequences? UPB may result in people starving because they take property rights to the extreme Consequentialist arguments may result in people starving because its subjective and open to corruption How is UPB beneficial over any other system? (I think I will listen to the UPB audiobook again after this but I'll just throw my thoughts out here anyways... best way to learn is to be completely destroyed by people who are smarter right?) I started a thread which is quite similar to this one called Rand Vs starvation debate. Your point regarding people choosing a welfare principle by donating food "because it's morally good" does not justify imposing a welfare state in my opinion. The reason is that it's morally evil to force people to be good, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick900 Posted January 17, 2016 Author Share Posted January 17, 2016 I started a thread which is quite similar to this one called Rand Vs starvation debate. Your point regarding people choosing a welfare principle by donating food "because it's morally good" does not justify imposing a welfare state in my opinion. The reason is that it's morally evil to force people to be good, is it not? Mmh I had a little read through it, seems you can either have a moral theory built on context dropping or context adding ... get rid of the context and you can build a moral theory that works on paper but nobody follows, build a moral theory under some context and it doesn't stand up in every scenario when put to the test. I think I'm rapidly moving towards the consequentialist side of the isle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 If you come up with a moral theory called UPB and then say you're justified in not helping someone who needs it, but then everyone who uses UPB would give food anyway because of some other moral theory that says you should give food ... doesn't it kind of just bypass UPB and use the moral theory that states you should give food? Maybe the person is evil or whatever, but wouldn't that be a consequentialist argument ... you're not giving him food because he did X. If this is the case are you not building a moral system called UPB which is great on paper but then basically ignoring it when dealing with people in the real world? I get that UPB is logically consistent but if everyone is basing their actions on a specific event rather than some abstract moral principle, what's the point in it? Why not just abandon the abstract principle and act based on consequences? UPB may result in people starving because they take property rights to the extreme Consequentialist arguments may result in people starving because its subjective and open to corruption How is UPB beneficial over any other system? (I think I will listen to the UPB audiobook again after this but I'll just throw my thoughts out here anyways... best way to learn is to be completely destroyed by people who are smarter right?) Let's take it step by step. The people who follow UPB and would choose to give food to a starving man don't give him food because they believe they should give food, but because they choose to give him food. That choice was weighed with the factors of how much food they have, and how much they can afford to give away. If they were to calculate that giving the man food would harm them instead by not having enough food for them, they have the right to choose to save themselves. That is the evil of altruism that Rand was talking about, of having to sacrifice yourself for others even when it harms you. You could do that, but it's not an obligation. On the evil side, it's not consequentialism. What you are arguing is, instead. Listen, would you save Hitler? If Hitler at the end of WWII came to you asking to save him, would you? Of course it's rhetoric, but the point is that you are not forced to help people whom you deem unhelpable. Helping people whom you choose to help does not ignore UPB because that falls in the aesthetics category. It's not a moral question. UPB is beneficial because it gets rid of the situations that lead to having a man starving in the first place. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertyblues Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Mmh I had a little read through it, seems you can either have a moral theory built on context dropping or context adding ... get rid of the context and you can build a moral theory that works on paper but nobody follows, build a moral theory under some context and it doesn't stand up in every scenario when put to the test. I think I'm rapidly moving towards the consequentialist side of the isle. It's totally fine if you choose this ethics as an individual, problem is if you force others to abide by it the ethics cannot be moral anymore because force takes away choice and choices are a prerequisite of morality (as far as I understand it now). Do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaeroden Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Could the case not be made that you don't own yourself? ... To own something, someone has to own it ... objects can't own objects ... isn't being human above just being property? if you don't own yourself, then you don't own the arguments you are making either. but instead of directing my rebuttal to various objects on my desk, i am making my rebuttal to you. which is acknowledging you produced an argument, which makes it your argument. the very act of argumentation implies that you own both yourself and your arguments. no. objects can own objects. anything made of atoms and their parts is an object. humans are made of atoms. therefore, humans are objects. humans, through control of their own bodies, own themselves. humans are objects, therefore, objects can own objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Mmh I had a little read through it, seems you can either have a moral theory built on context dropping or context adding ... get rid of the context and you can build a moral theory that works on paper but nobody follows, build a moral theory under some context and it doesn't stand up in every scenario when put to the test. I think I'm rapidly moving towards the consequentialist side of the isle. I've thought for a long time that consequentialism cannot be considered a moral theory. If you say morality is defined by an effect, to the extent the effect can even be measured and defined, you're just creating a tautology. You're not actually proving anything. But I'm pretty sure it is a performative contradiction to say that you are consequentialist because it is true, rather than because of the effects it will have. UPB begins from self consistent statements that cannot be denied without performing a contradiction. It is not a tautology, it is a logical proof of concept to the extent the axioms cannot be denied and that he reasons from them consistently. It is a consistent moral theory that can be easily applied to see if theories which tell us to act in a certain way are universally preferable. You haven't made any arguments in this thread that I have seen and I read a number of your posts. If you can't actually make or refute arguments then maybe philosophy isn't for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts