RichardY Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Going from the basis of self-ownership as an affirmation of Property Rights, I agree that Property Rights presently exist as a concept. However I'm unsure how they could exist in the absence of other sentient beings, perhaps they do not? It is also generally accepted that Property Right extend to objects not directly in contact with the individual at all times and often to subjective ideas such as patents. If it is possible to relinquish control over Property not directly controlled/attached then why is an exception made for a persons body on the basis of Property Rights. Excluding purely a focus on slavery, what if someone was to demand "a pound of flesh" as payment, ignoring or circumventing the technicality of taking blood as well, organ donation is generally accepted as fine. (at least among the non religious) Can Property Rights be thought of as an Ideal? The defence of Property of Rights sounds Idealistic. If property rights can be seen as an extension or the same as Ethics, is Ethics therefore a concept? If Ethics is only a concept this would seem to put its potential universal achievement on the back-foot at times, by those with Ideals that would destroy it or everyone.
dsayers Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 It is also generally accepted that Property Right extend to objects not directly in contact with the individual at all times and often to subjective ideas such as patents. What do you mean by "generally accepted"? Patents are strictly fictitious. If you have an idea or a process, you own that. However, the moment you release it, it is no longer yours. If I'm not mistaken, this is the fundamental pitfall in the idea of intellectual property. what if someone was to demand "a pound of flesh" as payment What do you mean by "demand"? Taco Bell doesn't demand that I pay X for Y. They inform me that X is what they charge for Y. I am free to oblige, negotiate for a different price, or refuse. Can Property Rights be thought of as an Ideal? The defence of Property of Rights sounds Idealistic. If property rights can be seen as an extension or the same as Ethics I started to get particularly lost here. Why do you ask? Ideal compared to what? Ethics/morality is predicated on property rights, not the other way around.
rosencrantz Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 However I'm unsure how they could exist in the absence of other sentient beings, perhaps they do not? Property rights only exist in a society that is able to understand and respect them. If you are on a lonely island all alone, the birds and bees don't care about your property rights.
RichardY Posted October 3, 2016 Author Posted October 3, 2016 Property rights only exist in a society that is able to understand and respect them. If you are on a lonely island all alone, the birds and bees don't care about your property rights. Of course, the only way that the wildlife might "care" about Property Rights would be through scent (marking of territory). Though perhaps dogs also have some implicit understanding of Property Rights as well. Though if a person was to wake up tomorrow in a world where they were the only one alive, could Property Rights exist as an Ideal in their mind(a memory of what was and might be again), or would it be something more indirect that they were Idolising/Idealising(?). Could a concept be both an Ideal as well as a concept?
DCLugi Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 My understanding is that property rights don't exist. They are simply an accurate concept. 7x3=21 doesn't exist whether people are around or not but it's still true.
RichardY Posted October 3, 2016 Author Posted October 3, 2016 What do you mean by "generally accepted"? Patents are strictly fictitious. If you have an idea or a process, you own that. However, the moment you release it, it is no longer yours. If I'm not mistaken, this is the fundamental pitfall in the idea of intellectual property. Which is why I said "often to" before patents, which I agree are not Property Rights. Was interested if anyone might say that patents come under property rights. What do you mean by "demand"? Taco Bell doesn't demand that I pay X for Y. They inform me that X is what they charge for Y. I am free to oblige, negotiate for a different price, or refuse. The reference was to "The Merchant of Venice" I was interested in exploring the difference between Property of Body and Property of Possession. I started to get particularly lost here. Why do you ask? Ideal compared to what? Ethics/morality is predicated on property rights, not the other way around. Ideal, interested to see if it is equivalent to a preference or something more. "Ethics/morality is predicated on property rights" Which is why I said "same as".
RichardY Posted October 3, 2016 Author Posted October 3, 2016 My understanding is that property rights don't exist. They are simply an accurate concept. 7x3=21 doesn't exist whether people are around or not but it's still true. Does "True" exist? Is it just a persons interpretation?
dsayers Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Property rights only exist in a society that is able to understand and respect them. If you are on a lonely island all alone, the birds and bees don't care about your property rights. A person rejecting the validity of 2+2=4 has no bearing on its truth value. The fact that if you understand your actions, you are responsible for them doesn't require acknowledgement from others. Citing things that lack the capacity for reason and therefore the capability to acknowledge wouldn't support your claim even if it were true. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Does "True" exist? Is it just a persons interpretation? You might want to define your terms. You continue to ask about exists and concepts, but it's unclear if we have the same understanding of what these terms mean. To me, exists means is comprised of matter and energy. So while "true" doesn't exist, this doesn't mean it is an invalid concept. Whether or not it's subjective or objective is dependent on what it is referring to. If "I care about X" is true, true would be subjective because what it is describing isn't objectively verifiable. Meanwhile, if "I demonstrated that I care about X by contributing to it by way of Y and Z" is true, true would be objective because my having done Y and Z are objectively verifiable.
rosencrantz Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 A person rejecting the validity of 2+2=4 has no bearing on its truth value. 2 + 2 = 4 has no empirical truth value. Addition, like any other mathematical operation is constructed using axioms of set theory. The fact that if you understand your actions, you are responsible for them doesn't require acknowledgement from others. Citing things that lack the capacity for reason and therefore the capability to acknowledge wouldn't support your claim even if it were true. In nature and in most human societies, might is right. Responsibility (and guilt) is a Western concept (guilt) that can only be found there, because of natural and societal selection for those values / concepts. Almost any other society is based on shame. Stealing is ok, unless you get caught, then you lose face. How did you arrive at this conclusion? From two sides. I had a look at the evolutionary development of morality reading up on hbd and game theory. Since the West praises individualism and outgroop orientation any group that lives in the west and that is based on ingroup cohesion or two moralities (one for your group another one for everybody else) can game the system. Given enough numbers they can overtake Western societies at ease, unless we realize that and stop it. You can arrive at the same conclusion having a look on how the definitions of moral concepts like virtue changed after the Judeo-Christian corruption of Europe. It turned from a life affirming position (virtue = being manly) into a cuckfest that stresses internal progress and enables resentment against functional powerful people.
dsayers Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 2 + 2 = 4 has no empirical truth value. If this claim is true, then you're talking well over my head. I wouldn't mind learning more about what you mean by this. However, "2+2=4" was meant to be an example rather than exhaustively representative. So to the side of this challenge and whatever interesting tangent it produces, I'd like to rephrase my claim: A person's belief has no impact on the truth value of an objective claim. Stealing is ok, unless you get caught, then you lose face. Meaning it's not okay In nature and in most human societies, might is right. Responsibility (and guilt) is a Western concept I'm assuming that by "in nature," you're referring to non-humans. In other words, species who lack the capacity for reason, so we can discard that. Saying "most human societies" has no impact on logic, reason, and evidence. Most human societies didn't have iPhone 7s. Does this disprove that the iPhone 7 is said to be water-resistant? Saying responsibility is a Western concept is not important. Where an idea originated has no bearing on its validity. All of this seems like obfuscation. Let's peel away the obfuscation and look at what we can arrive at right now, using our own brains, even if we had never read anything ever before. I'll use stealing since that is the example you put forth. The very act of trying to take an object tells us that the person doing the taking accepts property rights. They're using their labor to deny somebody else the use of their labor. They are telling you with their very actions that might is wrong. So even if the requisite you claimed of being accepted by others was a valid way of determining what is true (which it isn't), you would have to reject that property rights are only valid where they are accepted as such. Because they are universally accepted as such. Maybe the ability to put that into words and appreciate that the effects of accepting this consciously leads to a more peaceful world came from the West. But that would do nothing to substantiate your claim. I look forward to your reply. Thank you for the engaging conversation.
RichardY Posted October 5, 2016 Author Posted October 5, 2016 2 + 2 = 4 has no empirical truth value. Addition, like any other mathematical operation is constructed using axioms of set theory. So neither True nor False? For something to be "True" would it be accurate to say it is a reference by a person to some empirical aspect of reality, mass. When the word "False" is used does that imply non-existence? Does the process of "Truth" contain an aesthetic component, which is derived from Ethics and a Will to Power? In nature and in most human societies, might is right. Responsibility (and guilt) is a Western concept (guilt) that can only be found there, because of natural and societal selection for those values / concepts. Almost any other society is based on shame. Stealing is ok, unless you get caught, then you lose face. Ethics being a development of the Will to Power. Would it be fair to say though that purely focusing on might obliterates any reason. From two sides. I had a look at the evolutionary development of morality reading up on hbd and game theory. Since the West praises individualism and outgroop orientation any group that lives in the west and that is based on ingroup cohesion or two moralities (one for your group another one for everybody else) can game the system. Given enough numbers they can overtake Western societies at ease, unless we realize that and stop it. I agree. Maybe there are groups in existence that have a geographical and demographic overview of the situation. You can arrive at the same conclusion having a look on how the definitions of moral concepts like virtue changed after the Judeo-Christian corruption of Europe. It turned from a life affirming position (virtue = being manly) into a cuckfest that stresses internal progress and enables resentment against functional powerful people. I guess how power is perceived is important, a completely unethical person to me is not powerful nor a person, but an animal. Though, where Ethics is impossible to apply, strategy reigns supreme and maybe the only thing to look at are the aesthetic and virtue ethics of a person.
David Ottinger Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 Property rights are an abstraction pertaining to possession. Possession is observable. Possession is the assertion of a claim.
st434u Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 Going from the basis of self-ownership as an affirmation of Property Rights, I agree that Property Rights presently exist as a concept. However I'm unsure how they could exist in the absence of other sentient beings, perhaps they do not? Of course they do not. Property rights are essentially a moral consensus/agreement to respect other's properties as they respect your own. They help us function better in society and live better lives. However, most people today are very confused about what types of property rights should exist or would be ideal. It's important to show them how things could be a lot better by just improving and simplifying this system.
HasMat Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 Possession has at least 2 ways. 1 is physical enclosure, the other is spatial occupation. This is what happens during coitus, and both can claim to own a portion of the other. Land as property isn't as bad as IP, but it has flaws. Self as property is good. I don't think property rights for land is a slam dunk. You can't enclose it by your self, but you can occupy a portion of it.
st434u Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 Land as property isn't as bad as IP, but it has flaws. Self as property is good. I don't think property rights for land is a slam dunk. You can't enclose it by your self, but you can occupy a portion of it. Without land property, 99.99% of humanity would die. I'm pretty sure that's a slam dunk for land property rights.
RichardY Posted October 11, 2016 Author Posted October 11, 2016 Land Property Rights, I think there are present laws that make land ownership less of an incentive in various places, perhaps because of homesteading not being recognised. A few opinions.... United Kingdom, the general feeling that I get from living there is that it can be a pain to get planning permission from the local council for new builds unless you know people on the council. Housing is expensive for anything "reasonably sized" unless you're in the North where the councils own former run down industrial terraces that were abandoned, lack of well paying work high welfare dependency and associated crime. Living in the East Midlands house prices are probably in the "middle", being within commuting distance of London. Would love to get planning permission for housing on a small parcel of owned land (be like the game monopoly), but not holding my breath on it and not too keen on the UK. Have been stories on the news of one guy hiding his house behind bales of straw to build(trying to avoid objections from council). Another one was gypsies building on land that was later bulldozed (Dale Farm) probably because it would piss off developers and homeowners.(setting a precedent in recent memory) Canada, only seen some of Alberta and BC, but from what I've seen and heard rural property and as such is not expensive, what is expensive is hook up to a state monopolised grid, plus you can't log or diary farm commercially without a quota. As a result a lot of people who live there seem to be religious sects or retirees living in formerly larger villages. Further north though I guess you have coal and minerals exported to China Norway, seems to be a lot of forest that is used for absolutely nothing, not even chopped down for firewood. Lot of land is owned by German tourists that fish in the North in the summer months. So much land that could be grazed by sheep or trees hacked down to give better views the fjords or provide heat. Spain/Portugal, seem to have some of the best land in Europe. Ok so they have to go down thousands of feet in some cases to get water, I'm sure there are methods of piping it in or conserving it. Seems crazy how some of the land is effectively abandoned or not used, I mean they've got a warmer climate to grow seemingly anything, but a lot of the locals would seem to prefer to live in apartments in cities. Especially in eastern Spain.
dsayers Posted October 12, 2016 Posted October 12, 2016 A large enough land property claim that has legal power over the territory is a defacto state. In this way, the formation and justification for states can be reproduced within an anarcho-capitalist framework of property rights. This first sentence is circular. "Legal" just means the State claims that it will not initiate the use of force against you for engaging in it. It requires a State, but you're using it as a precursor for a State. You wouldn't say you have "legal power" over your body. You own it, so of course you get to dispose of it as you see fit. Your ownership of your body is not binding upon others. So saying that property rights being valid justifies the State, there's not only no connection, but they're a contradiction in ideas. 1
Recommended Posts