A nation only has claim to land taken on moral grounds to the extent that it remains moral

[richardbaxter]

A nation only has claim to land taken on moral grounds to the extent that it remains moral -

This principle appears to limit the evolution of a society (and explains modern policy).

[Donnadogsoth]

Yeah yeah, where do you want us to go, richard?

[Tyler H]

Nations don’t exist. How can something that doesn’t exist claim ownership?

[M.2]

Nation states are only abstract entities. Monarchy is the only potentially legitimate form of government, because it is based on private property.

[richardbaxter]

When moral compromise subsists, it is not a question of where we want to go, and more a question of where other people will take us.

[Jsbrads]

Nothing moral in monarchy, because you are property too #slavery

As to moral grounds, Bill Whittle said of Arizona land, to whom should we return it? The Sioux conquered the Pueblo, the Pueblo conquered Clover Man, there are no survivors of Clover Man.

So should the land prefer the most genocidal conqueror over the least genocidal conqueror? 

[M.2]

2 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Nothing moral in monarchy, because you are property too #slavery

As to moral grounds, Bill Whittle said of Arizona land, to whom should we return it? The Sioux conquered the Pueblo, the Pueblo conquered Clover Man, there are no survivors of Clover Man.

So should the land prefer the most genocidal conqueror over the least genocidal conqueror? 

Are you really willing to do this with me? Would you risk the possibility of finding out that you just made a stupid claim without know anything about monarchy?
https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49464-debating-monarchy/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-453810

 

[RichardY]

Transcendental Morality. (Christianity) Internalisation of Evil. If you judge others as Evil, you yourself must know what Evil is, and to that extent YOU! are Evil. Consciousness of Evil & Unconsciousness of Evil.

Absolute Morality. (Islam or Roman Empire). The Caliph(Head of Religion and State), The Emperor(Head of Religion and State),.Externalisation of evil. "The Great Satan". "The infidel". The Kaffir. The Barbarians. Projection of Evil. Consciousness of Evil.

Moral Relativism. (The State) What the tribe considers moral perhaps? Dependent on in group preference. Unconscious of Evil.

 

Amorality. (Buddhism) The elimination of all illusory assumptions or Maya? Also the elimination of the self as a concept.      

UPB": Which I don't consider an explanation of morality, rather amorality,  and an affirmation of the self, through "self ownership". Though I think that imho it is the best explanation of Ethics, I have seen so far. With the words "moral" and "ethics", a distinction was not drawn from what I remember. I also remember Stefan saying "parents take on a moral obligation in having children". But what if they are deformed or disabled: or are missing, or with additional chromosomes, are they even human? or have a phenotype differing significantly from the parent in terms of personality and intelligence, if not apperance. Recessive genes, being expressed in competition to dominant ones. Amorality in it's final form, Pure Consciousness.              

 

A Nation only has claim to land to the extent it remains morally relativist. (In group preference, perhaps aided by the spread of the Y chromosome)

An Empire in contrast to the extent it remains morally absolute.

An Individual, to the extent they follow transcendental morality.

A Spiritual Nihlist. Amorality, No claim to anything.

 

What if morality develops out of in group preference, the source of morality, being moral relativism? Any species that excessively preys on itself will go extinct. Talking chimpanzee morality here, which to us would seem like amorality, but is in fact an unconscious calculation of morality, (moral relativism).

[Fashus Maximus]

On 1/27/2018 at 8:07 PM, Tyler H said:

Nations don’t exist. 

 If everyone would bother to at least google what they're about to say lol

[barn]

Huh..

Definitely has a connotation to collectivism.

[lorry]

.

[barn]

10 hours ago, lorry said:

.

Noooh... You didn't!

A pixel sized SQUARED CIRCLE!!!

[Jsbrads]

Mishi, if you have an argument make it.

[M.2]

6 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Mishi, if you have an argument make it.

Very well. Everyhing that looks even REMOTELY NICE in the world was built under not only monarchy, but absolute monarchy. As we know, architecture is the expression of the soul of a country.

[Tyler H]

On 1/29/2018 at 4:49 PM, Fashus Maximus said:

 If everyone would bother to at least google what they're about to say lol

Oh, my bad. No need for philosophy everyone, shut it down. Wikipedia’s got us covered. 

 

A nation is is an abstract concept, not something that actually exists and therefore doesn’t even have the most basic prerequisite for laying claim to anything. 

[Jsbrads]

Architecture is crap. Cathedrals were the greatest sink of wealthy, impoverished the poor, contributed to the death of millions, babies were buried in the foundations of all the “great” public works of yesteryear (figuratively if not literally). 

[Fashus Maximus]

6 hours ago, Tyler H said:

A nation is is an abstract concept, not something that actually exists and therefore doesn’t even have the most basic prerequisite for laying claim to anything. 

Voluntary associations are as equally abstract as nations. Its members can mutually agree to treat the association as an entity, and its collective actions as the actions of the entity. If this association were to discover land and erect defensible borders around it, its members would - according to their agreement - either have to respect the association's ownership of that land (and terms of use), or else it is theft.

So your assumption - that abstraction disqualifies from laying claim - is not only disproven by counter-example, but that counter-example is the founding story of many nations. So here, you even have the exact way in which a nation can claim land.

 

[Tyler H]

16 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Voluntary associations are as equally abstract as nations. Its members can mutually agree to treat the association as an entity, and its collective actions as the actions of the entity. If this association were to discover land and erect defensible borders around it, its members would - according to their agreement - either have to respect the association's ownership of that land (and terms of use), or else it is theft.

But the abstract entity created by the individuals has absolutely no ability claim ownership nor exercise that ownership without the direction of the individuals by whom it was created. Corporations, nations, governments, they do nothing, they do not exist in reality. The individuals in control of the abstractions do. The individuals alone exercise and transfer ownership based upon the agreed upon rules, not the abstraction. 

17 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

So your assumption - that abstraction disqualifies from laying claim - is not only disproven by counter-example, but that counter-example is the founding story of many nations. So here, you even have the exact way in which a nation can claim land.

It’s not an assumption. It’s an argument based on the definition of property and existence. You haven’t disproven the position because in order to do that you would need to point out to me this thing called a nation which makes use of property without human interaction. 

Even if we were to disregard all of that, the nation is still formed on the violation of property and could not claim property justly based on that alone. 

[Fashus Maximus]

10 hours ago, Tyler H said:

But the abstract entity created by the individuals has absolutely no ability claim ownership nor exercise that ownership without the direction of the individuals by whom it was created.

Good so you've acknowledged your standard of proof: Direction by the founders is required for the ability to claim and exercise ownership.

So by your own admission, a nation with a direction by the founders can therefore claim and exercise ownership. Glad we agree.

10 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Even if we were to disregard all of that, the nation is still formed on the violation of property and could not claim property justly based on that alone. 

The definition of a nation makes no claim as to how it was formed. It can be voluntary.

[Tyler H]

17 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Glad we agree.

Uh, no. The nation is a title, the individuals claim and exercise ownership.  You conveniently disregarded addressing the point that a nation doesn't exist, and therefore can't own anything.  

 

18 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

The definition of a nation makes no claim as to how it was formed. It can be voluntary.

I'll concede that point. However, it would be the exception not the rule.

[RichardY]

8 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Uh, no. The nation is a title, the individuals claim and exercise ownership.  You conveniently disregarded addressing the point that a nation doesn't exist, and therefore can't own anything.

Bestowed by whom?

[Fashus Maximus]

53 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Uh, no. The nation is a title, the individuals claim and exercise ownership.

a) You cannot have a requirement for that which is impossible or non-existent, as it is self-contradictory by definition: It is either not a requirement or not impossible, but not both.

b) Your own concession: direction by the founders is a requirement for a nation to claim and exercise ownership.

c) Therefore, there is a requirement for nationhood, and thus, a nation can exist and can claim and exercise ownership. (Proof 1)

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

You conveniently disregarded addressing the point that a nation doesn't exist, and therefore can't own anything.

I did not disregard this out of convenience, but because I thought my prior argument was self-explanatory.

So, you already have 1 proof of a nation existing. I'll even give you a 2nd proof just because I enjoy intellectual mas***tion.

a) That which does not exist cannot be formed.

b) To quote yourself: "the nation is still formed on the violation of property".

c) Therefore, the nation can be formed, and thus, can exist and claim and exercise ownership. (Proof 2)

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

it would be the exception not the rule.

a) The method of nation formation is irrelevant to the fact that the nation was formed.

b) Formation proves existence, as per Proof 2.

c) Therefore, 100% of formed nations exist, and thus, can claim ownership. (Proof 3)

[Tyler H]

 

54 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

a) You cannot have a requirement for that which is impossible or non-existent, as it is self-contradictory by definition: It is either not a requirement or not impossible, but not both.

Who said anything about impossibility?

I'm talking about things that exist in reality, things that occupy physical space.  Numbers, the scientific method, mathematical equations; all these abstract concepts have requirements, yet do not exist in material space.

 

56 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

b) Your own concession: direction by the founders is a requirement for a nation to claim and exercise ownership.

Supports my position, not yours.  Remove the individual actors and the abstract concept has no ability to claim or exercise ownership, because it does not exist, proving the individual actors are ones exercising their ownership.

[Fashus Maximus]

33 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Numbers, the scientific method, mathematical equations; all these abstract concepts have requirements, yet do not exist in material space.

a) By definition, it is impossible to require that which is impossible. Thus, an impossible requirement cannot exist.

b1) The above concepts lack any inherent property that can satisfy any requirement pertaining to themselves.

c1) Therefore, the concepts you've listed above cannot have requirements.

On the flip side:

b2) Your own concession: direction by the founders satisfies the requirement for a nation to claim and exercise ownership

c2) Therefore, a nation can have a requirement, and thus, can exist regardless of whether it occupies physical space (Proof 4)

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

Remove the individual actors and the abstract concept has no ability to claim or exercise ownership, because it does not exist, proving the individual actors are ones exercising their ownership.

If you remove the property that satisfies any requirement, the requirement will not be satisfied. (Shockingly enough)

a) Nations are defined as a community of its individual actors.

b) It is impossible to remove its individual actors because then it is no longer a nation.

c) Therefore, a nation is at all times capable of claiming ownership. (Proof 5)

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

Supports my position, not yours.

See Proof 5

[Fashus Maximus]

also @Tyler H Proof 2 and 3 remains unchallenged

[Tyler H]

What is your definition of existence? 

[Fashus Maximus]

4 hours ago, Tyler H said:

What is your definition of existence? 

I am using your own definition. This is why I intentionally used your own claims to build the syllogisms. I was illustrating that your logical framework is extremely self contradictory.

For e.g., Nations do not exist yet can be formed? How is it possible for that which cannot exist to come into existence? Even after the requirement for ownership is met, you still claim that a Nation cannot exist? How can existence be necessary for ownership when the requirement for ownership is met and you still claim that a Nation doesn't exist? How can there be a Nation without its individual actors? How can you have a requirement for that which cannot occur?

You get the idea. What I recommend at this point is this: how about I just lay out my theory as to why a Nation exists and perhaps you can attack that?

[Tyler H]

Ok, what is your understanding of my definition?

[Fashus Maximus]

I only know the properties of existence that you've claimed in the context of nationhood, such as: it can be formed, requires direction / individual actors, while also initially claiming the occupation of physical space.

Your third property of existence fundamentally conflicts with the first 2, because a nation has the initial 2 properties, but not the third. In essence, it implies that a nation exists and does not exist at the same time. It also implies that a group of people can occupy physical space, as opposed to the people themselves which is impossible.

So, that leaves 2 options: either we agree to give up the first 2 properties, or the third. 

I say we give up the third and here's why: the first property is self-containing (only that which can exist can be brought into existence), so it is true by definition. The 2nd property applies, regardless of whether something occupies physical space (for e.g. a nation requires individual actors just as a computer requires individual parts).

It's just the third property that's both contradictory and without justification.

[Tyler H]

Formation is not a term that only relates to physical, tangible existence. Ideas are formed, conclusions are formed, friendships are formed- all abstract concepts. Second, I don’t know where you are getting that I said something that exists requires individual actors or requires direction, a rock has neither of those properties. Defining existence as material (and I would add the space between) is only contradictory if you include the first two statements, which I wouldn’t.

I know a nation has the first two properties, and not the third. Kind of the point.

Forget the semantics. There is a difference between that which is material and that which is conceptual. That’s the distinction I’m pointing out. 

[SteveSmith]

On 2/16/2018 at 4:41 AM, Tyler H said:

Formation is not a term that only relates to physical, tangible existence. Ideas are formed, conclusions are formed, friendships are formed- all abstract concepts. Second, I don’t know where you are getting that I said something that exists requires individual actors or requires direction, a rock has neither of those properties. Defining existence as material (and I would add the space between) is only contradictory if you include the first two statements, which I wouldn’t.

I know a nation has the first two properties, and not the third. Kind of the point.

Forget the semantics. There is a difference between that which is material and that which is conceptual. That’s the distinction I’m pointing out. 

Hi guys, I'm new here and I've recently started researching philosophy and of course, Stefan got me interested in it!

 

Now, I'm not that much into politics, more into economy, but I couldn't help but notice that to me this doesn't make a lot of sense. I believe that saying that a nation doesn't exist is akin to saying that family doesn't exist, right?

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong!

[EGreg]

On 2/1/2018 at 12:36 PM, Tyler H said:

But the abstract entity created by the individuals has absolutely no ability claim ownership nor exercise that ownership without the direction of the individuals by whom it was created. Corporations, nations, governments, they do nothing, they do not exist in reality. The individuals in control of the abstractions do. The individuals alone exercise and transfer ownership based upon the agreed upon rules, not the abstraction. 

It’s not an assumption. It’s an argument based on the definition of property and existence. You haven’t disproven the position because in order to do that you would need to point out to me this thing called a nation which makes use of property without human interaction. 

Even if we were to disregard all of that, the nation is still formed on the violation of property and could not claim property justly based on that alone. 

I disagree with this argument. You haven't even defined the words "property" and "existence".

So after you've defined them, I will ask you the following:

Which individual owns you bank account?
With which individual at the bank do you interact when you visit the bank's website and send money?
With which individual at the bank do you contract when they store your money?
With which individual at Apple do you contract when you buy an iPhone? Who currently owns the billions of dollars Apple is sitting on?
Please answer from your own perspective.

[Fashus Maximus]

On 2/15/2018 at 2:41 PM, Tyler H said:

Forget the semantics. There is a difference between that which is material and that which is conceptual. That’s the distinction I’m pointing out. 

Your argument is that a collective cannot claim ownership since it doesn't occupy physical space. I'm saying that even a concept can claim ownership.

Any founding member could simply take his or her portion of assets from the collective and leave without consequence, if it is rightfully his. In reality, doing so is embezzlement, and the other members of the collective would enforce the collective's ownership of those assets, even though they themselves have no claim to the embezzled assets either. So who's property rights will they be enforcing? The collective's.

[barn]

6 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

Hi guys, I'm new here and I've recently started researching philosophy and of course, Stefan got me interested in it!

Hi there,

A Warm Welcome! 

6 hours ago, SteveSmith said:

I believe that saying that a nation doesn't exist is akin to saying that family doesn't exist, right?

Similar, perhaps. Very similar.

A flock of bird doesn't exist neither, doesn't mean you can't see flocks of birds flying together.

Numbers don't exist neither (in the same as a binocular does) but that doesn't mean their concept isn't useful when you want to compare sizes of bird groupings flying together.

Government doesn't exist neither, though there are buildings claimed to be owned by it, laws created by the people who believe it's real... and so on.

[SteveSmith]

6 hours ago, barn said:

Hi there,

A Warm Welcome! 

Similar, perhaps. Very similar.

A flock of bird doesn't exist neither, doesn't mean you can't see flocks of birds flying together.

Numbers don't exist neither (in the same as a binocular does) but that doesn't mean their concept isn't useful when you want to compare sizes of bird groupings flying together.

Government doesn't exist neither, though there are buildings claimed to be owned by it, laws created by the people who believe it's real... and so on.

Hey guy!

 

Well, it would seem to me that we have a different definition of existence then. I'm not sure how useful yours is because based on your definition, almost nothing exists. Neither families, nor companies. How useful do you think such a definition is?

 

And if a flock of birds doesn't exist, why do we see them? Also, could you tell me what does exist in your opinion?