I thought about that after I posted. Where does virtue and excellence in ones own doing fit into an ethical framework? It may, but that is beside the point of what filc mentioned about placing tools outside of the rain, etc… Point well taken. I believe I was wrong on the definition of ethics by limiting it too narrowly.
Are the exceptions involuntarily actions, ie. breathing, heartbeat, etc…? Which differs from human action which all of such is a value judgment correct?
Precisely!
It depends on your understanding of the terms “ownership” and “property”.
How can that be? You no longer physically posses it directly, no longer even in the abstract sense. It is directly possessed by another individual, so according to your own definition:
I don’t see how you can claim possession anymore.
I don’t see how this applies to “ownership” by your definition.
I don’t understand how this applies to our discussion.
Well at the very least he is exhibiting possession or control over a scarce object, over time, to satisfy his end. What you decide to call it in the end is irrelevant. You can choose to ignore the word property, you can pretend it doesn’t exist, but you can never escape the praxeological nature of man, or the praxeological nature of yourself.
The truth is you, yourself, have ends that need to be met. To get to those ends you must employ scarce goods to do so. The toddler realizes this as well. Sorry these truths are so disturbing for you.
Because one of the tenants of property is human action, the occupation or employment of the object. The physical activity, the possession there in.
Nothing.
Is the definition of a unicorn meaningless?
Not necessarily.
Hey man, I don’t judge your goals.
No, I don’t see that. I’m not making a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of holding concepts.
I dunno, I haven’t really thought about it.
That’s how your brain interprets its perceived phenomena, I suppose.
I’m sorry, I’m incapable of perceiving “true” reality (if there is such a thing), so I’d have to abstain from making a judgment here.
I’m just trying to challenge my held opinions and beliefs, in an attempt to annihilate them.
Because I said in a previous post, too, that I can possess a rake if it is in my shed (which means I don’t physically possess it, I don’t physically have it in my hands - it’s in the shed). So even if another person has the rake I still possess it just like I possess the rake if it is in the shed and out of my physical hands. The other person now possesses the rake in their hands. We both possess the rake at this point. I possess it because it is in their hands which is the same as saying I possess it cause it is in the shed. In both instances I don’t physically possess the rake but I have (possess) a rake. The other person might try to stop me from getting the rake back but that would be an ethical issue.
When I take it back, I control/own the rake. Consider this the last post, not that it hasn’t been fun, but your not keeping up with all the definitions that you’ve asked of me and that I’ve posted already. So if you really wanted to know all these definitions to learn them you would know I already stated own=control; and it’s easy to understand that take back incorporates control. It is a goal of mine to walk to the rake that is in the hands of another person and take it back. The goal of walking to the rake is praxeological as I use the means of my property (body) to get from here to there, etc…
Semantics is not an intellectual argument. Of course it’s good to learn the definitions of others but beyond moderation of such a use it becomes unnecessarily sacrificial of what is intellectually stimulating especially when semantic expeditions become repetitive. Nothing against you. My time is prioritized and when something gets too repetitive it takes away from the time I could be using to learn something new. It’s not cost effective. Plus I like unique experiences full of new splashy, colorful insights, not that you don’t offer that but the discussion has dried up and I could simply start linking you back to previous posts we had already agreed upon when it had to these definitions. Time to refresh the old hum-drum.[:)]
Because the previous responses were this:
me does matter. Jackson does matter. filc does matter. When it comes to who is taking the action, to name who it is provides the point of reference as to who is taking the action. The rake was taken from me. I go take the rake back. Why did I take the rake back? Because it is my rake. I have a rake it simply was in the hands of another person, as simple as a rake not physically in my possession in the shed is my rake too. It doesn’t need to be physically possessed to be my rake. I identify with the rake as being mine. I own it. I have it. It is in the shed or in the hands of another person.
if the other person identifies the rake as being theirs as they own it too for they wielded and possessed it for a given amount of time, but to ask who’s rake it properly, even if it means they want to fight over it, that would be an ethical question that they either reason about or fight about (both are ethical stances) which is a whole other topic of discussion that I have consistently refrained from addressing unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Have a good day! Lots of snow falling here so got some wood cuttin’, snow shovelin’, and good reading to do today, I think I’ll be reading some Mises and Rothbard today. Have fun.
Again, I would argue that it is still in your possession, since you have restrained it in your shed. You did not just leave it in the street, or across state lines.
So two individuals can possess the rake simultaneously? Another acting individual physically possessing a rake is equivalent to putting it in a shed?
I don’t see how this makes any sense. Is the rake non-rival?
I don’t understand how this works using your chosen definition of the word own, or possess.
Why is this so obvious? To me the phrase “take back” implies that you have lost control of said object at some point.
Control:
1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.
2. To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.
3. To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper.
4. To reduce or prevent the spread of: control insects; controlled the fire by dousing it with water
“Taking it back” is an ethical action. Even though you lost physical control of it, you believe you still have a right to regain control of the object.
Your argument is terrible. First, let’s look at these agreed upon definitons:
OK, sounds reasonable, so now where are you pulling this garbage from?
You seem to be directly contradicting yourself here. And then it gets even more egregious:
This makes absolutely no sense outside of an ethical framework, based on your own definition of terms. How can the same rake be two places at once?
This is an ethical statement of the highest order.
Why is it still yours?
According to your own definition of “own”, it does.
That seems completely arbitrary without some ethical reasoning.
Not by your definition, you don’t.
Again, I don’t see how these two equate. Is the shed an acting entity?
Good Luck.
Since we are going in circles, and we are pretty much OT I wanted to start a new thread. A question specifically raised to Jackson.
The post is here