Yeah, but simply because it covets what you took. I find it hard to believe that the baby thinks “hey, this jerk just violated my rightful claim to this thing”. There is a difference.
I’m pretty sure I said “Exhibits primitive signs of knowing”. Go back and re-read what I said.
The only thing that stops “the average Joe” from becoming a billionaire today is just plain stupidity and lack of virtue and welfare nanny state does not help by encouraging such traits.
?
Even so, you seem to be interpreting behavior based on your biases. I’d like to see some scientific evidence, otherwise this is strictly hearsay.
You need to be virtuous in order to be a true businessman.
Define virtuous, and why?
It’s not hearsay. It’s not a rumor I’ve heard of. It’s easily visible, have you not seen what happens when you take candy from a child?
The concepts of property exists between occupatin and time. The occupation is the use of the object from a person or persons, the time is the time spent using it. Human’s do not homestead property permenantly, it is eventually passed through the ages amongst many hands. Children however exhibit shorter time preferences, thats why they show such behavior. But the actions they take show specifically rational actions one would take with a primitiev concept of property in mind, whether they realize thats what it is or not.
Shoot I witnessed this today after skiing by the lodge. A kid was bringing snow next to a community fire pit. He went through the effort of going to the snow, making several snow balls and bringing it back. Once he arrived several other children took his snow without asking. He became upset, especially since he was the only one who put forth the effort. I remember him specifically stating “Why don’t you people get your own snow”. Such a statement implies ownership. He was was the only one who did not get to enjoy the fruits of his labor. I think that child has a pretty good idea of it.
At any rate arbitrary scientific studies will be no more or no less revealing or conclusive than the anecdotal evidence I have provided for you. There is no need for you to be irrationalyl stubborn. Or are you just playing devils advocate. You actually have to argue that children don’t get upset when thigns are taken from them. I don’t think any scientific evidence is necessary there.
This kid has already been socially conditioned to have a concept of property. That’s like me saying Asians are naturally collectivist, due to the large number of communist regimes.
Yeah, they want it back, it could be my candy, if they want it, they want it. I don’t understand the leap you are taking to call this a concept of ownership.
Are you a flat-earther?
LOL. No, there sure isn’t.
Is it that hard to believe that there might be people who derive a different interpretation of the behavior of children?
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that children getting mad when you take stuff from them has nothing to do with violating the child’s sense of property, or ownership. The kid wanted it, now they don’t have it. Simple as that.
Virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps his values. - Ayn Rand
Are you implying that a toddler has been socially conditioned to cry when what was previously in his occupation, the pacifier, no longer is the case? Are you suggesting that when the todder cries after the pacifier is removed, he is doing so not because of the loss of the pacifier but because it was taught to cry at that point? That the child was trained to cry at the exact moment that the pacifier was removed? Or can we safely assume that the toddler simply wants the the pacifier back. The toddler seeks to occupy the use of that pacifier over a certain duration of time. The very principles which define property.
This is very non-sequitur. Exhibiting signs of the concept of property has nothing to do with one’s economic or political affiliation. Even communists, collectivists, and the like understand and operate under a concept of property. Though it may not be private. But if such was the case then we would have to assume, by your statement, that Asian toddlers do not cry when a pacifier is taken from them. I doubt that is the case.
Why do you retort with such a ridiculous statement?
I’m shocked that you do not comprehend the link you just demonstrated. Thanks.
I’m not sure I know what a flat earther is. Though I am almost positively sure you mis-understood what I was saying. Please review the following lecture.
My statements to you are not hypothetical.
You laugh ir-respectfully, and continue.
In what other way would you interpret such behavior? The conditions of occupation and time are conditions of property. Can you explain a different interpretation to me without it being a semantical game on the description of property?
Which is the fundamental point of property. To ascertain who has what, at what point in time.Your statement above seems to agree with me that children exhibit a primitive understanding of property. That is the occupation of scarce objects over scarce time.
Please excuse my grammer on the earlier post. It was done in haste.
Please read what you wrote, and what I responded to.
You are egregiously misunderstanding what I’ve stated.
What is the link?
I just wasn’t sure if you rely on arbitrary scientific reports to conclude th Earth is round, or not.
Yeah, If I own the pacifier, and I lend it to a baby for an hour, and then take it away, the baby will still be pissed. I think that is pretty good evidence that the baby could really give a crap whether or not it “owned” the pacifier, it still wants it.
Then the concept of property is completely meaningless, if at any instant, the possessor of an object would be considered it’s owner, until possession is transferred.
Than as your boy Hoppe states in like the first 2 mins. of that video, you assume your deductions are perfect, that is, your ability to perceive and comprehend “reality” is perfect, implying you view yourself as close enough to omniscience to make absolute statements. Sorry, I don’t buy that.
And with this kind of hyper-elitist attitude (which isn’t justifiable in either case), it’s no wonder why so many people don’t like libertarianism. The poor are poor because they’re stupid and lazy and the rich are rich because they’re smart and productive? Can you say “oversimplification”? I can think of tons of reasons other than this simple formula for what may function as a barrier to people getting wealthier, such as scarcity itself and barriers to entry. I can also think of plenty of other possible contributing factors to some people’s wealth other than this formula, such as inheritance and political favoritism.
You’re pretty much dropping the systematic context in which people live from the picture. It’s certainly not necessarily something innate, given the fact that people are born into circumstances beyond their control and function within the context of political and economic systems that skew the playing field. One would hope that libertarians would be more focused on demonstrating the degree to which state intervention destroys wealth rather than vulgarly proclaiming the multitude to be stupid and immoral while exalting whoever happens to be rich and powerful as the ubermensche manifested.
There’s a burned down carcass of a plane in Austin, TX that says otherwise.
So you want me to provide you a study with 1000 examples of babies crying when a pacifier is taken from them? Are you seriously being this stubborn? Are you being this stubborn because you like to argue and prefer to be right? That you cannot humbly consider what I am saying? Or are you just being stubborn for the fun of it?
What does that have to do with anything? You still observe this outcome through your bias. It is stricly presumption that this phenomena has anything to do with property rights.
I’m sorry, I just don’t see the correlation between a concept of property rights, and a baby’s covetous nature.
I do like to argue, but that is besides the point. I just don’t see how the correlation is so obvious.
Hey man, you picked the fight, not me. I did consider what you are positing, and I think it makes no sense to leap to the conclusion that a baby has a sense of property, just because it cries when it doesn’t get it’s way.
No, the fun is just a side effect of reading the ridiculous amount of confidence you hold in your drawn conclusions.
Thank you for confirming yet again my thesis.
Irrelevant and besides the point I am making. The question is, why do babies cry when the pacifier is taken from them. You seem to be in left field in responding to almost everything I have stated.
Again your missing the point of the argument entirely, and your still wondering around lost in left field. It’s not about title transfers, ownership transfers, ect…
It’s about the trivial concept, that babies understand yet you do not, that objects are scarce, and time is scarce. That needs can be addressed by employing those scarce objects and placing them into occupation over a scarce set of time. Regardless of who owns the actual object, which is a latter part of the necessity of property, what it shows is that babies are aware of occupation of objects over time. They are aware that they want that pacifier, that there is one, and now that single pacifier is in their mothers hand rather then it’s mouth.
In all of this you seem to have dismissed the word “primitive”. I said babies had a “primitive” understanding. Not a thorough.
That doesn’t refute the fact that babies understands that he wants to employ that scarce object over scarce time.
Ownership is just a latter part to the necessities of property. You seem to be entirely oblivious to all of the points I have presented.
You will quote me where I state that the earth is flat or stop this petty shenanigan at attempting to make me look un-intelligent. The petty attack clearly shows you have no substance to your argument other then restating, ad nauseum, “your wrong”. You have yet to explain why I am wrong, all of your explanations of why babies cry actually supported my thesis.
This forum fosters an environment for intillectual growth and positive debate amongst members. You and others have decided to take things to a petty level which really underminds your intillectual growth, my intillectual growth, and those that are reading. There are others on this forum like Wilderness for example or Esuric, that when wrong continue to debate in a positive manner to better themselves, respect their opponent, and better those around.
You by contrast have demonstrated that you are not concerned with any of that. Your primary concern seems to be being right, and making me wrong, and the satisfaction you get from doing this. All while not really presenting a case. You seem more interested in making this a flame war between you and me, putting words in my mouth with a terrible flat-lander analogy. Which by the way doesn’t even make sense in context here. It’s this more frequent adolescent behavior that really squelch’s my desire to continue and participate.
I am interested in having a positive, respectful, debate with others. If your not then I’ll just assume not respond to your future posts. That may not bug you but my time is too precious for going back and forth over petty matters. I shouldn’t have to spend 10 minutes of my post explaining why I don’t believe the earth is flat, I can’t think of anything more ridiculous and non-relevant. Good day.
Your asking for scientific evidence, a posteriori, Thats what a 1000 baby study would be.
Then state so respectfully instead of dragging me a long a 3 page nonsenseical argument. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and just leaving it at that if you are incapable of explaining why you disagree.
The last several pages of this petty fiasco would state otherwise.
I didn’t pick any fight. I simply made a statement which seemed to bother you. You engaged me saying my statement was far fetched but have yet to explain why.
Thanks.
Your asking for scientific evidence, a posteriori, Thats what a 1000 baby study would be.
Then state so respectfully instead of dragging me a long a 3 page nonsenseical argument. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and just leaving it at that if you are incapable of explaining why you disagree.
The last several pages of this petty fiasco would state otherwise.
I didn’t pick any fight. I simply made a statement which seemed to bother you. You engaged me saying my statement was far fetched but have yet to explain why.
Thanks.