LOL! What? How? This baby has no sense of property right! The pacifier is my property, the baby desires it for strictly egoistic reasons, not because of some innate sense of property!
Then what the hell is your point?
The same reason they cry when they have gas, or want some food. They are pissed.
What does this have to do with property rights?
So, the fact that babies realize that things exist gives them a primitive sense of property rights?
If so, so what? I don’t understand how this has anything to do with property, never mind property rights.
I’ll quote you where you dismiss science:
In favor of anecdotal evidence. I look out on the horizon, the Earth appears flat. Good enough?
Good, then we agree.
[:'(] So if I don’t immediately agree, I am being anti-intellectual?
I’m just trying to understand your position, which you did not explain to my satisfaction. That’s why I kept engaging. If you think I was trying to prove my point, you’re right. Isn’t that the point of debate, to continuously challenge your assumptions against the criticism of others? If you made a point, I would have no problem conceding it. Instead, you call me stubborn, then cry when I still don’t understand where you are coming from. Seems like you just frequent this place for some petty conformation on you existing set of biases. Sorry I didn’t oblige.
Ahem, “I don’t see a correlation with the actions of infants and property rights”. Concise enough for you?
As I stated earlier I don’t need to spend half my day explaining myself multiple times to a blatant overt troll.
Good job at going no where. Now why is he pissed?
Your apparent lack of comprehension seems to have failed you in the fact that I am not talking about “rights” but about the concept of “property”, IE in general. Reading comprehension ftw. Try again
As I have tried to reason. It shows that babies are aware of scarcities, aware of time, and aware that occupation of both satisfy needs. You have yet to offer a discussion but have repeatedly offered assertions. Which reveals your character rather clearly.
Your clearly out looking for a fight.
You dissmiss anything a priori. You appear to dismiss the concept of a priori. I am not against empirical evidience, I just think it’s rather silly in some applications. Like this for example, where nearly all non-stubborn parties would agree that babies cry when a pacifier is taken from them. Indeed you have agreed with me already on several counts. So maybe your the flat-lander?
There are applications for empirical evidence, and places where it’s appropriate. This is not one of them. I have never dismissed this method. I am dissmissing it for this specific context as it’s not needed. And I can prove this as you have already agreed with me. No study necessary.
So I reveal your conflation in it’s fullest glory. Disabuse yourself of your petty attempt to discredit me. Your only putting on a show for yourself.
Well you have yet to back up your assertions that I am wrong. If one goes back and re-reads our threads you will see one side of the argument ovvering explanations and reason. The other side shouting with assertions.
People can be the judge.
Your clearly not interested in my position. Your actions clearly show, in broad daylight, that your concerned with a petty internet argument and you are a troll. If you are interested in my position your tone and responses will change.
Thats because we aren’t talking about rights. I am not talking about property as a whole either. Hence the word “primitive” which you seem to not understand.
You to me. Your aggressive tone and obvious lack of interest in the topic, but more interest in fighting. You have baited and tackled me, I’m sure it makes you feel good inside. However only one person here looks the troll in such situations.
Even if they disagree with me. I have disagreed with many, and many have disagreed with me. And those conversations ran a much more positive and constructive tone then the one you are allowing.
In other words the baby wants to occupay a scarce object over a specific duration of time. These are the fundamental problems property addresses.
So you keep telling me the child is pissed off. You cannot tell me why the child is pissed off. I am telling you it’s because the child was occupying something, the child has a short time preference, and therefore the child felt violated when the object was confunscated. Whether the child is accurate on ownership is besides the point.
I am showing you why/how a cihld exhibits the basic understanding of property. Property as a whole address’s the issues of occupying scarce goods over scarce time.
I even gave you examples of young kids exhibiting signs of fully understanding the concepts of property. You pathetically defender yourself stating that they are “socially engineered”. When I asked you how a child is socially engineered you squirmished and went off on the following rant. You simply cannot live with being incorrect.
Now let me RE-EMPHASIZE statement for you. Since you prefer to order things at the convenience of your argument.
(emphasis added)
I know you have a hard time with comprehension so let me explain something to you. In grammer when nouns are separated by comma’s they are different objects. I did not say “Property Rights”. I said Property AND rights, as in two separate things. Please try, yet again.
My point here was to show how your conflation was in huge error. When directed at you, it becomes obvious how stupid the argument is. Though when you direct it at me you conveniently think it makes sense. It makes no sense however as I have never been against empirical methods of science. I just think there is a time and place for them.
So your silly attempt at discrediting me falls on it’s face. It’s besides the point of our topic and a clear example of you being a troll.
What am I trying to prove? I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply making an argument that I wanted people to engage and consider. You however seem hellbent on a petty internet argument. I can feed you all day, is this what keeps you going?
Also why ask me what I am trying to argue? Do you not know that by now? Was I cryptic in my statements?
You put yourself there.
Let me ask you empiricist, do you think I need to test 1000 babies to see if they will cry after taking a pacifier? You have already agreed at least 3 times and acknowledged the fact that they probably will. So why do I need to do this huge study to prove a consequence we already accept will occur?
You have yet to explain to me how a baby does not acknowledge the occupation of scarce objects over scarce time to satisfy desires. In fact you have talked about everything else BUT that, which is specifically the argument I’ve made several times.
You havn’t challenged me. Just made many assertions, mis characterized my methods and went on a trollish hay day.
If you were interested in the topic you’d be focusing lest time at attacking my character, less time building strawmen which gullible people like me walk into, and more time actually considering what I said.
That is, babies understand the occupation of scarce objects over scarce time to satisfy desires. And that the framework of property, ownership, and rights address those issues. A baby cries because it feels as if something has been taken away from it. It has a very primitive, even incorrect, but vague concept of ownership, property, and rights.
If not the baby would have no reason to cry, and would not be pissed off. You have yet to stop and think critically why the baby cries. Everytime you say “It’s becaose something was taken from it”. But that doesn’t explain why the baby is upset, it explains the action which caused the baby to be upset.
If the baby had no concept of the information I presented above it would have no reason to be upset. I have explained this numerous times. My posts have been long, explained, and I attempted at hitting multiple angles. Your posts have been short, and quick to attack my character, like your obsession with this flat-lander analogy which makes no sense.
Yes and I am sorry I have to be on the same forum with people like you.
OK. But that doesn’t mean the baby realizes that the concept of property addresses these problems. Again, I think you are making a jump in logic here.
Yeah. I think we both agree on that, otherwise it probably wouldn’t be crying.
Because you took the object it wanted away from it.
I with you so far,
This is where I think you are projecting your bias on the feelings of the child. I don’t the kid really feels “violated” when you take something from it, it just knows it doesn’t have the thing it wanted anymore. If the pacifier fell out of it’s mouth and out of it’s reach, it would feel equally pissed. Not because it was “violated” by gravity, just that it simply no longer has the pacifier. Do you see the distinction?
And I’m telling you why I disagree. See, this is plenty civil.
The concept of property is just a construct, a tool people use to make sense of “what” belongs to “who”, and “why”. Until you start asking those questions, you have no need for the concept, you just take until you stop, or are stopped.
That is a very dishonest (or delusional) recounting of our discussion.
You completely changed your example for the retort. You used a kid who was old enough to talk (and complain) about “his snow” being stolen. I was saying that this kid has been socially conditioned, because he was already old enough to do these things. So no I wasn’t implying that toddlers and infants have been socially conditioned, because that wasn’t the example I was writing in response to.
Than this seems like a meaningless response to the question I posed to you.
Again, than your statement was completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
I never rejected science.
I wanted to get a sense on where you arbitrarily begin to once again accept scientific qualification as necessary, or valid.
LOL, who gets to make that distinction?
I considered, then engaged with a counterpoint. Suddenly, I’m:
What is the difference?
Because it seems to shift around.
Not really.
No, I’d say more vague and waffling.
Not too familiar with sarcasm, mate?
Straw man. Please read what I wrote that in response to.
Right. Which is why that is a straw man.
No, but it would be nice to have a study that proves babies feel they have been violated when an object is taken from them.
Well, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make.
But what does that have to do with a primitive concept of property, ownership, or rights?
Then why are we arguing?
Like what?
[:'(] LOL
OK
Yep.
Still with you.
How do you distill this notion from the last three statements you’ve made? I don’t follow the train of logic here. It seems like a conceptual leap.
Why not? It doesn’t have what it wants anymore.
Because it doesn’t have what it wants anymore. It’s really as simple as that. I don’t see why it is necessary to draw any other conclusion from that behavior.
Because it doesn’t have the thing it wants anymore. If the item was magic, and dissolved into the aether, the baby would be equally as upset as if I took it, or it fell out of reach.
I would agree on the first three, but I still don’t see why the fourth is a prerequisite.
And you still have yet to convince me.
LOL, you know, you have definitely brought up the flat Earth thing way more than I have. And you’d think with all the baseless assumptions I’ve been making, that my posts would be at least as long as yours.
That is wrong. Property doesn’t necessarily say who or why it belongs to somebody in the ethical sense. It can if you want to discuss ethics. But this isn’t necessarily an ethical question. Property=person. It’s semantics. To state a person is property is to define what property is in one of its definitions. Another definition of property is an external object that a person possesses or mixes their will with, such as a pacifier. This doesn’t explain if it is that persons property, in other words, if it is the just or unjust property of said person. If the pacifier falls due to gravity it’s not necessarily an ethical concern, but the pacifier was the property of the baby simply due to the fact that the pacifier was an external object that the baby possessed. No more, no less.
But the universalization test and human action points out that only the person making the choice/acting is making the choice/acting. It is impossible for anybody else to reason for me. I can choose to accept another person’s reason, but that would mean I am reasoning to accept their reason. They are not in my mind. Ethics is based off of this logic, but I haven’t stated an ethical proposition in this post.
Perhaps not, I guess I would not state this specifically. The baby may not even be aware of it, ofcoarse the baby may not even know the word property. They are after-all a toddler. The baby does however recognize the employment of scarce objects over time to satisfy a desire. I don’t think that statement is such a stretch for the fundamental primitive framework of property. Now w ho owns the property is besides the point I am making.
You have asserted this now for several pages. When will you finally explain your assertion?
So now why are you asking me to go collect scientific data for you if we are already in agreement?
And it realizes that there is only one currently available, and it also realizes that it is interested in employing that object right now. Keeping in mind the babies time preference is short than that of an adult.
Well we can get into the semantics of what “violated” means but the kid feels wronged that what he was currently using was confunscated from him. Whether it was his or not is besides the point. The child is not fully aware of these concepts yet, that is why I kept rigorously asserting the word “primitive” above.
As far as the child knows though, the same person who took the pacifier from it also gave it to him. So he was under the understanding that the pacifier was his for him to use as he saw fit. If this were not the case the pacifier would have bit spat out, which does happen at times.
But it did not fall out. It was taken. But the result is the same. Even if the pacifier fell out the baby has not the capacity to go regain it. The original statement holds true. The baby knows that it wants to employ that single object over this specific period of time. If the pacifier falls out it has lost it’s ability to do so. It recognizes that the pacifier is scarce and may even make an attempt, crawlling across the floor, to regain it.
Again all of these show primitive signs of property framework. The employment of scarce objects over scarce time for the satisfaction of desires.
Why? And how is that relevant at all to what we are discussing? You want to argue what who is the strongest wrestler next? You basically derailed the topic with your flatlander strawman and I fell right into it.
Well we have already both agreed that a child is likely to cry when an object is taken from it. So seems to me you and I both have already made the distinction that such frivolous scientific data collection is not necessary.
Dude. Sarcasm is taken in tone. How can I hear your tone in a forum? Being sarcastic on an online forum just makes you look rude.
Not at all you asked me for scientific evidience. What do you want me to prove to you? That children cry when you take things from them? The rest of my argument is a logical one. There is no empirical data collection involved. THere is nothing tangible to test. Its a logical formulation. You think I have some kind of mechanicl device that reads babies brains and reads the word “PROPERTY” written inside? And this tells me scientifically that babies are aware of property?
Why don’t you tell me what kind of scientific study you would have preferred? And no, it’s not a strawman.
It knows that there is a scarce object, and that it wants to use it. That is in principle the point that property addresses. The occupation of scarce objects over time. Whether the property is acquired legitimately or not is besides the point.
Because it cannot occupy that scarce object in the time frame it had planned for. The object was previously in the babies productive use.
yup and the same points apply. The inability to employ a scarce object over time.
Thats fine, I don’t need to. You done?
I skipped the rest of your post as it’s quality can be summarized pretty much in your previous statement.
I formulated this concept to find someone interested in expanding it. Instead I found an internet troll hell bent on a fight. You are definitely that troll, and your interests lie in arguing. This is extremely obvious.
Yes. I don’t understand how this follows. Could you please explain you train of thought to me?
Because that’s not what we’ve been disagreeing about. It is also not what I would be interested in seeing scientific support for/against. This reminds me a lot of the “who’s on first” bit by Abbot and Costello.
Could you explain to me how you think this implies a primitive understanding of the concepts of property, ownership, or right?
I disagree with this notion. I think you are projecting your bias onto the actions of the child.
I don’t understand how this is relevant.
So you agree that the emotional response would be the same, regardless of how the pacifier left the child’s control?
HOW???
What the hell does this have to do with a primitive understanding of property, ownership, or right??? You are just describing what people do with things, not how this automatically translates into an understanding of the concepts of property, ownership, and right??? Where is the connection??? This is tremendously frustrating. It’s like trying to debate a parrot!!! I’m beginning to think you are just screwing with me.
Well, why isn’t that important to know?
Ric Flair. WOOOO!!!
Aw, grow a pair, Nancy!
LOL, this has to be a joke…
LOL
No. I’d like to see some scientific evidence that babies’ sense of justice is affected when you take something away from them. Maybe like a brain scan that shows the “rights” or “property” or “ownership” parts of the brain light up in response to an object being taken from them, rather than just the “desire” part of the brain lighting up. Again, do you see the distinction?
This is your argument how I understand it:
Babies use scarce things through scarce time = Babies have primitive notion of the concepts of property, ownership, and right.
How do you logically arrive at this conclusion?
I think you are basing this on the fact that you have observed babies crying when things are taken from them, right?
Please, show me. I’d love to see how an untestable hypothesis gets validated by logic.
I’m saying that unless you can find one, you are just spewing BS.
Please refer above.
Then you are plain stupid. That is, instead of trying to set up a strawman, you actually thought this whole time that I thought we needed scientific validation for the theory that babies cry when you take something they want away from them.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Now, why do you assume that just because the baby wants to use a scarce object over scarce time, and that property addresses this issue, that the baby must conceptualize property? So as soon as a being utilizes any object, it must have a concept of property? What about dogs, or hermit crabs?
If so, so what? Why do you assume it must have a primitive concept of property, ownership, and rights, based on your statement?
You used it to challenge me!
LOL, that’s probably why we are still corresponding, because I’m just bothering you!
I am going to skip most of your unecessary adolescent responses so we can keep our points short and to the point. I’ll try to avoid indulging into your trollish responses, as that just seems to feed you.
If objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and the employment of objects not necessary to satisfy ends. What would be the purpose of property? Please explain.
I do see the distinction, and I see that such a test would be mostly benign and useless.
Brain scans do not tell us anything a bout the tangible world as we know it. It only shows patterns in the head. Not all people follow these patterns, just as people have different colored hair and eyes their brain also functions differently. Further more there is no concrete specific section of the brain dedicated to “property” Performing such a test may show that children are spacially aware of tangible objects, and we may observe the reaction when the object is taken. However such tests will never prove or disprove whether or not children understand property. All they will prove to us is that there is a pattern found in the brain during that specific activity. Whether this pattern proves property or whether it proves something entirely different is unknown to us with our current limited capabilities.
So as I said before, here is an example where the application of empiricism would be utterlly useless. And a good example of how people like you who put so much emphasis into that style nearly always come to arbitrary conclusions.
If you call me the flat-landerer I call you the icecream selling homocide fanatic. As ice cream sales and homocides coorelate in the summer. Therefor, according to your method, icecream sales must lead to increase homocide. We should ban ice cream.
Property as a concept is a construct. It’s a fantasy employed by some to build a framework in which they can determine “when what belongs to who”. If you can find some other individuals who are willing to accept this set of guidelines, you can implement them to settle disputes, should they arise (like any set of laws).
If objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and the employment of said scarce items was not sometimes necessary to satisfy ends, then the concept of property would not be required to settle disputes, because it seems unlikely they would arise.
On the other hand, just because objects can be scarce, time is scarce, and that scarce items are sometimes necessary to satisfy ends, doesn’t necessarily imply that a concept of property must exist as a result of those facts.
The brain is the only thing you have to experience the “tangible world”. The brain scan shows what parts of the brain are activated by external stimuli.
Brought about by external stimuli.
And not everyone buys into the concept of property. How is this relevant?
How do you know that?
Then if there is no test that could be performed, what are you basing your assertion upon?
Again, how do you know that it is beyond our current capabilities?
How is your conclusion (which is based on empirical observation) any less arbitrary?
LOL, first you have to assume i think homicide is bad. This is so non sequitur it hurts!
edit: Also owned semantically means control. So who owns a person justly or unjustly (ethical question)? Who owns or controls a person (human action question)? Read this.
What belongs to w hom is an ethical argument. It is beyond the scope of property. Property can be owned by many people, legitimately or illegtimately. That is what the original point was, whether the state has legitimate claim to a broad geographical region.
You need to not conflate the ethics part from the simple concept of property.
Lets assume things ARE scarce, time IS scarce, and the occupation and employment of scarce objects over time is necessary to satisfy ends. What alternative concept would you have, and how would it not be a form of property?
Explain to me an alternative, and explain how it would not be property. Don’t play a semantics game with me please. You make these posts already unnecessarily long. I know its hard for you troll, but please stick to the point.
Thats exactly the point. Your whole scientific fiasco is non-sequitur. Just as non-sequitur as the one I tossed back at you.
It’s deduced. It’s not arbitrary. The difference between you and me is your understanding of property and the definition you use. Rather then being honest about it you continue like a communist in a state where we are both arguing past each other. Communists hold their pet definition of capitalism, and we hold ours. In such debates people typically talk past one another not understanding where each party is coming from.
Similarly you have adopted this technique. You hold certain principles in your head and are unwilling to share them. Since the principles I provided conflict, rather then explaining your own logic and reasoning behind it you continue to assert that it is simply wrong.
Umm how do I know we don’t have spaceships yet? How do I know we can’t cure cancer? How do I know we don’t have hover crafts? What kind of silly question is this.
As I said before I am not necessarily compiling a hypothetical argument. I am deducing how children may have primitive knowledge of property.
How do I know black is black? How do I know 1+1=2? In this case I’ve done some very basic studying. I have done alot of research on behavioral illness’s specifically ADD/ADHD and I know alot about the functions and results of MRI’s, fMRI’s, EPI’s and other variants of brain scans.
What, did you honestly think someone would scan your brain and see a big P in the part where property existed? If you are that ignorant to the process why are you advocating for it?
So to you, property is just a synonym for “thing” or “object”?
I wouldn’t have an alternative, because I feel the distinction is unnecessary.
I don’t believe in the property boogey-man.
Well, you have to tell me how you define property first.
That’s BS, but consider it dropped.
But scientific studies are arbitrary?
No, I just don’t see the value of assigning a title to “objects you are able to control”. Seems superfluous to me.
LOL, such vitriol! This whole discussion was based on the premise that primitive understanding of property, ownership, and right was intrinsic in human consciousness, down to the level of infants. After a while, you dropped the ownership and right parts, but stuck to property. I’m not quite sure what you define property as, but I think it’s something along the lines of, “scarce resources that can be implemented over scarce time to achieve desired ends”.
So now, I think you are trying to say,
“Even babies can recognize the existence of scarce resources that can be implemented over scarce time, to achieve desired ends” Although I would disagree that this definition makes any sense when applied to the word “property”, I will agree with you that babies do recognize these items as existing.
Of course, this is completely irrelevant, because we were initially talking about property rights.
I didn’t know you were such a neurology buff, sorry man.
You seem to be asserting it as self-evident fact, especially when you call me irrational and stubborn for contending it.
I would argue you don’t. It all beliefs you’ve concocted in your head.
it is but it’s not the point I was making. The point I made, you remember, is that even children have a primitive understanding of property.
How wuold you define it? Or what would you use in it’s place?
A great deal of modern studies are very arbitrary yes.
Jackson you can do us both a favor by not reading sentence by sentence and making a useless remark like “LOL”. I prefer to keep this short and took the point but you keep dragging along each post. Your doing it in the other thread as well. Your method is antagonistic and derails from the actual point.
Yes but I was making a point about property, and than rights. Not property rights, property and rights. Different things.
Again I have to skip the rest of your long winded off topic response. It’s hard for anyone to hold a conversation with your messy responses.
Or we could go around and call those things that have wheels with various numbers of horse power engines that has two doors sometimes four or more that rolls across the earth if a pedal is pressed but then why call it a pedal when it can be called a piece of metal that is flat sometimes with lines for traction as the person steps on them to accelerate but then why call it acceleration when I could simply pull out a physics book and give equations but then what are all those numbers and letters? Really?
If you mean it in the most general sense possible that a person is a thing, ok, again that’s semantics, but personally I don’t always call a person a thing. Property is semantically 1- a person
2 - an object that is the utility of a person.
3 - a territory that is the utility of a person.
(my focus is on human nature thus why “utility of a person” was repeated as obviously some animals have territories and thus that’s their property, and again, not a rights issue that is being discussed)