So it requires a concept of ownership before a concept of property can exist. As I thought, the term is loaded with normative, and ethical baggage, which is why I don’t think babies really consider it in their actions.
How about the word “stuff”, if we want to avoid delving into the ethical questions inherent in the word “property”.
Well, then your point was a complete aside to the question I posed to you, which had to do with property rights.
Wow, that’s the first time in a while you didn’t call me a troll. Glad to see you’ve dropped that mularkey.
You should read about argumentation ethics as well. It pretty much obliterates the stuff about ideologies you parrot. Seriously man, it is pretty boring.
What’s the better analogy? Argumentation ethics are like bringing in a saw to screw in a nail OR Like believing what David Blaine is actually magic and being scared of his magical powers.
Yes and in the situation where the child was given the pacifier, assuming it’s short time preference, it assumes the roll of ownership. Ownership is the act of posessing. The child, with it’s limited understanding believes that at least for the time being the object is his to use. This object is suddenly taken from him and to his confusion ownership is abruptly transfered to the parent. Since the child’s understanding of time and consumption is limited it believes it has been violated. As far as the child was concerned it was using that pacifier as his, and sees not reason why it should stop. It has no understanding that Mom needs to go shopping, or mom needs to clean his diaper, and so on and so forth. All it knows is it was once occupying and employing that pacifier into productive use and now that ability was taken from it.
Without this very primitive understanding the child would not be upset, would have no reason to cry. Again you are more then welcome to agree to disagree.
No you are definitely a troll. Both on this thread and others. Your method of responding is antagonistic and your posts seem adolescent as if you were an angry highschool student. Still your responses are predictable. You read each sentence, piece by piece and respond to each one, as if each were different pargraphs or points. Your attention span apparently does not allow you to read a statement in full. You simply cannot wait to respond to each point so you in haste make little witty responses.
It would be even more arbitrary to claim otherwise. Though I doubt you actually have a refutation to offer. Just a simple assertion that you disagree? Or will you enlighten us and spare us from our perpetual erroneous ways. Otherwise such posts are a meatless and a waste of space. Just as counter-productive as the last 2 pages of Jackson’s nonesense.
It’s great you have an opinion. Congrats. Now care to elaborate?
Read that before BP? Maybe that isn’t the answer you are looking for but I might not be up to it right now. You didn’t really answer my question in the other thread.
You say that nobody owns “themself”, but you are somehow suggesting a system of property rights. How is my physical body protected under your system? I honestly don’t see where you are coming from if nobody owns “themself”, let alone how you punish anyone.
I simply exempt people from the realm of ownership altogether and put foreward a principle of personal sovereignty - the effect of which, I think, is the same thing as what the Rothbardian libertarian favors as far as “self-ownership” goes in a normative sense, only it isn’t couched in propertarian terms. Your physical body doesn’t rightfully belong to anyone else in my view, only it isn’t necessary to concieve of your body as property in general - people are simply not to be concieved of as property. A system of property rights, to the extent that I concieve of one at all, is a matter of norms for the ownership of external objects. What is presupposed by this isn’t “self-ownership”, but individual agency and a social context respecting personal sovereignty.
Metaphysically, your physical body isn’t protected at all whether there is “self-ownership” or not (that is, it’s not a given of nature; otherwise there would be no reason to be normative about it in the first place). Normatively, I favor personal sovereignty, which simply means that other people don’t have authority over your body and hence they cannot enslave or murder you. But your body is yourself, not property. There is no need to invoke the concept of ownership in order to reject authoritarianism and violence over persons. The burden of proof is on the person claiming authority or a right to violence, not on their victims to produce an ownership claim over what they unavoidably already are (themselves, a person).
I don’t believe in punishment (at least in retributionist terms).
I am saying if you want to turn someone’s actual state of being into a matter of arbitrary semantics and abstract / poetic phrases, fine. But don’t expect it to objectively mean “truth”, nor would I expect it to change the actual material way things will and have always transpired in a sociological and psychological sense.
You can create magical codes, they will only be obeyed and have any effect so long as someone allows it to happen
You can try to appeal to a code to make a situation work to your desired end (e.g. appealing to the “proper” morality to a perceived aggressor and showing how it is logical truth), but it only exists because people allow it to exist. It only has power because someone allows the illusion to have power.
You’re not relying on the definitions, so, if you can’t use the paradigm of definitions within the theory, then yes, you will never understand what the theory entails. You’re arguing over semantics which is not really an argument but rather yelling over tiddly.
own=control
Do you control your choices? If not, then you, Brainpolice, and others deny Mises human action. Good luck with that.
Brainpolice, like Jackson, are simply not liking the word “property”. Their argument has nothing to do with the concept, but the word. It’s like a painting. They are not looking at the content of the picture but rather turned off by the lighting in the room shining on the portrait. It has nothing to do with the concept property, nor the semantics. It’s the label. So call it what you will as you tried in this post Brainpolice. Give it a different name if it makes you feel better, but if you are going to understand what other people are communicating when they say “property”, then best to understand the concept behind property and quit arguing over the poor lighting in the room. That’s why it’s pointless to discuss with you or Jackson on this topic as you can’t refute property but you’ll argue all day over the lighting shining on the word. So you end up strawmanning and never understanding what the person(s) across from you in the discussion board are saying. It makes your post tangent, repetitive, and unfortunately you end up in your own language bubble cut off from the rest of the world - but then you try to communicate with the rest of the world. I suggest understanding the semantics and the concept of property when you talk with people who do talk about property. It is effective communicate to do such.
What’s funny is how long Brainpolice, Jackson, and now you will paint this as being about morals, when it’s about human action and property. Didn’t say property rights - simply property. So you three end up fighting spooks. It’s rather unfortunate.
Well. Good talking to you guys anyways. Have a good night.