Have we defined the State right?

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

It’s sitting in the shed. I’m not physically restraining it. It is standing up, leaning against the wall. Somebody could sneak in there right now and take it and I would never know as it is even out of my view at the moment.

But you have still made an effort (albeit slighter than locking it in a vault) to prevent that from happening. You are still trying (somewhat) to prevent the item from being taken. It is still in your control.

No. It’s in the shed at the moment because it is snowing outside and I don’t want the weather to ebb and flow (cold and hot) to damage the wood, plus the water damage to the wood (snow) and steel (rust). Sometimes I leave it out front, like my jeep is right now (though I can’t see it at all). It’s not in my physical possession nor physically am I controlling it. Nor am I owning it in the physical sense of power. Yet to all of these in the abstract sense, yes, I do possess a rake, control (I don’t know if that is possible abstractly), and I do own a rake - all in the abstract sense. Now ethically that also a whole other story, but it is yes to each one again.

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

Therefore I still own the rake even when somebody else takes control of it physically.

How does the fact that you can put a rake in a shed prove that you can still own something after another acting individual has taken physical possession of it. You said therefore, so I assumed you were using a former statement to qualify this one.

As the story went, somebody came to my front door and asked to borrow the rake, but I was cooking lunch at the time and the shed is out back, therefore I didn’t have physical possession of the rake but I do have (possess) a rake in the abstract sense.

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

Slight difference but they overlap on occasion as one could be used as the definition of the other. The slight difference is when I read “own” I see control emphasized a bit more.

So when you put the rake in the shed, you no longer own it.

I see what you are asking, so, I can see that own also has the quality of being identified with somebody, but that still isn’t ethically speaking.

@Jackson LaRose

Also, when you lend out your rake, you no longer own it. Is that fair to say, using your definition?

Three qualifiers first. 1- I own it as it has the “quality of being identified with somebody (me)”(as I said above) 2 - It is also now identified with a second person (the one who borrowed the rake) 3 - Both 1 and 2 denote control and use. I use it and so does the borrow, but at this time the borrower is using the rake. 4 - I know I said three only, but 4 is concerning the fact that I could make ethical propositions for each of these events but I have been refraining from that for the most part unless otherwise said so.

I hope I didn’t miss anything as it’s getting a bit complicated with these qualifiers don’t want to have to pull out any graphs! I might need them to understand the jibberish I’m writing. lol j/k

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

People choose to do what is impossible a lot, like bad economics. Such Keynesian brands don’t follow logically from premises but people bang their heads on the wall every day at the Fed. trying to do the impossible. Spend ones way out of a recession! Illogical.

Yeah, I guess I can see that. But from a determinist stand point there are things we can’t choose, like when we get a song stuck in our heads. I know it’s a crappy example, but I’m not too well versed in determinism to give better ones.

ok

[apehead]

@filc

So how does your definition apply when matter is not scarce, time is not scarce, and we need not occupy matter and time to satisfy needs or desires? In that situation would your definition still stand?

My definition of what? Property? Well, I think the concept of property is bologna anyways, so I’m not quite sure what you are driving at. But yeah, as a description of the concept, it would still stand. We have the word “nothing”, but I’ve never truly experienced “nothing”. The concept still exists, though.

@filc

Also can you answer my question about the selling of someone else’s property without their consent?

Yeah, sorry about that buddy. Now let’s see here, you mean this one?

@filc

Can I sell someone else’s property without their consent and while not violating their rights?

What rights?

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

Property:

1.

a. Something owned; a possession.

b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.

c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.

a is not ethical.

b is not ethical

c is an effort at an ethical proposition though flawed but I don’t want Stranger coming in here arguing about copyrights, etc…

If I can sparse out two none ethical definitions from a dictionary source without referring to theory and intellectual principles then I think that’s not too shabby.

[apehead]

@wilderness

I see what you are asking, so, I can see that own also has the quality of being identified with somebody, but that still isn’t ethically speaking.

If ownership is now a matter of abstract possession, the moment the rake left that possession, once someone took it (borrowed is an ethical statement) from your control (however abstract) why would the item continue to be identified with you, unless ownership implied possession beyond the physical?

[apehead]

@wilderness

a is not ethical.

Now you are relying on your personal interpretation of the word “own”. To me, a, b, and c are ethical definitions.

So that’s 3 to 1 for “property”, and 4 to 2 for “ownership” and “property” in my book [:P]

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

a is not ethical.

Now you are relying on your personal interpretation of the word “own”. To me, a, b, and c are ethical definitions.

It’s always a personal interpretation, ie. human action is axiomatic.

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

So that’s 3 to 1 for “property”, and 4 to 2 for “ownership” and “property” in my book

lol… too bad semantics isn’t an intellectual argument about a theory or whatnot.

[apehead]

@wilderness

It’s always a personal interpretation, ie. human action is axiomatic.

Hey, can’t argue with that.

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

I see what you are asking, so, I can see that own also has the quality of being identified with somebody, but that still isn’t ethically speaking.

If ownership is now a matter of abstract possession,

I believe you may be thinking too narrowly. To confine a word to only one definition is to lose out on the terms ability to point out various complex variables. For instance, when I say snow so much can come to mind all dealing with the one term snow: cold, white, black (when ash mixes with it), soft, ice, geometric designs, etc… But mind you I only said one word: snow.

@Jackson LaRose

the moment the rake left that possession, once someone took it (borrowed is an ethical statement)

true. borrowed is. good point.

@Jackson LaRose

from your control (however abstract) why would the item continue to be identified with you, unless ownership implied possession beyond the physical?

Because the rake was taken from me.

[filc]

@Jackson LaRose

My definition of what? Property? Well, I think the concept of property is bologna anyways, so I’m not quite sure what you are driving at. But yeah, as a description of the concept, it would still stand. We have the word “nothing”, but I’ve never truly experienced “nothing”. The concept still exists, though.

So if objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and we did not need to employ objects over time to satisfy needs what would your definition apply to?

@Jackson LaRose

@filc

Also can you answer my question about the selling of someone else’s property without their consent?

Yeah, sorry about that buddy. Now let’s see here, you mean this one?

@filc

Can I sell someone else’s property without their consent and while not violating their rights?

What rights?

I’m asking vaguely, using YOUR definition of property. What can you tell me about the above question. I don’t believe it is that cryptic. You say that ethics and rights are inherent to property, now you appear to be weaseling out of a related question? Are you just confused or evasive? Forgive me if I am too forward with my accusation but my previous experiences with you have been most unpleasant.

[apehead]

@wilderness

Because the rake was taken from me.

Why does that matter? If you no longer possess the rake, you no longer own it.

[apehead]

@filc

So if objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and we did not need to employ objects over time to satisfy needs what would your definition apply to?

Some strange, “what if” concept, sort of like “the Eighth Dimension”, or “the devil”, or “unicorn”. Just because something can be conceptualized, doesn’t mean it actually has to exist.

@filc

now you appear to be weaseling out of a related question?

How is it weaseling if I think the concepts of rights, ethics, and property are all equally bull-crappy?

@filc

Forgive me if I am too forward with my accusation but my previous experiences with you have been most unpleasant.

So why we keep corresponding, if you don’t like it (at least a little)? [;)]

[filc]

@Jackson LaRose

Some strange, “what if” concept, sort of like “the Eighth Dimension”, or “the devil”, or “unicorn”. Just because something can be conceptualized, doesn’t mean it actually has to exist.

Whether it’s capable of being true or not is besids the point. IT shows that it’s concept is not arbitrary. It’s the same for the definition of gravity. If there was no gravity, if large bodies of mass did not attract other bodies of mass we w ould not have that definition . Whether it’s a fairy tale notion or not is irrelevent. That is the fundamental point of defining objectional things. The observation that we see. In the absence there of, we have no definiotion, no tangible object to build from.

And in all that you still evaded my question. Try agian.

@filc

So if objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and we did not need to employ objects over time to satisfy needs what would your definition apply to?

@Jackson LaRose

How is it weaseling if I think the concepts of rights, ethics, and property are all equally bull-crappy?

Ahh ok so I was confused. Since you conflate property with rights, and you are an ethical/moral nihilist you likewise wish to abandon the concept of property.

What would you use in it’s place?

You however cannot denounce rights. They, like property, will exist in one form or another and arguing as such will bring you into a semantical debate again as shown above. You have to explain to us why murdering someone would be right or wrong, without it being an ethical argument. Or do you not care about murder? Do you yourself not care to be murdered? And if you answer that how is it not an ethical response?

[wilderness]

Here’s some more quotes to point out some things:

“… and every man having a property in his own person…” [Elisha Williams; 1744] That one to point out that there is a tradition based on definitions that are old. So I’m not, nor was Rothbard, defining property in a different way than it had been.

“every person owns his own physical body as well as all nature-given goods” [Hoppe]

“…every man has a property in his own person.” [John Locke]

“As long as an individual remains isolated, then, there is no problem whatever about how far his property-his ownership-extends; as a
rational being with free will, it extends over his own body, and it extends further over the material goods which he transforms with his labor.” [Rothbard] Now he says “no problem” because he then goes on to resolve the ethical issue when another person shows up. That’s what ethics inquiries: interpersonal relations.

[apehead]

@filc

If there was no gravity, if large bodies of mass did not attract other bodies of mass we w ould not have that definition .

So I think you are saying that concepts need to exist before they are defined? I disagree with that.

@filc

That is the fundamental point of defining objectional things. The observation that we see. In the absence there of, we have no definiotion, no tangible object to build from.

Again, what about stuff that is made up?

@filc

And in all that you still evaded my question. Try agian.

What was the question?

@filc

So if objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and we did not need to employ objects over time to satisfy needs what would your definition apply to?

Oh yeah. It would apply to matter that individuals decided to attach rights to. How would your definition work?

@filc

you are an ethical/moral nihilist you likewise wish to abandon the concept of property.

Ideally, I’d like to abandon all concepts, but it’s really hard.

@filc

What would you use in it’s place?

Hmm, probably nothing.

@filc

You however cannot denounce rights.

Why not?

@filc

You have to explain to us why murdering someone would be right or wrong, without it being an ethical argument.

I don’t think it’s right or wrong, it just is.

@filc

Or do you not care about murder?

I guess it depends.

@filc

Do you yourself not care to be murdered?

No, I’d rather not be.

@filc

And if you answer that how is it not an ethical response?

Why does it have to be?

[filc]

@wilderness

That’s what ethics inquiries: interpersonal relations.

This is an important point. As even Crusoe must shelter his tools by placing them outside of the rain. He is exhibiting ownership of property by these actions but ethics never are involved, as he is alone on the island.

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

@wilderness

Because the rake was taken from me.

Why does that matter? If you no longer possess the rake, you no longer own it.

I possess a rake still. I still have one. Somebody took it from me, but I’ll go and take it back.

There is always the question of “who” is performing the action. Human action isn’t abstract it is based on all individuals that have names, ie. wilderness, Jackson, filc, etc… So call it Jackson action if you want (nice ring to it…lol), but the “who” is identifying who took the action.

[Brainpolice]

@filc

@wilderness

That’s what ethics inquiries: interpersonal relations.

This is an important point. As even Crusoe must shelter his tools by placing them outside of the rain. He is exhibiting ownership of property by these actions but ethics never are involved, as he is alone on the island.

Not from an aristotilean point of view - even explicitly non-interpersonal contexts involve ethics by that account, simply in terms of prudence for survival and flourishing.

[filc]

@Jackson LaRose

Again, what about stuff that is made up?

Whats made up about the fact that we live in a scarce world, of scarce time, and seek to employ scarce objects over time to satisfy our desires?

@Jackson LaRose

So I think you are saying that concepts need to exist before they are defined? I disagree with that.

Sorry I must have confused you. I mean that in the absence of gravity, the definition would be meaningless. In the absence of scarcity, property would be meaningless. Rights have nothing to do with it at that point.

@Jackson LaRose

@filc

So if objects were not scarce, time was not scarce, and we did not need to employ objects over time to satisfy needs what would your definition apply to?

Oh yeah. It would apply to matter that individuals decided to attach rights to. How would your definition work?

But if individuals assign a right to an object it implies that it is scarce, and that the individual seeks to employ or occupy that object for some felt desire. So you are just now back to the definition of property. And we are back to the fact that you just take issue with the simple word, yet cannot refute the reality that is. That is, we live in a world whith scarce objects, scarce time, and the need to occupy scarce objects over time to satisfy needs or desires.

@Jackson LaRose

Ideally, I’d like to abandon all concepts, but it’s really hard.

What good would that do anything? Of what harm is a concept? Was the concept of flight, which ultimately lead to the success of the wright brothers a bad concept? Is the concept of high speed transportation a bad concept?

Also, Do you not see that you are making an ethical statement when you say that you want to abandon concepts?

@Jackson LaRose

@filc

Or do you not care about murder?

I guess it depends.

Well the depends implies that you have a concept which applies in context. What would it depend on?

@Jackson LaRose

@filc

And if you answer that how is it not an ethical response?

Why does it have to be?

Why is black black? Why is the sky blue? Why are we stuck dealing with the facts of reality? Calling the sky red does not actually make it red. It does not change the color of the sky.

Semantically changing the name or playing mind tricks with yourself to ignore the state of reality does not change it so. Pretending that you are not making value judgements in the above responses does not change the fact that you do indeed make value judgement, in nearly everything that you do there is a value judgement.

You cannot the ignore praxeological structure of man, nor can you break the praxeological structure of yourself. All you’ve done is pretended to ignore it.

If you truly did not care, had no ethical quarrel as such than you would not be here on this forum discussing with us.

[wilderness]

@Jackson LaRose

Ideally, I’d like to abandon all concepts, but it’s really hard.

People always conceive (conceptualize) the world. That can’t be changed as long as you are human. It is impossible. That, as well, is beyond our power.