It is not meaningless; I can still let the lawnowner purchase the ball if I want to. It is still useful to me as far as worth is involved, regardless of whether I can physically move it or not.
Thats nice. The maritime tradition predates those treaties and originated from common law.
Nice try dodging the point, though.
i would lean towards freiheit over jonB on this, since the onus should be on people not to be negligent in keeping their property from leaking out onto others and putting obligations onto the neighbours for merely being neighbours. certainly, individuals, or even the majority of neighbours might be ‘easy going’ and may even find they are incentivised to be sensitive to temporarily lost properties . but this cant be used a stick to postively beat the heads of property absolutists (if there should be any) (though shunning is certainly acceptable)
ancient maritime traditions evolved from commonlaw are terrific since they represent an approximation of natural law, with a bit of ‘pragramatic’, ‘game theory’, distortion. i claim its a a superior guide to what market law may look like , than a guide to what moral law on this and other planets , between us and other rational species looks like.
You “letting” the lawnowner purchase the ball rests on the assumption that you still own the ball even though you have lost all levels of physical control over it and have no ethical claim against anyone else to return it to you.
Here, what you’re really saying is that the ball itself would be useful to you. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about whether the concept of the ball being your property is a useful or meaningful concept when you lose complete physical and ethical control over it.
I am not sure about Jon, but I have conceded on that idea. They are not obligated to return it. The only thing I am claiming right now is that the ball is still the my property.
What? How does that change my point at all?
I don’t care what “common law” has evolved into popular tradition over the centuries. I’m concerned with ethical law, which is entirely deducible from timeless axioms.
Your argument rests on the assumption that I do not still own the ball. Axiom vs axiom yet again.
If I had to choose between Murray Rothbard as dictator or a market for justice, I’d choose the market.
If you think an individual is better at creating law than society is through the market process, run for congress.
Yes, and my assumption that you do not still own the ball is not an axiom. That rests on the assumption that at least some level of control is a necessary ingredient of “property.” And that rests on the assumption that a concept must be usable to be meaningful.
Look, we can argue on and on til we grow old, but nothing is going to change until this is settled:
Does loss of control not resulting from aggression entail loss of property?
My argument:
No, because the loss of control is subject to the availability of goods and services and therefore can not be universally consistent. Property is a natural right and must be consistent for all humans.
I don’t think an individual creates ethical law. I think ethical law is merely general rules that are the most appropriate means for human actors to employ in order to attain the ultimate end they desire (long-run maximization of personal satisfaction), given the fact that they live in a world of scarcity and potential conflict. An individual merely chooses to recognize or not recognize ethical law.
I thought we decided a good haggle or a third party going to split the ball in two to see who loved the ball more were the conclusions of this?
If you find a wallet on the street, can you keep it? Only until the owner shows up and demands it back.
Lost property isn’t unowned.
How is it not consistent? Any human in the universe, if they lose all levels of control over a thing, cannot meaningfully be said to “own” that thing any longer.
That can vary from human to human depending on the property available to them.
lol, here is what I have decided at least:
The ball remains untouched until a deal has been agreed upon.
What is being argued now is whether or not it is still my ball. I say it is.
it is perfectly unviersally consistent in the sense in which universally consistent is usually meant, i.e. that ceteris parabis for any person with some availability to goods and services will enjoy the same rights as another.
I would think it divides into two further more subtle cases.
loss of control not resulting from aggression where the item has fallen on unhomesteaded land, or the land of someone who has granted persistent rights to ownersof valueable goods who lose their items onto his property.
or loss of control not resulting from aggression where the item has fallen on anothers property who does not wish to be bothered by negligent losers, and will not be held responsible for damage to property of others that has leaked onto his. In this case ‘losers’ have no moral rights against the ‘finder’, but they can appeal to the finders interests by employing legitimate means to appeal to the finder to make either a gift or a trade of the ‘lost’ property.
Let me ask a question: Can quadriplegics own any property other than their own bodies?