The one I quoted ?
Let me see if you understood what I said. I said atoms and strings are not proven objects for each time there existence is peered into something else is uncovered. So to answer my question more simply: “Yeah, but does anything ‘objectivity’ exist?” My answer: No.
And you disagree with this apparently?
I understood what you said and I commented on it. Do I need to copy and paste what I said ?
Apparently you have difficulty helping me out and want to be rude. I don’t know what your problem is, but I need not continue to discuss with somebody that doesn’t want to discuss. If I don’t get it and ask for finger painting and you don’t want to do anything but mock me, then… [N]
So I will try to continue, although I don’t know why. You stated “…those things have not been proven and indeed can’t be proven.” And I agree with that notion, and yet you say I don’t? So I say I dooo, but you say I don’t.[:^)]
You said that ultimately physical reality doesn’t exist and that (paraphrasing) even scientists agree. I retorted that’s not true. You can’t empirically prove that reality doesn’t exist. It’s nonsense. Physics is supposed to study objective physical reality. It can’t prove by experiment that things don’t really exist. Physical reality exists independently of the observer.
I didn’t mean to mock you. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
What I mean is physical reality does exist, but to place objectivism as only adhering to physical reality is false. What I mean by objectivism, which has become commonly understood in some circles, is what is objective is truth and what is subjective is false. My point was an argument against the initial response that property rights are not true because they are not objective, meaning, they are not objects detached from subjectivity. Yet science shows us, especially in the most well known spheres of quantum mechanics that our choice of measurement of any object, influences the results of what that object is. One well known experiment involves, the tester of an electrons velocity and position can’t be measured at the same time. So the choice of measurement such as wanting to measure velocity right now will give you a velocity result but not a position result. So find out the position of the electron the tester has to use a measuring device that finds position. Neither velocity or position can be found at the same time, so, the valued measurement at any one time by the tester influences the kind of results he or she will get. And the tester can say with absolute certainty that the velocity exists or is the same while the tester at the moment is measuring the position of the electron and vice versa. This does not mean physical reality does not exist. This means that physical reality is subject to what measurement instruments we choose to use, in other words, value. What we value therefore provides what kind of physical reality we understand. Unless, of course, somebody believes science will run out of “things” to discover some day, which is quite possible, but that is very far away indeed at the moment. And so to speculate would be foolish of me.
I’m actually making the case that reality is more existential then you might be giving me credit for. I think physical reality is wonderfully proven and does exist. Where I part ways, it seems, is that you might be overlapping “reality” with only physical reality. I know physical reality exists, but I also know reality is much more than physical reality. And what one means by “physical” also would need further description. inorganic reality or patterns are what physics commonly study. Yet biological patterns are not generally studied by physics personnel, and yet biological patterns are considered physical as well. Society and ideas get more tricky and I don’t think we will find an idea under the microscope any time soon. That said, I also do not think this makes an idea any less valuable and any less apart of reality.
That’s ok. And I’m sorry as well. I am sometimes deemed slow, but I’ve met so many different perspectives in my life. Sometimes it takes me a little longer to figure somebody out and the position in which their line of thinking is coming from. Yet, I find that to be good for it only means I’m getting to know the individual more and not just a common social pattern that I might find in any man or woman. Not that social patterns are not fun too, but sometimes it helps to gain a greater depth in the individual that I’m discussing with. Thank you, I’m glad we could continue. This has helped. [:D]
A football is alienable property, it can be controlled by anyone.
Your person is inalienable property, its impossible for you to surrender control of it to another.
Slavery can only be opposed on the grounds of self ownership. If the government can rightly own me, why can’t another person?
Property is indeed fiction in the sense that it doesn’t objectively exist, e.g. like an apple or a tree, but that you need a concept of property before you can call something “your” property and that in a group of people, an intersubjective consensus determines who will be allowed to keep what, not necessarily one coherent theory.
This tends to cause a lot of confusion. According to libertarian doctrine, only legitimately homesteaded land can be called “your property”. This, however, doesn’t necessarily match the intersubjective consensus which tends to accept state-issued property claims as legitimate. So, if you homestead state land, but state agents expropriate you after doing so, have they violated your “property rights”? According to libertarian doctrine, yes. According to intersubjective consensus, no.
Can we determine whether libertarian doctrine or the intersubjective consensus are “right” or “wrong”? No, because preferences are subjective and any attempt to create “objective” concepts of morality or behavior requires a predefined set of defining categories, all of which have been arbitrarily (subjectively) chosen themselves according to personal preference. Rothbardian property theory may be more coherent, more universally applicable than others - so what? That’s a subjective value preference right there. Coherence and applicability only gain value once it is attributed to them, it is not inherent in them.
Can we compare rivaling theories according to certain factors? Yes, and we can, for example, state that libertarian property theory rewards actual work as opposed to good political connections which are important for obtaining state-“owned” land. That’s an advantage of libertarian property rights over the “might makes right” approach.
In conclusion, property is a fiction after all, but a useful fiction for structuring human life. Since it is fictional and does not exist in physical reality, there is no objectively true theory of property, but we can compare different theories according to certain factors that are important to us or our collocutors. That way, an intersubjective consensus may be reached that is of paramount importance for upholding any property constellations in real life.
Link to said article?
Scientists do this all the time too. They come across instances that counters there hypothesis and even at times their theories and that’s why some students gravitate towards String Theory rather than other fields in physics. String Theory holds a lot of promise to point out the more literal or solid object, yet, String Theorists have yet to devise an experiment that tests their equations and theorems (aka concepts). To a physicist an apple or tree are not accurate, and therefore fictions of a so called more data or objective reality. An apple or tree are concepts of the particles or strings that a physicists might say are the more true objects or less fictions. It’s all a matter of perspective.
For how somebody had recently stated property is an inalienable right, meaning, something you control and nobody else can, which therefore starts with the individual. Nobody can truly control another individual completely. Now anything I would labor to make is my property too for I put my effort (meaning it was this “me” that nobody can fully control) into the forming of a (example) clay pot. Now somebody can come along and deny that I was put into the clay pot and take it as theirs, but I know “I” was put into the clay pot. All a matter of perspective on these terms. I can see the individual doing this, making the clay pot. That’s objective. Or I can translate this into a subjective sense example: Today the object or more true data of an apple is the string, tomorrow, maybe it’s more precise object is an 8th dimension touching the 1st three dimensions. Science historically changes it’s paradigms (theories) for precision’s sake. It still doesn’t mean an apple isn’t an apple. A scientist merely identifies it another way. Jains say this is all an illusion because of the ultimate reality they include in what happens after somebody dies. I still see a bunch of values and perspectives on events.
Exactly. It is a matter of perspective. And since the State is a fraud and criminal entity, then it’s consensus is also fraudulent.
And Newton’s theory at one point in time was more universally applicable until Einstein and Quantum Theory and even those two latter theories haven’t been able to answer all scientific questions, but they are the best so far. I would say we can conclude that because the State only exists due to theft, slavery, and murder, then it has no honor to our inherent birth rights which is to live. The State is established upon fraudulent actions, criminal actions. Thus it has no existence defined by liberty, meaning, life of its own. The State’s only existence comes into existence due to taking from others without ever producing and giving back. It can’t give anything back of its own cause there is no “own” that can give. The State is purely “all else”. Whereas I am dependent upon an ecosystem, let’s say, but I can also contribute something of my own. It can be pointed out that there is an “own”, in other words, an identifiable individual producing something that is NOT “purely all else”.
Physical reality is no more true than my ideas or your ideas. There is no absolutism. Everything can change.
Googling it won’t kill you, you know. <.<
I would if I at least knew the title. “Hoppe’s argument” is a pretty broad category.
Whether or not it is possible to control another individual completely is not a matter of philosophy, but biology and chemistry. Since science has already discovered parasites which alter the host’s behavior according to their preferences, I would argue that resting your point on the alleged control of individuals over their bodies is not recommendable. The idea that I “own” myself is a postulate that presupposes a theory of property and can therefore not be used to establish said theory.
Your further points on how to establish property distributions all match my preferences, but do not amount to an objectively true or just theory of property. Even if I took your premises as granted, what’s the point? “It was the uncontrollable you who did something and that makes it your property” may be consistent, but consistency in itself is a value that can or cannot be appreciated. If I don’t care about consistency, then I may not care about your theory either.
Consistency is not necessary to formulate a theory of property. I can say “All property is owned by me because I say so”. If everyone believes me, does that make my theory right? Of course not. It only indicates that my theory matches the intersubjective consensus and therefore appeals to the value preferences of the vast majority. That’s how real-life property is established.
Exactly. It is a matter of perspective. And since the State is a fraud and criminal entity, then it’s consensus is also fraudulent.
But it’s not the state’s consensus; it is the consensus of the vast majority of people which includes a preference for the state as property distributor.
The fact that the state is fraudulent and criminal may not be important to the vast majority because they value (a feeling of) security or (a feeling of) “good governance” more than the absence of institutionalized crime. They may not even consider the state institutionalized crime. “Crime” is, after all, very much dependent on (subjective) definitions.
I would say we can conclude that because the State only exists due to theft, slavery, and murder, then it has no honor to our inherent birth rights which is to live.
You’re postulating another thing here. Where does that inherent birth right come from now?
Physical reality is no more true than my ideas or your ideas. There is no absolutism. Everything can change.
Right. That includes property, which is a (legal, philosophical, ideological) fiction.
true, but also, I knew that. I made a rational statement. And I don’t know the biology or chemistry to prove this, though, I assume it has to do with the body that is a given. When a rational statement and the science match up, then all the better for the rational statement.
You said “alter the host’s behavior”… “alter”. The parasite is not the host and is not being completely the host. We know this. Of course we can be altered. I’ve drunk a few beers in my life.
I wasn’t making an argument of consistency explicity, but I guess it was present. I understand value which my whole premise even for science. Some students of science prefer String Theory others Quantum Mechanics and there are other fields of scientific inquiry in physics as well. You don’t have to value what I said. That’s the freedom of morality. Our values don’t have to line up with what somebody thinks is objective. Objectivity is just another value preference.
true. And that’s how science works as well. Science is based on assumptions as well. Evidence is brought to the field of science to uphold a theory, but that does not mean that theory will last. History shows it doesn’t. Theories may even last for 100 of years but our knowledge associated with the theory will change as new evidence or data is found. Same goes with property.
I argue that the vast majority of people are partaking with a criminal entity - including myself. Your not saying anything here that is disagreeable.
Newton’s theories were subjective and a consensus too, but people realized with new evidence and better rational arguments that what Newton once knew was not precise enough to account for vast amounts of anomalies. New theories and arguments (theories) had to be surmised. Scientists rely upon philosophers of science all the time to provide clarity to their arguments. Is the data philosophy? No. Are any ideas about the data philosophical in nature? Yes. The scientific method is the most well known example of a philosophical statement.
And apparently not all people have thought about the criminality of the State either. That much I know. I’ve been talking with people and they’ve never thought about the crimes the State commits. So their lack of questioning the State doesn’t provide much to their arguments, if and when debates arise.
I was born. All of life is based on value. So we can prefer not to value patterns on anything. Facts get disregarded all the time. But any of this falls back on the consensus aspect you bring up which is important for any stabilization of developing patterns in all aspects of life.
Right. Physical reality can be argued as a fiction, as well as anything else (including law, philosophical, ideological). We prefer to use such labels as objective and subjective to help stabilize the meaning in our discussions, but it does not mean that objective is true and subjective is false. Objective can be false as well. Objective is a label we prefer to use, but this label might be incorrect after more evidence and more rational argumentation.
Thanks. That was quite enjoyable. You brought up a very good intellectual exercise.
I’m a bit lost here. Are you guys saying that Hoppe’s argument (that I quote) is better than Hoppe’s argument? Which one are you referring to?
The argument of his that you present in your article, How we come to own ourselves, where he demonstrates how the notion of claiming ownership over another ends up imploding on itself in virtue of being indirect (whereas direct control will be presupposed over this individual’s own person to effect the indirect control.) It’s much more straightforward than arg-ethics.
Well I did name it!
But this is basically what AE and estoppel show.
Yes–this is basically the approach taken by Hoppe and me in our argumentation ethics/estoppel approaches.
Wombatron, what do you mean, it’s a precondition of human flourishing? Isn’t this vague way of writing a way of hiding the fact that you are trying to smuggle a norm in, to avoid admitting there is an is-ought gap problem? If you want to introduce an explicitly assumed norm to build your case, fine–but then we can ask, why shoudl we accept this norm? The answer lies in the Hoppean-type approach which points to the fact that any sincere questioner already does presuppose certain values; only civilized people–those who have adopted certain values–make such inquiries.