Question for Jackson Larose

[filc]

@Jackson LaRose

@filc

Explain to me the consequential differences of not believing in something, and believing it does not exist?

The difference is subtle, but I think it’s important. Not believing in something for me, is saying “this thing may exist, but I don’t think it does”, as opposed to saying “I know 100% this thing doesn’t exist”.

@filc

kindly remind the new comers to this discussion that you do make no distinguishing difference between Property, and Property Rights.

Sure I do. You just answered my original challenge, which was:

@Jackson LaRose

So you assume that everybody has a innate concept of property rights?

With:

@filc

Their actions seem to imply so. Even toddlers that cannot even talk or walk exhibit signs understanding a primitive level property, ownership, and rights.

I assumed (mistakenly, apparently) that this had something to do with property rights, since it was a direct response to the question I asked. Soon thereafter, you began to cry foul that I was conflating property (at this point, you had dropped the assertions about ownership and rights) with property rights.

Just so there is no confusion, I do distinguish the two. To get all the newcomers up to speed here is my interpretation of some terms:

Property is matter an individual claims under the concept of ownership.

Ownership is the concept of rightful possession of matter

Right is the moral justification of action

Property right is the moral justification of applying the concept of ownership.

Is that clear enough?

@filc

Or am I putting words in your mouth again?

Yes. The wrong ones, at that. Central planning doesn’t work.

@filc

And so in its place we would simply have a concept of possession. All we’ve done is replaced property with possession. Great accomplishment!

I can’t believe that after all this typing, you are still that far off the mark.

What I’m saying is that property is an ethical term, whereas possession is not. Hence, I feel that one does not necessarily have to consider possessions property.

And in all of that you further conflated property with property rights. Or at least you did not specifically distinguish property rights from property.

Based on your definition of property above, how are property rights any different? How do you distinguish the two? If property is an ethical concept, which I will show you later that nearly everything is, than what does that make property rights? Isn’t that also an ethical concept?

As I explained on the other thread, you define property as

1. Rights(You have a right ability to) → 2. Ownership(Capable of owning) → 3. Property(stuff)

And since you do not believe in rights you dismiss property as such.

I defined it in the other thread from an economic standoint, as Wilderness and I were attempting to show in another thread

1. Property(Thing stuff, as you described) → 2. Ownership(Capable of being owned) → 3. Rights(decide who owns)

But since rights and ethics are the root of the issue here we can temporarily for now ignore the property fiasco, and focus on that. We have to identify the root of the problem before we can worry about the stuff above it, and I have to work off your definition. As someone else said, we need to address B before Z. I’ll get to the ethics when you can clarify the ethics definition I have above though it may not be until tomorrow evening, but I have to be 100% sure on your definition of ethics.

If there is one thing I dislike more than anything it is when people change their definitions when they know they are wrong and backed themselves into a corner.