that’s fine. you’re in a different paradigm is all. and i in another one. just don’t try to hurt me and my family nor take any of my stuff and we’ll do fine. and I’ll be sure to keep my grabbing paws off of your stuff as well.
In a sense it is because you achieve the property through egoist action. If you got it, its because you deserve it. If you didn’t get it then you didn’t deserve it. This is something that always bothered me about Stirner. He seems to have this mentality of Hegel in which everything that is, ought to be because that is the way it should be. However, how can one be against the state which is obviously superior in inflicting its goals onto a given populace?
LOL, deal!
I don’t think Stirner is of the “might makes right” camp. Justin Spahr-Summers has a brilliant explanation here:
This is a good point. Personally, the only reason I oppose the state, is because they are in my way.
Its the same thing, descriptively.
Sure, but it drops the ethical baggage.
Who cares, a concept of rights (in some form) is still clearly present. (You really seem to be hung up on ethical baggage)
How so?
From the Ego and Its Own:
‘I do not demand any right, therefore I need not recognize any either. What I can get by force I get by force, and what I do not get by force I have no right to, nor do I give myself airs, or consolation, with my imprescriptible right…’
I agree that Stirner didn’t believe in ‘rights’ so maybe we can say something like ‘might makes justification.’ The only justification I need for enacting my will upon you is that I am more powerful then you. I think Anguse is right though that descriptively speaking this isn’t very different from might makes right.
What?
As descriptive rights are still present.
I don’t understand.
Then why did you say “sure?”
Whether Stirner liked it or not, his view of might being all that mattered, means he saw it as “right.” Not “right” as in what one ought to do, just “right” as in how things are. There is, conceptually, no difference between saying “might makes right” and saying “property depends upon might.” To act upon ones might, proves their right.
Oh, well I can deal with that. I was confused about your use of the term “right”.
To the contrary. I am not hung up on the word property, you are.
Because your definition of property is counter productive if one’s goal is to understand markets and how they work. It is counter productive if you wish to show that collectivism has failed in the past which you previously mentioned.
Your definition also falls apart when we critically analyze the fundamental purpose of property. That is, if we look at the 3 pre-existing earthly conditions I mentioned above.
My view on ethics is irrelevant to the fundamental mechanical point of property.
There is no moving on. You and I are still at the same place we were 7 pages ago and I am tired of it. Unless you have something new to convince me that property need not exist. All that has transpired in the past 8 pages is that I have shown you logically that property results out of necessity.
You have consistently asserted otherwise but have not at all in any case presented an argument which grants merit to your claim. MY posts have been long and wordy, yours short.
These 3 problems
- Objects are scarce
- Time is scarce
- The occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy desires/needs
Are not semantic problems. They are real conditions which exist, and there are real economic methods to dealing with them. Property is one of them.
The ethical re-write of this statement above is the only thing different from you and an ethical ideologue. Ultimately though you are one and the same. I could just as easily say,
The state should be off my back because it is evil/wrong. The only difference between the two statements is a semantics one. You are hung up on the semantical wording of ethical statements. That is your problem, not mine nor of many others on this forum.
No offense my friend, and your recent positive posts do not reflect this, but many of your past posts have been very antagonistic, you never really lead people to believing you were interested in talking. Often times you seemed more interested in pushing your anti-ideological ideology.
But the if concept of property is no different than possession, why have it? How does it enrich people’s interaction? We both agree that people will naturally attempt possession of objects, so why bother having the concept at all?
That is patently false.
It is not semantics. If it was an ethical statement, I would think I deserved to have the state leave me alone. I hold no such pretense.
Irrelevant.
Hey man, I don’t remember firing the first shot in many of the flame wars I’ve gotten into. Try disagreeing with Olovetto, or Nirgraham, and tell me how long the discourse stays civil. I was merely trying to keep pace. If that still bothers you, I don’t know what to tell you.
because possession does not further explain who is maintaining and receiving the profits or loss for that specific peice of capital. Like in the case of renting. You may be in possession but you are not the property owner, ect…
There is always a pretense, and it is semantics.
That is the point of the entire discussion.
I have never observed anything out of place or uncalled for from Nirgraham.
How would you determine who was owner, and who was renter?
Why?
How are you so assured that I am the only one with an aversion to justified action, rather than simply action? Your assertion is arbitrary, and irrelevant.
And I don’t think my style of debate is unnecessarily abrasive. We all have different opinions.
Via property. At any rate I am done =)
OK, later gator.