No because actually what I meant, according to you, is that babies have a primitive understanding of possession. [:)]
Can you tell me what your problem is regarding ethics?
So now, property=possession, ownership=possession, and rights=possession? I don’t understand.
I don’t believe in them.
“Vot iz viv all za shoutink?”…
Time for Ace Ventura “Austrian” trainer to make an appearance, methinks[:)]
Regards, onebornfree
Now we are back at square one and your just confusing yourself. What do rights have to do with it? Nothing.
So let me ask you this.
- Our goal is to satisfy the maximum number of ends across men.
- To do this we will employ the market.
You seem to agree with statement 1. when you said earlier
Would you agree or disagree to statement #1.
Side point. Curious, but is it an ethical statement to say you don’t believe in ethics?
You seem to be the confused one, mate.
I have no idea what this means, although it sounds a little homo-erotic.
Given the implications of question #1, you might get arrested for solicitation if you act on #2 .
I don’t think so.
It’d help to familiarise yourself with internalist vs externalist ethical models, because you will then be better situated to understand how negative demonstrations like arg. ethics or de Jasay’s epistemological approach to ethics try to sidestep the whole problem of value being subjective in their formulation of ethical systems. A good place to start is An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics by Alex Miller.
Enter the deluded bah-ing of silly sheep trying to justify the state by any means possible based on their own antediluvian fears, yes.
If I may call The Late Andrew Ryan, TLAR for short, I think TLAR stating “individual evaluates the situation as” is the same as you, Justin, saying “value ends differently”. Because they end differently, though at times they converge, eg. I like vanilla ice cream and so does my wife, that different end is due to different “individual(s) evaluating the situation”.
In economics there are facts of supply and demand. Increase supply and prices drop. Increase demand and prices rise. Those are not my preferences alone. Yet those facts happen because of preferences, ie. individuals are doing the demanding and supplying, and individuals prefer to do these activities because marginal activity. Marginalism is universal and isn’t such because of my preference alone other people experience marginalism, and it does happen due to preferences though.
What do you mean by objective ethics Justin? I can put the subjective or objective hat on. Thus when I think of objective it simply means finding what is factually already present. Universals are discovered objectively. Subjectively, I find, means to some people individuality. Yet it is obvious that an objectivist is an individual and as an individual has come to these objective truths. Both the subjectivist and the objectivist both value what they discover, experience, and prefer. I think both do the same actions, as noted above, the individual studying economics is aware of the individual but also of the non-individual (objective?) facts/universals that happen in the market. This is why I believe subjective and objective are red herrings, not because you or anybody else said these terms, but also for me as they lead to nowhere meaningful and both can come to the same conclusions. But why the same conclusions? Because if a person values (subjective) axioms (objective), then such a person is experiencing something more inclusive than only subjective or only objective. Such a person, I believe being me and in the sense as me being human so I think it is not an individual conclusion but a conclusion discovered in human nature in and of itself, that I can put on the subjective hat and objective hat and think both ways. Now why is that if only one of those are supposedly defining human nature in total? I think it is because neither one of those terms define human nature in total. It’s more like a combination of those terms, what those terms mean to each individual person, those underlying meanings in those terms combined relate something else about human nature. An understanding and knowledge not attached to either one of those terms solely.
That’s not only addressed to you Justin, but maybe something TLAR can think about as well. thoughts?
I’m sorry, but can someone fill me in? I’ve read all of the comments, and still don’t understand Jackson’s position.
What if I told you that “respect for property emerges as a superior equilibrium solution of an indefinitely repeated non-cooperative coordination game”? Would you disagree?
I would agree with this definition of the objective. And (I think) I understand what you’re saying about subjectivity, but I’m not sure if it actually applies to objective ethics. I would define an objective code of ethics as a moral code based on the facts (or axioms) of reality. It is objective because it’s grounded in an objective reality external to all the actors. Now, you mentioned that “an individual [must have] come to these objective truths.” In a sense, I agree—I would say that ethics and morality are objective (universally applicable to all actors), but that individuals have to think and deduce in order to arrive at an objective moral code. It’s entirely possible that one could err along the way—like Ayn Rand—but this one person’s error doesn’t invalidate the whole study of objective ethics.
In short, I use “objective ethics” (an objectively-determinable moral code applicable to all actors) as a counter to “subjective ethics” (where morality is subjective, and “good” and “evil” are only in the eyes of the beholder).
But according to you, ilI need to use the word possession. So just change every time I said property to possession. Ok?
Yea this one did confuse me. Let me try again.
Previously you said.
Why do you choose to use the market?
Not sure either, I’ll wait and see.
I agree.
I wouldn’t say strictly “external”, because I internally comprehend what is external.
When I think of “applicable” in this context, I’m thinking all actors can comprehend, realize, and are capable (apply/applicable) of acting them. And each person can logically deduct such axioms thereby knowing and finding out on their own accord that such truths are not arbitrary.
Yes. I pretty much said that above without reading this, so, we agree.
Axioms are not wrong even if an axiom is discovered to not be correct that only means the human was being illogical in formulating such an axiom. I think humans can be illogical, meaning, make mistakes about reality.
I can think how they work in combination, because you said “I” use, meaning in the eye of your beholding. But since you discovered a principle and deducted such a principle it is not something you arbitrarily thought-up, but others may come to the same conclusions, even if they never heard of your discovery of such and such principle.
Now saying all of this, I totally agree with objective ethics. I know it’s true. But I also understand why some people adhere to subjective ethics, I believe, because they think they are adhering to the individual whereas an objective ethicist isn’t. But that’s wrong. Maybe they have other reasons. I’ve heard because there are murderers so ethics aren’t objective because some people kill and others don’t. Yet that’s a complete misunderstanding of objective ethics. First the person needs to delve into the paradigm of objective ethics and realize that an objective ethicist is an individual. Also, free-will being universal, ie. human action, thus, the ethics don’t only define what is good but also what is bad. Of course individuals will not define good the same way, ie. murderer doesn’t believe refraining from murder is good. But ethics is a study that retains what subjectivists dear, which is individuality. The reason a murderer can choose that murder is good, is because they are an individual making a deliberate human action. The reason an innocent person chooses to stop the murderer from murdering is because the innocent person is an individual making deliberate human action. Both kinds of people live in this world and to be descriptive about reality and to identify what is real and happens in this world is to not ignore that in this world there is an innocent person and a criminal. Ethics is a science as it is descriptive of these real individuals. The interplay between these individuals is an ethical inquiry.
I’m saying a working concept of property, ownership, and rights are unnecessary for markets to arise.
I don’t know. It’s hard to wade through the jargon.
OK. I agree that babies realize they can physically possess objects. I disagree that they have conceptualized ownership, or rights.
Use the market for what?
I don’t know you said it not me. Remember?
Why did you say this? Why do you choose to use the market?
Also why do you make these posts painfully evasive. You could just answer honestly instead of dodging and we could progress forward much faster. You said to use the market, not me. I want to know why you choose to use the market?
Yes I’ll ignore the ownership/rights points for now considering your a nihilist.
I didn’t choose to use the market, I said let the market decide. You keep pulling up the quote, what was I saying it in regards to?
Can you explain to me how this statement makes any sense at all? By agreeing to let the market decide you are choosing to use it.
This is what I want you to tell me.
There is nothing to fill in. Jackson has never been honest with us as to what his position is. He has derailed several threads and has held previously a very antagonistic tone with me. Though recently he has cleaned up so I give him credit for that and do appreciate it much.
My two key contentions with him currently are
A) His argument that he does not beleive in property.
B) He does not beleive in ethics.
[edit] As far as I can tell Esuric he is a nihilist. Which explains alot.