Question for Jackson Larose

[Esuric]

@Jackson LaRose

I don’t quite see how you can assume that outcome with any degree of certainty, but even assuming your arbitrary soothsaying is correct, how is asserting absolute control over a geographic territory via property rights, rather than force, not forming states?

The state (for lack of a better term) would be a voluntary institution meant to protect property rights, and prevent the condition from deteriorating into complete chaos (the previous condition). What this state looks like, and what happens after that is uncertain. The state could be a corporation which allows members to freely leave and join other corporate-states (in the literal sense); or, the state could become a totalitarian regime which violates property rights as well (which may lead to the attempt to form a new state (revolution) or not).

@Jackson LaRose

It seems to me that constant external antagonism would be a better check to aggressive expansion than praying that all humans will willfully and voluntarily adhere to NAP.

No one holds this position, and your jumping to conclusions. We need to get past step C before we get to step Z.

@Jackson LaRose

I don’t understand how that follows.

Well then you’re either a fool or a liar.

[filc]

@Jackson LaRose

@Esuric

must necessarily establish property rights; It’s axiomatic.

I don’t understand how that follows.

Property is what I call a complex axiom, and it is a natural consequence built from the 3 natural limitations I outlined in the opening post.

• Objects are scarce
• Time is scarce
• The occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy desires/needs

[apehead]

@Angurse

False.

“Surrender. You will be given no further chance.”

(Wookieepdia makes things too easy)

[:P]

[Esuric]

@filc

• Objects are scarce
• Time is scarce
• The occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy desires/needs

lol. What a waste of time. I didn’t even see that.

[apehead]

@Esuric

The state (for lack of a better term) would be a voluntary institution meant to protect property rights, and prevent the condition from deteriorating into complete chaos (the previous condition). What this state looks like, and what happens after that is uncertain. The state could be a corporation which allows members to freely leave and join other corporate-states (in the literal sense); or, the state could become a totalitarian regime which violates property rights as well (which may lead to the attempt to form a new state (revolution) or not).

So it would be like tribalism? That’s funny because I was sort of thinking the end result would be the same.

@Esuric

Well then you’re either a fool or a liar.

Aren’t you just a ray of sunshine! Assume I’m a fool. How does it follow?

[Angurse]

I guess the individual who denies “genetics, opportunity, etc…” is nothing more than a “spook.”

[Amanojack]

Let’s backtrack for a moment.

@Esuric

@Jackson LaRose

Civilizations which don’t respect and enforce property rights are economically depressed in the truest sense of the word. Output doesn’t collapse; it never begins. This has been the story of the Balkans for quite some time. A civilization without any property rights whatsoever is no civilization at all. Not only would it lack a functional price mechanism, but even barter would be impossible. Any kind of production, even the simplest and most direct productions, would be utterly futile. It would be hard to imagine such chaos. The incentive argument refuted such positions long ago.

So I need you to back up this assertion. (If I misunderstood you, then I apologize).

I don’t see how this absolutely has to be the case. Since you are attempting to justify your belief in the necessity of property rights, wouldn’t the burden of proof rest on your shoulders?

I don’t see see a necessary disagreement here. Esuric seems to be saying that we have strong reason to believe that property law enforcement (i.e., de facto property rights) is necessary for a society’s prosperity, because historically prosperity has only occurred when property law was enforced. Meanwhile, Jackson seems to be saying that there is no reason to assume that property rights must be centrally planned or determined.

But why are these arguments mutually exclusive? Why can’t property law be enforced without central planning or determination? In fact, this is essentially the customary law system of old, as administered by courts that competed for business - a free market in law.

[apehead]

@Angurse

I guess the individual who denies “genetics, opportunity, etc…” is nothing more than a “spook.”

LOL. I suppose since you can’t conceptualize it, it must not exist.

[filc]

@AJ

Jackson seems to be saying that there is no reason to assume that property rights must be centrally planned or determined.

Jackson states that he believes that property rights should not exist at all. Whether it centrally planned or not. He against the rights.

[apehead]

@AJ

Meanwhile, Jackson seems to be saying that there is no reason to assume that property rights must be centrally planned or determined.

I’m going a bit further off the cliff than that. I’m saying that a concept of property rights is totally unnecessary for markets to emerge. They may very well crop up due to individuals’ desires to submit themselves to them for ease of living, or to facilitate cooperation more easily, but I don’t see how they must exist.

[apehead]

@filc

Jackson states that he believes that property rights should not exist at all.

No. I’m saying I don’t believe in them. I abstain from a normative position on them. Although I appreciate having words put on my fingers, I’m more than capable of handling it myself.

[Angurse]

@Jackson LaRose

LOL. I suppose since you can’t conceptualize it, it must not exist.

That would be the adequate Stirnerite view.

[filc]

@Jackson LaRose

@Wiki

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.

So can I summarize the unecessary complex definition as follows.

Ethics is a code of conduct described to attempt to achieve a desired end, or ends.

For example, Christianity is a code of conduct described to attempt to bring people everlasting life.

Do you agree to my definition or not, if not than please do us all a favor, save us all alot of time, and be specific in your responses.

[apehead]

@Angurse

That would be the adequate Stirnerite view.

LOL. Sarcasm, bud.

[Amanojack]

@filc

Jackson states that he believes that property rights should not exist at all. Whether it centrally planned or not. He against the rights.

Doesn’t he just mean he’s against normative rights, not de facto rights? Referring to Long’s clarifying distinction:

• Normative rights: the claims that ought to be respected and protected.

• Legal rights: the claims that a given legal institution officially announces it will respect and protect.

• De facto rights: the claims that actually receive respect and protection in a given society.

[Angurse]

@Jackson LaRose

LOL. Sarcasm, bud.

Yeah, some of Stirner is pretty much a joke, adequate nevertheless.

[Amanojack]

@Jackson LaRose

@AJ

Meanwhile, Jackson seems to be saying that there is no reason to assume that property rights must be centrally planned or determined.

I’m going a bit further off the cliff than that. I’m saying that a concept of property rights is totally unnecessary for markets to emerge. They may very well crop up due to individuals’ desires to submit themselves to them for ease of living, or to facilitate cooperation more easily, but I don’t see how they must exist.

Certainly there is no must, but they (de facto “rights” - if only “if you do that, expect some people goin’ bust yo’ head!”) strongly tend to evolve in communities as a means of resolving disputes.

[Angurse]

@AJ

Doesn’t he just mean he’s against normative rights, not de facto rights? Referring to Long’s clarifying distinction:

This looks similar to my “…still believes in ethics” contention.

[apehead]

@filc

Ethics is a code of conduct described to attempt to achieve a desired end, or ends.

If those ends are answering questions about the morality of actions.

@filc

For example, Christianity is a code of conduct described to attempt to bring people everlasting life.

By being a good person by Christian standards.

@filc

Do you agree to my definition or not

Only in the context explained above.

@filc

if not than please do us all a favor, save us all alot of time, and be specific in your responses.

If you started asking specific questions, I’d give specific responses.

[apehead]

@Angurse

Yeah, some of Stirner is pretty much a joke, adequate nevertheless.

LOL