That very well may be. I’m not much of a sociologist, so I couldn’t tell you.
He never clarifies so I don’t know. he makes very broad statements, like I don’t believe in property. Then 5 pages later explains that he conflates property rights with property. Rather then just explaining it up front.
Such slander.
I’m not really sure what this is referring to, the adequacy of Stirner musings on truth, or my jab at Stirner (and his musings on truth), or my impeccable timing.
Regardless, I (and Obi-Wan) made my case, completely unattested at that, the force must be with me or something.
Explain to me the consequential differences of not believing in something, and believing it does not exist?
And excuse my ignorance on this one.
…
I apologize, Then would you be so kind as to actually explain your position to everyone rather then continuing your evasive show? For example, kindly remind the new comers to this discussion that you do make no distinguishing difference between Property, and Property Rights. To you both are one in the same. Or am I putting words in your mouth again?
And so in its place we would simply have a concept of possession. All we’ve done is replaced property with possession. Great accomplishment!
Then start clarifying. We’re all waiting.
LOL. How am I supposed to argue with your opinion? I spent enough time running down that dead-end already.
Speak to me like im a kindergartener. Can you re-word this sentence for me? I don’t see how it follows that ends answer questions about morality. Morals guide our actions to achieve ends. For example, it would be immoral for me to kill. The end would be that I am a good Christian because of not killing. The morals are my guide to acquire the end.
The end is the end, it is not answer anything. Being a good Christian does not answer anything, it just is. Now the morals involve answer us how we should conduct ourselves to achieve the end.
And in what context would you disagree? Forgive me I thought you were going to start clarifying your positions. I hate to keep asking you. [:)]
My questions above were extremely specific, and you provided non specific answers. So much so that I constantly have to go back and re-ask the same questions to dig through your evasiveness.
LOL pure perfection. What else could I put forth but my opinion? I am not omniscient. You must be possessed by the ideologue.
And my opinion was at the very least seconded by Obi-Wan, your opinion - that there are some people (at least, conceivably) who don’t believe in “nature, genetics, opportunity, chance, and luck” - still stands completely unsubstantiated.
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”.
Sure I do. You just answered my original challenge, which was:
With:
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?
Yes. The wrong ones, at that. Central planning doesn’t work.
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.
Are you sure that is what you mean?
Yeah, why?
As filc has clearly been trying to get over meanings and get to what you mean for pages, yet still… “What I’m saying is that property is an ethical term, whereas possession is not” to be contrasted with “I get so much heat for trying to do this [ trying to get at what people mean] on the forums.”
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
- Rights(You have a right
abilityto) → 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.
You sound like you’re into Nietzsche. Only a Nietzschean would try to eliminate the word “property” from the English language in order to prove that ethics don’t exist.
Angurse, I suggested to him back at almost post one between him and I to understand the difference between semantics and concepts (what a person means), but you’re still here explaining it to him about 30 pages later that include at least three threads later. Does that mean anything to you? It does to me.
I’m glad to see you are so eager to jump to conclusions, but if you check out the thread all this spilt out from, you’d see I explained it rather clearly already.
It’s like starting all over again! [:P]
Wait until he says he’s trying to rid the world of ideas and to abandon all concepts.
But then he tries to use marginalism to explain it because he did say he would “like” to.
Nietzsche trying to rebuild the world and is only left with the same underlying principles as the former world. Made me think of what you said earlier Esuric in this thread:
'It’s like the difference between a match and a fire. You use one (property rights), to conclude the other (which property you own).
Yeah.
And as I corrected you, it should be more like this:
Matter (stuff) + Rights = Property, Ownership
I dismiss the concept of property (based upon my definition), not that matter exists (I’m unsure about that).
I don’t think I described property that way, but either way… OK, fine. You have your pet definitions, I have mine.
Yeah it sure is annoying. [:(]
When did I try to eliminate the word “property”? And no I attempted to read “Thus Spake Zarathustra” a few years ago, and couldn’t get into it. I’ll have to try again sometime.