I don’t blame Sage. There are a lot of people online with blogs and followings and articles and they don’t really get challenged, and generally, people take what they say as being well thought out, refined and true.
The problem is, particularly when blogging, is that there is almost no refinement going on. Some people develop long posts over time, but they haven’t tested the arguments by soliciting other opinions before they publish. Not in all cases, but many. And then the blog paradigm is poster has soapbox, and commenters must sit in the peanut gallery. So that isn’t a particularly good feedback system either.
I have a friend who owns a bunch of forums, and he has been trying to blog and use Twitter. He asked on one of his forums, why some people just can’t get into blogging. And the conclusion was, and I agree, that you don’t have conversations on blogs. It’s not that sort of medium. Blogs are publishing platforms first. Forums are where everyone stands eye to eye in a thread and can usually format their response very precisely. It’s much more conducive to group analysis and debate.
Lord knows I have a lot to say, and barely any of it makes it to my blog. I just don’t feel like publishing, I’m not comfortable being on the soapbox unless I can allow you to use it when you write back to me.
What’s that supposed to mean ? You wouldn’t be denying the existence of your-self would you ? And whether the self is just a dead machine ticking…or something else…depends on metaphysical assumptions, I think. You can’t really escape metaphysics. Materialism/physicalism depend on metaphysical assumptions.
Materialism is self-refuting, but I don’t really expect you to take my word for it. Let’s say I’m a bit slow and I laugh at ‘science’ because I don’t understand it =]
I can’t say I am particularly credible in the area, but The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger offers what I think to be the most well reasoned theory of consciousness I have come across. If you could elaborate on materialism depending on metaphysical assumptions I would be grateful. And thanks for not expecting me to take your word for it, I try to avoid that if I can help it.
Because someone else has availed themselves of the opportunity, and in so doing deprived them of nothing they had a right to. It is again like having the “liberty” of a right to speak to me and then being “deprived” of it.
How about we rephrase this and ask: why should people not respect this? What better claim have they got that entitles them to disrespect it? Why should I respect someone’s claim to their body anyway? It is in the end another resource that can be put to a variety of uses… if not by first use, then which criterion, and if it is alright to claim absolute ownership over the body why not over anything else one makes use of (provided it’s unowned)?
But you don’t have the liberty to do whatever you want to begin with, especially with regard to the bodies of others (and why not then their property?) And certainly not some right to an opportunity to appropriate.
If someone wants to contest the claim they had better offer a good reason for overturning it. So far they have no connection whatsoever with it and if they come and disrupt your claim to it - they can say you shouldnt’ve homesteaded it if you didn’t want them interrupting you, but still you did, the connection is there, and now they should explain why they have a better connection to it than you do. To say they could just come and violate your claim entails they actually have the liberty/right to do so, but that’s precisely what they must prove at this point. In fact they will claim resources in the process, some of them to an absolute extent (can I demand back the food in your stomach? the air you inhale? partial control over your brain? why not?)
Which is purely a practical matter which courts will define and see to, simply for the homesteader to avoid any issues with others impeding on their claim to the object.
What Danny fails to understand is simple A,B,C… 1, 2, 3, and he suffocates common sense. Danny thinks he has to decide what Tom can and can’t do with his property. Danny is Keynesian all over again.
It is Tom’s property. So this is not even an issue of property rights. A property right is not about Klemm not being able to invade Tom’s cabin. By able it is simply physics that can allow Klemm is break into the cabin. That’s obvious. And the cabin he broke into is Tom’s and that is obvious too. So the whole time, thus far, it is noted that it is Tom’s cabin and no property rights have been violated - why? Justice.
Justice is the moral force that renews and sustains social harmony. The NAP is about reducing conflict to its barest minimums as possible. And justice is an important element to this reduction of conflict for it returns a discordant event caused by a potential criminal, in this case, back to the harmony that a good society telos. It is human nature to reason, discourse, and negotiate and any deviation from this nature coerces ill-outcomes. Part of any society when an injustice has occurred is maintenance and this is the force of justice to return the harmony that was abandoned, in this case, by Klemm. For whatever reason and we can only guess Klemm became desperate. He broke into Tom’s cabin. It is Tom’s property still even though Klemm broke in. Klemm doesn’t have the power to take Tom’s cabin unless the society doesn’t recognize it is Tom’s cabin.
So the issue is not about property - it’s Tom’s. The issue is an inquiry of repercussions. What this means is the whole time through this thread, for the most part, the question has been raised what do we do with Klemm. It is Tom’s property, and Klemm physically was able to break into Tom’s cabin. To question this way is to resolve with justice the event and thus to inquire of repercussions.
Danny fumbles liberty and throws out Tom’s right to his property. Danny intervenes, as the State, and coerces Tom, and denying Tom’s free-will to inquire into repercussions. Danny has demonized Tom as the criminal by placing this gag order on Tom. And the slippery slope to further loss of liberties has been opened in Danny’s position. All to save Klemm’s life, which I come to the same conclusion and I save Klemm’s life as well - yet I don’t fumble anybody’s liberties into oblivion.
My position. It’s Tom’s cabin. It is his property. Klemm due to physics breaks into Tom’s cabin. Klemm’s life is safe. Tom finds out Klemm broke in. Tom sits down and talks with Klemm. Tom is a very understanding person and is a rational and social animal. Tom applies mercy, thus, compassion and lets Klemm go on his way. Tom could be even more virtuous and find out Klemm, let’s say lost a job and didn’t have a place to stay. Tom being the social animal he is set’s Klemm up with a job. Klemm being the virtuous person he is pays back Tom for all damages. They thank each other and Klemm is living a life now that doesn’t pit him into desperation in fear that nature might bring danger to him once again. Tom is enjoying his cabin and Klemm is in Europe right now working hard to rid the EU. He found a lovely woman in Italy and are expecting a young one in about a month. Tom is a grandfather now with a grandson. Tom and Klemm still call each other occasionally and say hi…lol
I don’t fumble and befuddled the event. Nobody lost their liberties and harmony was restored. Danny wants to coerce Tom into his decision. I don’t. We arrive at the same conclusion. Yet Danny coerces the liberties and I don’t. My position cultivates a potential good relationship and Danny’s position cultivates an active coercive relationship. It is unfortunate that Danny has to throw out liberties when reason shows the same conclusion can be met without having to lose liberties along the way.
Oh well, maybe Danny will learn someday it’s not helpful to mimic the State and maybe Danny will choose to become a libertarian and help advocate liberty.
There is no other intelligent option but to support the NAP for its own sake. The reason being that the motives of a person are not observable.
That limitation is dictated by our physical world. The natural world will never be able to offer any more objectivity when examining human interactions.
I did answer the question, in this post, way back on page nine.
You’re looking for a yes or no answer. My answer is “yes, but…”. I guess my answer wasn’t the one you’re looking for.
Apparently you insist that this issue must be perfectly black and white, and that there is no possibility of nuance or shades of gray.
Philosophy is not as simplistic as you want it to be. It’s a hell of a lot more complex than “A,B,C… 1, 2, 3”. If you can’t understand that, here’s something else you can do.
On an eirenic note, I think we can all agree on one thing: there are positive returns to more reading and learning. I think this discussion would be immeasurably improved if we read the books Danny mentioned.
So it is Tom’s cabin. What’s the big deal. So it’s Tom’s cabin. I don’t see your dilemma. Why the need for the “but…” when a simple yes also saves Klemm’s life. Danny’s position offers confusion where it’s not necessary.
um, no. Danny complicates and befuddles the event that I arrive at with the same solution but I don’t sacrifice liberties to get there. Danny’s not for liberty as he coerces Tom to comply with Danny’s statist dictates, and I usually put non-libertarian books on the back burner.
And yeah, philosophy is about simplicity when simplicity is the option. Why cultivate quagmires when you can choose logic.
On the contrary, I would argue that aside from people’s philosophical musings, in actual fact there is a sense in which noone accepts the NAP for its own sake, divorced from any other values. It is not separable from other values.
When I say that the NAP is not a floating self-evident axoim, I’m pointing out that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum all by itself, as if it has no relation to other values and as if it’s irreducable. It is not an axoim!
There is nothing “intelligent” about deontology and purely self-referential justifications for principles.
I’m surprised he didn’t mention The Gallant Gallstone. I figured that would be at the top of his reading list.
Philosophy needs to follow a rational progression ABC 123 or it is incoherent.
The problem with Danny’s philosophy is that it starts with a premise that keeps shifting based on the circumstances. When you ask him to clarify that premise in light of different conditions, he changes the premise. When you remove his claimed means, and just go to the end, it is nihilism.
The problem isn’t that one has not read enough books, it’s that the premise is irrational.
Would you consider self-ownership (ethically speaking, not getting into ontology) one of those values that the NAP is derived from? Do you think it makes “philosophical sense” considering that no self-evident axiom can exist (that I’m aware of) in ethics?
I’ve been reading through the thread in your signature Charles, I’m not through yet, but very interesting discussion. I like this part found in this post here:
This is exactly the trap, dilemma, and befuddlement that Danny cultivates. He says it’s Tom’s cabin, but then has to add all kinds of special definitions to what Tom’s cabin means. He even says well it depends on what Tom’s cabin means. It’s the conundrum of what is, is. Clinton was a liar, and in philosophical circles dealing with an intellectual exercise it’s politely called false, not true, circular reasoning, or a contradiction, etc… It gets circular and bubbles form just like in the economy so more plugs and bailouts are needed cause Danny’s ship is so full of holes and leaks water not enough buckets of his can keep out the ocean of truth.
If you recognize the intuitive force of opposing slavery, why don’t you likewise recognize the intuitive force of Feinberg’s cabin example? It seems inconsistent to use an appeal to intuition in one area and then deny it in another.
That isn’t for it’s own sake, it presupposes all sorts of values. Why don’t you want to be a slave? Why do you want to be free from aggression? As soon as you answer those questions, you begin to invoke other values. It makes no sense to appeal to the principle to justify the principle. If one’s purpose is to prove the principle, then one must appeal to something external to the principle itself, not engage in a purely self-referential circle. So I’m essentially saying that there is no way to even approach making a rational argument for the NAP without appeal to other principles. Saying that “the NAP is valid because the NAP says so” isn’t a rational argument and cannot possibly be taken seriously as a matter of philosophy. Likewise, argueing that “the NAP is valid because you cannot argue against it without proving it”, while not providing any positive argument for it, is simply sophistry.
I don’t believe in the concept of self-ownership. But I would say that yes, the NAP is derived from something at least along the lines of “self-ownership”, rather than being an axoim.