Yes, calling people you can’t refute “ideologues” is a typical marxist technique - petit bourgeoises use their own logic, blah blah. As to not knowing what marxism is…well…given that you’ve previously said that marx was a libertarian, I think I can safely question your ability to classify political positions.
And what does this have to do with it being Tom’s cabin still. Klemm hasn’t taken Tom’s cabin has he?
Well I have no idea what particular property rights you are arguing against. And I don’t think you know the particular property rights I am arguing for.
I have no idea what your intellect determines as “the underlying property theory”. And you have no idea about mine.
You said in this post right up above:
“it’d become evident that I’m argueing against justifications for coercion by questioning the underlying property theory that leads to them.”
You’re stating here that there is a property right that leads to coercion. I never said there was one, except for the one many posts ago that has Tom being an ass. But this nowhere negates it’s Tom’s cabin.
Again with this ghostly “incoherant property rights theory” of your intellect. Cause I’ve never stating an incoherant property rights theory.
And who in particular holds this “deontological, axiomatic property rights theory” that you so desire to argue against? a ghost?
Nope.
That is short of context, and in the real world, context is necessary to establish a rational perspective.’
The world is not a lifeboat scenario. In fact, lifeboats happen vey rarely. And even when they do, they have enormous context around the circumstances leading to them.
Ultimately, you would blame the effects of nature on man. And that simply won’t do.
LMAO.
Good
And this is exactly why I see this not a question of property. Now I see what you’re bringing up which is different than Danny or Sage. It’s a moral question of Klemm. I’ve said this in this thread way back that for a Tom to recognize the hardship of Klemm would be a good society. When you turn it into a question of property I think that’s when you miss my understanding of property and begin to argue with a ghost.
Logical fallacy.
No, it does not strictly have to do with reprecussions, and I already demonstrated this pages back. Don’t go in circles now.
You just did precisely that.
This is your own misunderstanding. Danny has not concluded anything about Tom. Danny has concluded that it is morally permissible for Klemm to break in to Tom’s cabin, NOT the “tom must be coerced into thinking this”.
As I have already tried to explain to you, NOONE, NOT EVEN DANNY, IS CLAIMING THAT IT NEGATES THE CABIN FROM BEING TOM’S. That’s not the question at hand. Your repeated shift towards acting as if this is fundamentally about whether or not Tom owns the cabin misses the point.
I’m fairly certain Giles is talking about me. He’s angry that Daddy debunked his pet theory about gays and time preference, so now he is going to be an insolent teenager, storming around the house with his fists clenched, slamming doors and kicking furniture.
palmface
Wilderness, it has been explained to you repeatedly now that noone is questioning whether or not it is still Tom’s cabin. YOU keep bringing that up, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand.
I spent mutiple pages explaining what I am argueing against yesterday.
Are you really this dense? I’m argueing against a particular THEORY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS by pointing out that it leads to coercion - WHICH I OPPOSE! I AM NOT QUESTIONING TOM’S OWNERSHIP OF A CABIN! I AM NOT ARGUEING THAT “PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHICH I SUPPORT, LEAD TO COERCION”, I AM ARGUEING THAT “AN INCOHERANTLY FORMED THEORY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS HAS THE FUNCTION OF JUSTIFYING COERCION, AND I OPPOSE IT ON THESE GROUNDS”. FURTHERMORE, MY ARGUEMENT IS A SEPARATE ONE FROM THE ORIGINAL DEBATE ABOUT TOM"S CABIN. palmface
A significant portion of libertarians who endorse a view that places property rights at the level of a first principle/axoim without realizing that the logical implications of applying such a conception of property rights entails subordinating people’s liberty to the fact that someone happens to be an owner. In its more virulent manifestation, it takes the form of those who argue for rights as mere commodities to be bought and sold, those who champion “voluntary slavery” and parental “ownership” of children, and those who endorse what reduces to monarchal city-states and communitarian-conservative majoritarian laws based on specious neo-lockean arguments and oversimplified understandings of libertarian ideas.
And all in the name of precious “self-ownership” and “property rights” and “liberty”!
Juan: Yes, calling people you can’t refute “ideologues” is a typical marxist technique - petit bourgeoises use their own logic, blah blah.
Citing the difficulty of having a profitable conversation with ideologues is not the same as positing polylogism, nor is it fallacious - because it wasn’t intended to be an argument against your position, it was an incitement to stop bothering.
Again, do you know what a Marxist is? Or have you just read Mises’ dismissive and partial criticisms of Marx (or, possibly, just one of them?) I have hardly ever met a libertarian who at all understands what Marxism is, and most ‘critiques’ against Marx around here tend to attack straw men. I happen to think Marx is wrong but (economic criticisms aside), most libertarians don’t even know what he did believe, much less why he was wrong.
Brainpolice: as well as those who endorse what reduce to monarchal city-states based on specious neo-lockean arguments.
Haha, don’t you love the alchemical theory of morality?
Nope:
I’ve asked repeatedly throughout this thread: Is it Tom’s cabin? And Sage has opted for neither yes or no. And Danny couldn’t answer this question after I repeated it well over 8 times. So you see it mostly has been questioned by Danny and Sage.
I’m glad you are not negating it being Tom’s cabin.
Not only am I not negating it being Tom’s cabin, but I’m also trying to point out that that is an entirely separate question than whether or not Klemm is justified in breaking into it in the scenario presented. I think you are presenting us with a false choice between saying that it’s Tom’s cabin and therefore it allegedly follows that Klemm is not justified in breaking in and saying that it isn’t Tom’s cabin and therefore Klemm can break in. My point is that whether or not it is Tom’s cabin is not really relevant - one could concievably aknowledge that it is Tom’s cabin while simultaneously thinking that Klemm is justified in breaking into the cabin in this particular scenario. It does not necessarily follow from it being morally permissible for Klemm to break in to the cabin that one doesn’t aknowledge that the cabin, at the end of the day, is still Tom’s. Tom does not actually “lose ownership” over the Cabin upon the permissibility of Klemm breaking in being granted for a particular circumstance; after the circumstance passes, Tom continues to own the Cabin either way.
To “humanize” and “personalize” the scenario, if you will, let’s suppose that YOU are Klemm (or the guy hanging from a flagpole in Walter Block’s scenario). In the dire situation, would you abstain from breaking into the Cabin or breaking the window in the name of “property rights”, or would you do what’s reasonably in your means to save your life? I think this might be part of what Danny is trying to get at: it doesn’t seem reasonable to sacrifice your very life for a principle in this way. Most people’s fundamental moral “intuition”, if you will, is going to be directed towards saving people’s lives in life-and-death situations. In the infamous “flagpole” scenario, for example, an abstract property right in a window isn’t likely to hold much weight when one is concerned with saving lives in dire situations. Now, are such situations necessarily an argument against ethical norms? No, I don’t think so, it merely demonstrates their limits and scope. Is a moral philosophy that tends to favor life in such scenarios inherently unlibertarian? You’d have to dismiss the neo-aristotilean libertarians and various consequentialist libertarians then, which makes no sense.
I’ve come to understand your position so I think it is time for you to understand mine. I’m admittedly uncomfortable in saying, “justified in breaking in” due to if taken out of context this leads to a rampage of misunderstandings. I’ve repeatedly have said that Tom would help Klemm. So fit that into your understanding of what I’m saying.
I continually have said, as long as Tom agrees it is justifiable, then yes, it is justifiable. If that’s the way you are using “justifiable” I’ve consistently stated Tom is merciful. I’ve stated in a previous post that mercy is an arm of justice that restores harmony with I think is the telos of society.
Absolutely.
I have not read or learned about free market…I lived the complete opposite. So it is very easy for me to understand the concept. Just like freedom…it is inside my self and everything that goes against it, be it in action or in idea, abhors me.
You are welcome…whenever you wish send me a mail… [;)]
The way that Danny has clarified the scenario for us, Tom is not even remotely present or aware of the situation. It’s strictly a question of what it is morally permissible for Klemm to do. The confusion is repeatedly created when you shift the emphasis towards Tom when Danny is posing the question more as one revolving around Klemm.
I know this. But as I’ve said before. Doesn’t Tom find out somebody broke into his house?
And I remind you, you do not negate it’s Tom’s cabin. Danny and Sage have actually brought that into question.
As was already pointed out, you are an ideologue as well, and your ideology is especially lame.
Your comment was technically an ad-hominem of sorts. You called a bunch of people ‘ideologues’ (whatever that means) and concluded that what they say is false. Or perhaps it was a non-sequitur. Ideologue–>wrong & won’t listen to reasons.
By the way, your apparent defense of BP is ridiculous given that BP is making a moral argument , but you think that inquiries into right and wrong (morals) deal with subjective fantasy.
Klemm’s actions don’t shift to a new morality if Tom is or is not present. By Danny bringing up Tom being absent, only reinforces the limit of Klemm’s options, not the morality of the options.
No, the confusion comes when the context is construed as narrowly as possible. At one point, Danny even tried to deny or obfuscate Tom’s ownership of the cabin. He has avoided addressing the physical reality that “breaking in” entails.
Well I came into this thread argueing from a somewhat different angle over a somewhat different (yet related) question. In the context of my own argument in this thread, it’s not a question of whether or not someone own’s something that I’m talking about, it’s a question of what scope of decision-making power is legitimate already assuming that the property is already “justly” owned in the first place. For example, I justly own my home - but the fact that I justly own my home begs the more fundamental question of what that entails, I.E. what legitimate scope of decision-making power ownership grants. It would not be a coherant property theory to propose, in effect, that my “property rights” grants me the “right” to arbitrarily violate the liberty of others.
“Property rights” are interpersonal norms that not only define a criteria for establishing the legitimacy of possessing something in the first place, but they also define the scope of decision-making power that is entailed by the legitimacy of possessing the thing. I have been argueing that the establishment of the legitimacy of possession of property, in and of itself or taken alone, cannot justify any old arbitrary claim of decision-making power by an possessor; that certain dubious claims of decision-making power (such as the power to enslave and murder occupants of one’s property) via appeal to an incoherantly formed theory of “property rights” undermine the right to life and liberty. This is why when you repeatedly talk about the question of whether or not someone owns something, it is in a completely different context than what I am talking about.
To my knowledge, there was a point in this thread in which Danny essentially conceded that Tom may concievably seek some kind of restitution, and he distinguished that question from the question of moral permissibility. And it makes sense to make such a distinction: the fact that Klemm may be held liable for damages by Tom is not relevant to the more fundamental question being asked about whether or not it is morally permissible for Klemm to break into Tom’s Cabin in the first place. If I’m not misunderstanding Danny, he’s essentially saying that he thinks it is morally permissible for Klemm to break into the Cabin, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that Klemm cannot be held liable for restitution to Tom.
Which begs the question how can a morally permissable act necessitate restitution? How can a morally permissable act create loss?