No, you have to be in the act of tangibly using the refrigerator, disposing of a sandwich by leaving it there doesnt count. You need to use it as a bb gun target until lunchtime.
Ahh yes Malachi.
The fundamental problem is revealed: How do we define what it means to use a refrigerator. For it cannot simply be putting an item within it’s confines so as keep the items cool, nay!
So its justifiable for me to track down a given individual, shoot him, and eat him, as he obviously wasnt using the nutritionally rich muscles and organs inside his skin as long as he isnt physically active, right?
If I haven’t stoped using and abandoned my body (which can basically be done only by suicide) and I’m alive- I’m using my body, meaning I have not vaived my the right to possession (/ the exclusive use) over my body. I will not answer again to idiotic/ trolling posts similar to this one.
As far as I know in both scenarios I am still using the fridge, the only difference seems to be where the fridge is, and/or who has ‘ownership’ of the refrigerator.
Who has the possession over the fridge. You have possession over a house because you’re using it, and thus possession over stuff inside. Workplaces are therefore possession of the workers as a collective, being that they are the users.
Justified according to which premises?
Is there any point talking to someone with a Rousseau avatar? The only thing of interest about him, is he was somewhat of a precursor to the great, titanic egoists who would follow a few decades later. Other than that, the dude is a ninth rate crank who wants us naked in the jungle banging drums. What use is there in such people?
You obviously have no idea what Rousseau wrote, and it doesn’t matter if I have Hitler or Rothbard or Bugs Bunny on my avatar, that doesn’t make me right or wrong, arguments do.
Who has the possession over the fridge. You have possession over a house because you’re using it, and thus possession over stuff inside. Workplaces are therefore possession of the workers as a collective, being that they are the users.
Ok so, I have possession over a house because I am using it—not necessarily. What if I am not home? On vacation are folks free to come by and raid my cupboard?
In the case of a workplace being in possession, that seems hard to accept inasmuch as a workplace cannot have ownership of something because a workplace isn’t using anything, if it’s defined as simply a workplace. If you say, well its a company who bought the refrigerator and thus is ‘using’ the refrigerator, well, maybe not. What if I am the only person who has a sandwhich cooling out in the fridge? In the case of the syndicate, maybe all 10 members chipped in and bought the fridge—who then has justification to eat my sandwhich now?
One isn’t a priori obligated to justify his actions, either in general or to anyone in particular. Furthermore, justification is always done in the context of one or more premises - propositions that are simply taken as given. If one rejects a particular set of premises, the justification presented to him won’t stand in his eyes, even if it’s logically consistent with that set of premises. In other words, there’s no “ultimate” justification for anything. Finally, it’s possible to simply assume that something is justified - i.e. to take the proposition “X is justified” as a premise, not as a conclusion.
There can be a difference between what one person said and what another person understood him as saying. But thanks for finally starting to do what you refused to do in another thread.
Could you please elaborate on this?
Well it certainly sounds to me like the Aristotelian notion of “final cause” or telos is implicit in your (again implicit) definition of “use”. You’ve implied that things necessarily have only specific purposes. Whereas my definition of “use something” is “act with or upon something”, your definition of it seems to be “act with or upon something in accordance with (one of) its purpose(s)”. Does this sound accurate to you?
So you wouldn’t want any social contract that asserts the anarcho-capitalist notion of property to exist at all? Even if you were in no way a part of it?
If you agree that property is a normative concept, how can it be a fact (i.e. a phenomenon imposed upon the mind from outside)? This again sounds like you’re trying to go around the is-ought problem. I’m sorry but that’s impossible - no matter which way you turn, the is-ought problem will be staring back at you.
Ok so, I have possession over a house because I am using it—not necessarily.
Not necessarily what?
What if I am not home? On vacation are folks free to come by and raid my cupboard?
In state of nature it seems that there is not ethical objection to it.
In the case of a workplace being in possession, that seems hard to accept inasmuch as a workplace cannot have ownership of something because a workplace isn’t using anything, if it’s defined as simply a workplace.
Wow, thank you for that insight. Now please direct to where anyone said that a workplace uses something.
who then has justification to eat my sandwhich now?
I don’t see any rational defense of property as a fact of ethics, therefore in the state of nature, you have possessions only of the things you use. The moment you abandon them, you have waived your right to possession (/to exclusive use), and it can be then used by anyone else. Any other way of things to happen would have to be by a convention among people who would agree on a centain period of a possibility for you to continue to use something, or would agree to accept the concept of property and then respect each other’s property.
One isn’t a priori obligated to justify his actions, either in general or to anyone in particular.
So, what’s you answer, moral nihilism?
Furthermore, justification is always done in the context of one or more premises - propositions that are simply taken as given. If one rejects a particular set of premises
Premises are true or false regardless of anyone’s acceptance of those premises.
Could you please elaborate on this?
No.
your definition of it seems to be “act with or upon something in accordance with (one of) its purpose(s)”. Does this sound accurate to you?
Seems so.
So you wouldn’t want any social contract that asserts the anarcho-capitalist notion of property to exist at all? Even if you were in no way a part of it?
Why does it matter if I am a part of it?
If you agree that property is a normative concept, how can it be a fact (i.e. a phenomenon imposed upon the mind from outside)?
If a concept is true it is a fact.
Ok so, I have possession over a house because I am using it—not necessarily.
Not necessarily what?
Not necessarily using it, seems this is no longer relevant anyhow in light of the preceding question and follow up answer.
In the case of a workplace being in possession, that seems hard to accept inasmuch as a workplace cannot have ownership of something because a workplace isn’t using anything, if it’s defined as simply a workplace.
Wow, thank you for that insight. Now please direct to where anyone said that a workplace uses something
Who has the possession over the fridge. You have possession over a house because you’re using it, and thus possession over stuff inside. Workplaces are therefore possession of the workers as a collective, being that they are the users.
Here you don’t ‘say’ tha a workplace uses something, but how does a workplace have possession over workers, because they are ‘using’ the workers? If I have possession over a house because I am using it, how do I not have possession over a workplace fridge when I am clearly using it by having a sandwhich stay cold inside it? To ‘use’ a fridge, requires one to effectively ‘abandon’ the sandwhich inside it. Do I have to literally be inside the fridge holding the sandwhich to not abandon it?
who then has justification to eat my sandwhich now?
I don’t see any rational defense of property as a fact of ethics, therefore in the state of nature, you have possessions only of the things you use. The moment you abandon them, you have waived your right to possession (/to exclusive use), and it can be then used by anyone else. Any other way of things to happen would have to be by a convention among people who would agree on a centain period of a possibility for you to continue to use something, or would agree to accept the concept of property and then respect each other’s property.
If I have a motorcyle battery charging on a tender and I leave the prescence of the battery and the tender I am abandoning it?
If I park my car after I go to work it’s now in a ‘state of nature’?
Here you don’t ‘say’ tha a workplace uses something, but how does a workplace have possession over workers, because they are ‘using’ the workers?
Workplaces are [therefore] possession of the workers as a collective, being that they (the workers) are the users (of the workplace).
how do I not have possession over a workplace fridge when I am clearly using it by having a sandwhich stay cold inside it? To ‘use’ a fridge, requires one to effectively ‘abandon’ the sandwhich inside it.
Tough luck. The consequences are not important, just correct principles.
If I park my car after I go to work it’s now in a ‘state of nature’?
If people around haven’t agreed to respect the convention of property that you like, everything you don’t directly use seem to be legitimately open game for them.
Yes. But moral nihilism in no way means (to me, at least) that moral judgement is impossible. It simply means that moral judgements aren’t facts about the world.
Then by “true” and “false” you mean something other than “logical consistency” and “logical inconsistency”, respectively. So what do you mean by “true” and “false”? I suspect that you mean “factual” and “counter-factual”, respectively, but I could be wrong.
Why not? Are you not interested in helping me to understand your thinking? If that’s the case, then what point do you have in discussing with me?
Okay, can you prove that everything necessarily has only one or more specific purposes?
Well I gathered from what you wrote earlier that you’d be tolerant of at least some diversity in social contracts. I was wondering how far your tolerance went. But from a logical standpoint, if you think it’s legitimate for a group of people to form any social contract among themselves, then you must think it’s legitimate for them to form a propertarian social contract.
Yet if by “true” you mean “factual”, then this is just a tautology. It doesn’t add anything.
how do I not have possession over a workplace fridge when I am clearly using it by having a sandwhich stay cold inside it? To ‘use’ a fridge, requires one to effectively ‘abandon’ the sandwhich inside it.
Tough luck. The consequences are not important, just correct principles.
Not for me, most people seem to agree on the principle of private property where I work, I’ve never had my lunch stolen from the fridge ::shouldershrug::
So it’s of no concern that there will be consequences of any given principle(s)? Also what is the prerequisite for a principle to be correct? You are saying that the princple of property aside from possession is not correct, and or there is no principle for it, right?
If I park my car after I go to work it’s now in a ‘state of nature’?
If people around haven’t agreed to respect the convention of property that you like, everything you don’t directly use seem to be legitimately open game for them.
I guess I should be grateful that despite not having contact with all humans in my area to agree on a convention of property, my vehicle remains, as of yet, not in the possession of someone other than myself.
Papi: “Who has the possession over the fridge. You have possession over a house because you’re using it, and thus possession over stuff inside. Workplaces are therefore possession of the workers as a collective, being that they are the users.”
But they are not the first users, they came along after that property was already owned and thus cannot have a higher claim on it than the first user who took it out of a state of nature and the people he voluntarily passed it on to.
Furthermore, the workers are using that area as a privilege in the course of their work on someone else’s property. They are being paid to exchange the product of their labor, to not claim as their own the product of their labor. And they do so willingly because the owner allows them access to capital goods that greatly multiply their prooductivity, meaning they could not command nearly such a wage on their own. Such capital goods including the store or work location, tools and raw materials they work on and with, including that fridge and the work area generally.
Logically then, if someone’s asleep they become a non-owner of their body can can be justly deprived of life! >_-
Yes. But moral nihilism in no way means (to me, at least) that moral judgement is impossible. It simply means that moral judgements aren’t facts about the world.
Basically- there’s no such thing as right and wrong there are just personal subjective unprovable preferences about what is wrong or right. We have nothing to talk about further.
I guess I should be grateful that despite not having contact with all humans in my area to agree on a convention of property, my vehicle remains, as of yet, not in the possession of someone other than myself.
The joys of threat of violence.
But they are not the first users
Irrelevant. Once the first user stops using something, it can be taken to be used by anyone else.
they came along after that property was already owned
Is property justified at all? I don’t know of sound arguments that justify it’s existence.
Logically then, …
“Idiotically” maybe.
Seeing as you don’t seem to be in favor of anarcho-capitalism, what are you in favor of?
Don’t really know. I was a mutualist minarchist until now, but besides one of my leftist friends refuting my arguments in favor of state, on socratic dialectic meetings I participate with some people, my acceptance of self-ownership principle has been refuted too, so I would have to see some arguments about property being justified at all and then go for that; at this moment I guess the only option would be accepting some form of stateless social concract, but would have to wheigh out their arguments.
Sure we do - at least if you ask me. Why do you think otherwise?
With all due respect, I think your search for an ultimate objective (i.e. factual) basis for right and wrong will be in vain. But I’m still not sure what you mean by “true” and “false” - or “factual” and “counter-factual”, for that matter. Believe it or not, but I’m honestly interested in finding out what you mean by those terms.