NationStates Jolt Archive

Several posters here who claim they don't believe in property rights.

Since you don't own anything, would it be OK if I came to your house and took your computer? How about if I gave it to someone who needed it more than you do? If not, why?

Since you don't own anything, would it be OK if I came to your house and took your computer? How about if I gave it to someone who needed it more than you do? If not, why?

How could someone living in a country with no property laws have a house and computer in the first place ? They would just use the shared resources - making your question meaningless.

How could someone living in a country with no property laws have a house and computer in the first place ? They would just use the shared resources - making your question meaningless.

Its the whole stupid hippy equation of "all property is theft".

When in actual fact its, "I'm a lazy bum, so I'll be a communist, sit back, do sweet fuck all and expect every other bugger to carry me" - hence the reason why productivity sucks so badly in a communist country unless it is run by a psychotic dictator such as Stalin.

When in actual fact its, "I'm a lazy bum, so I'll be a communist, sit back, do sweet fuck all and expect every other bugger to carry me"

Why does everyone always assume that one needs material rewards to be motivated ? Did all those doctors really choose the medical profession just because they wanted 5 gold creditcards ? Are all those scientists working in researchlabs simply not smart enough to be hired by a company that offers 10 times as much money ?

Allright, you are probably right for the bulk of the population. But I see no reason why one could not deny the use of shared resources to those who do not contribute to society.

Why does everyone always assume that one needs material rewards to be motivated ? Did all those doctors really choose the medical profession just because they wanted 5 gold creditcards ? Are all those scientists working in researchlabs simply not smart enough to be hired by a company that offers 10 times as much money ?

Allright, you are probably right for the bulk of the population. But I see no reason why one could not deny the use of shared resources to those who do not contribute to society.


Why should they receive something for contributing nothing?

Hence the reason I have no qualm with work for the dole - if you want some welfare assistance, you should give something back to society in return.

People aren't just motivated by money, they're motivated by a number of things; status, which can be demonstrated by the extra money they might earn - the responsibility that comes with it.

A completely perfect system would be a cashless society where everyone contributes what they can, and only takes what they require to live - the reality it, however, humans are greedy, and to control that greed, you have cash, and to encourage innovation and entrepreneurial you have income disparity, which encourages people to drive forward.

The fact is, humans are competitive animal, and unfortunately that is one key component that Karl Marx forgot to take into account, along with human greed.

How could someone living in a country with no property laws have a house and computer in the first place ? They would just use the shared resources - making your question meaningless.

The question is aimed at the real posters, regardless of whether their country has property laws or not (and there are a few places that arguably don't, mostly because they have no laws at all - Somalia - but those places have customary law that does), who claim that they don't believe in property rights, so your question is moot.

Do *you* believe in property rights? If not, can I have your computer?

(And Lovely Boys, much as I appreciate the argument you're making, can we get back on track - please. :))

The question is aimed at the real posters, regardless of whether their country has property laws or not (and there are a few places that arguably don't, mostly because they have no laws at all - Somalia - but those places have customary law that does), who claim that they don't believe in property rights, so your question is moot.

In a society based on property rights not adhering to them would be equivalent to suicide. Doesn't mean property rights are a necessity to create a society (though due to human nature it will be hard).

In a society based on property rights not adhering to them would be equivalent to suicide. Doesn't mean property rights are a necessity to create a society (though due to human nature it will be hard).

That's rather a non-answer. Can I assume you don't, but are unwilling to live up to your beliefes?

And Aworinian, I can see your name on answer 4 - care to post an explanation?

Since you don't own anything, would it be OK if I came to your house and took your computer?
One of the oldest strawmen in the book, don't you think?

My standard answer would be: Try it. And watch the police take you away.

Property Rights are what we as a society define them to be, through a government because that's the best way we have at this point.

Therefore taxes are not theft. Nationalisation is not necessarily theft either - depending on who makes the decisions of course.

Taking my computer is theft, because that is what the law defines it to be.

So do I believe in property rights? You decide. My definition probably differs from someone else's, but I'd like you to find a commie who really defines it any different than I do.

Doesn't property rights only include business property and land, factories, offices and all that crap? A computer is a possesion not property.

That's rather a non-answer. Can I assume you don't, but are unwilling to live up to your beliefes?

No, you can assume your question is a strawman. You are trying to take elements from one system, insert those parts in a system where they will not work and then yelling triumphiantly "see - the whole system is flawed !"

Maybe this will make it clearer: you can take away "my" computer, if I can also take away yours, take mine back when I need it and so on. I have no problem *sharing*.

In socialist thinking, it should be noted that there is a distinction made between direct use and exploitation. Socialists generally don't have a problem with personal possessions; it's huge corporations and so on that are considered the problem.

Several posters here who claim they don't believe in property rights.

Since you don't own anything, would it be OK if I came to your house and took your computer? How about if I gave it to someone who needed it more than you do? If not, why?
No, but I'll gladly let you use it from time to time. I'm a "compassionate property-rightist." :D

Yes, I'll share

I believe in property.

I am after all a social liberal and an economic pragmatist though I do have some reservations over what should be called property.

I dislike the notion that drinking water is a bottled (or piped) and sold commercial product. I mean quite simply it is 'water'; a critical component to survival.

I also dislike the notion that we can buy and sell land as we see fit. Why does man have a right to own what has always been here and what will be here after humanity is gone?

Ehh. I'm glad I stayed out of this one.

Several posters here who claim they don't believe in property rights.

Since you don't own anything, would it be OK if I came to your house and took your computer? How about if I gave it to someone who needed it more than you do? If not, why?
I think you are misunderstanding them or something, because your situation with taking one person's property and making it another person's property requires people to have property.
In a system with no property rights, I'd think you couldn't take their computer, because they don't have one and you can't have one, and you couldn't give it to somebody else either.

Property Rights are what we as a society define them to be, through a government because that's the best way we have at this point.

Therefore taxes are not theft. Nationalisation is not necessarily theft either - depending on who makes the decisions of course.
So, to put it more clearly, your morals descend from on high. Except, where earlier godly-men looked for some mystical force, your content just take government as gospel?
Government is a form of organized crime, they just showed up first and managed to convince everyone they were legit.

So, to put it more clearly, your morals descend from on high. Except, where earlier godly-men looked for some mystical force, your content just take government as gospel?

Why should morals have existed before society ?

I think you don't get it at all. I don't need your computer or your tooth brush, because everyone can have his own and those tools are personal in nature. What I need is your oil field and your car producing factory and your roads. Those things are not personal in nature but social things. Their nature is to be shared. I just don't want to pay a tax to use it just because I'm not the lord owning them.

Several posters here who claim they don't believe in property rights.

Since you don't own anything, would it be OK if I came to your house and took your computer? How about if I gave it to someone who needed it more than you do? If not, why?


Bad comparison.

Ok you have a computer and you own the hardware.

You don't own ANY of the software. Not the OS, the BIOS, or any applications say only freeware.

All you have is the right to use it which can be taken away by the manufactorer......

Bad comparison.

Ok you have a computer and you own the hardware.

You don't own ANY of the software. Not the OS, the BIOS, or any applications say only freeware.

All you have is the right to use it which can be taken away by the manufactorer......
Even the hardware is not completely yours. You don't have the right to reverse ingeneer it and it is bound to intellectual property as well.

And Aworinian, I can see your name on answer 4 - care to post an explanation?
That's rather a non-answer. Can I assume you don't, but are unwilling to live up to your beliefes?hmm..You can assume that your definition of "Property rights" is different than mine.
yes I am awere you were not talking to me..

Even the hardware is not completely yours. You don't have the right to reverse ingeneer it and it is bound to intellectual property as well.

Ahhh true! Forgot about that aspect! ;)

Why should morals have existed before society ?
Because if the morals were merely created by society, than the morals (and the society that made them) are merely a sham created to control people for the benefit of our "leaders."

Because if the morals were merely created by society, than the morals (and the society that made them) are merely a sham created to control people for the benefit of our "leaders."

Or the society as a whole.

But yeah.. that is pretty much true. So ?

But yeah.. that is pretty much true. So ?
So, you'd have to be an anarchist to believe that, and I am a (US)Libertarian.
And, offering a counter example to your claim, I came to my own morals after a lot of thought and study. Rather than rely on someone else, I looked at the world, saw what worked and what didn't, read a few philosophers, meddled in theology, and tried to think of a good guiding set of rules by which I could live my life. My morals are a private matter, and they differ with US law on several parts, so they obviously never descended from society.

Several posters here who claim they don't believe in property rights.

Since you don't own anything, would it be OK if I came to your house and took your computer? How about if I gave it to someone who needed it more than you do? If not, why?

There is a distinction made between "private property" and "personal possession."

When Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) said that "property is theft" he was refering to the institution of private property as instituted and protected by the state. Being an anarchist, Proudhon opposed a system that used coercion and violence to secure wealth to the political elite while the masses lived in relative poverty. Noting the close relationship of the modern day corporation to the state, and the antics that result like eminent domain abuses, welfare, bailouts, and subsidies, his argument seems quite powerful.

On the other hand, Proudhon also said "property is freedom." In this case he was refering to personal possessions. That which one produces by one's own labor, and those tools and resources necessary to do so, rightfully belong to the laborer, for he cannot survive without such possession. Proudhon rejected capitalism and the system of state-enforced private property, however, being an individualist, he rejected collectivist ownership of property as well.

Essentially, he concluded that capitalism and communism both posed a threat to individual freedom and personal possession. Although I am not prepared to do away with state-enforced private property, I nonetheless believe that he makes an excellent point.

At any rate, your apparent assertion that someone who rejects "property rights" believes that we "don't own anything" is potentially a straw-man fallacy, if "property rights" is defined as "statist private property."

One of the oldest strawmen in the book, don't you think?
No, it seems fairly straightforward to me. If you don't beleive in property rights, you shouldn't have a problem with losing your posessions.

My standard answer would be: Try it. And watch the police take you away.
....because most police departments enforce the concept of property. And rightly so.

Property Rights are what we as a society define them to be, through a government because that's the best way we have at this point.
Garbage. Morals and ethics are impervious to whatver $GROUP happens to think of them; by your "rationale" the rights ascribed to citizens in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or ancient Egypt were perfectly legitimate ones.

Therefore taxes are not theft. Nationalisation is not necessarily theft either - depending on who makes the decisions of course.
You're basically saying that because it's the government that's doing it, that it's OK. If I came along and yanked, say, 30% of your paycheck right out of your hands, you would be singing a different tune. If I seized your manufacturing concern and put it to use for whatever social purpose I deemed neccessary [which would, in this case, be for my profit], you wouldn't be as enthusiastic.

The implication here is quite obvious: that the feds have more productive plans for our wages than we do. Regarless of whether or not that's actually the case [as it has been proven many times throughout history that it's not--simply observe the recent quagmire in Iraq and the fact that I'll be paying for it for the rest of my life], you seem to indicate that they should be allowed to do it anyway. Just because someone writes down on a piece of paper that it's OK for them to take money and spend it how they please doesn't make it a justified moral practice anymore than it would be if they wrote down that we had to wear our underwear on the outside and speak Swedish.

Taking my computer is theft, because that is what the law defines it to be.
I've been noticing more and more of this shameless endorsement of conservative moral policy lately: "It's the law, therefore it's right," and "$ETHICAL_CONCEPT is dependent on the law that creates it." Both propositions suggest that order trumps freedom, and if you think that's the case you might want to hit up LL Bean for some of those nice brown shirts.

I'll say it again: property rights existed before laws did, the freedom to think and to turn that thought into action has also and always will. Morally speaking, a chinaman has the exact same freedoms I do, he's just unfortunate enough to live in a country that's no good at identifying or enforcing his rights. If you're going to suggest that legislation is the be-all and end-all of ethics and morality, you've got no business talking about right and wrong as moral concepts.

So do I believe in property rights? You decide. My definition probably differs from someone else's, but I'd like you to find a commie who really defines it any different than I do.
I would guess that you don't based on the preceding text, you seem to put more stock in laws than actual right and wrong.

You don't distinguish between posessions and property because for you they are the same but they are not.
We are talking about a different concept of "property". Possissing is right while it does not prevent someone else from possessing. Everything which is personnal is ok to be possessed. The problem arises when it becomes property, that is when you possess something you are not using and that everybody needs. In that case, everybody becomes your slave.
That is why we have to put limits on properties and distinguish between legitimate possessions and unjustifiable property.
For instance there is no need to own a factory that your parents owned and your grand-parent owned before them when you are no longer working in it. In this case, you are just using your property to enslave workers and to get a part of their work for free.

So, you'd have to be an anarchist to believe that, and I am a (US)Libertarian.
And, offering a counter example to your claim, I came to my own morals after a lot of thought and study. Rather than rely on someone else, I looked at the world, saw what worked and what didn't, read a few philosophers, meddled in theology, and tried to think of a good guiding set of rules by which I could live my life. My morals are a private matter, and they differ with US law on several parts, so they obviously never descended from society.

I have also built my morals in the manner you have, but i have to disagree. Your and my morals are build not upon the current government, but of a distillation of thought on the matter through the ages. However we get that from normal humans who were part of a society themselves. Either we are just obeying the first society that every existed's morals (if we assume the philosephers (can't spell) got their moral thoughts the same way we did), or of their society in their lifetime (if they did not get their conclusion as we did). So what we have is a moral structure built upon all of society that has existed, which is exactly how the current governmental one is built. Although we reach subtly different conclusions the result is the same. Do you not agree?

Perhaps I'm unusual, but I agree with Jefferson and Rousseau that property rights are the result of positive (not natural) law... but that they are still really, really important to individual freedom.

Thus, if you just came by and said, "I want your computer," I would probably defend my (positive) right to retain it.

If you came by and had a really, really good reason (like, through some bizarre chain of events, you and your family would perish without my computer) I would probably consider giving it to you (although I would hope to have it back whenever you were done).

More importantly, if society had some really, really good reason that I should not keep my computer--say, it would radically destabilize society (which I need to protect any rights at all) and/or my possession of it would result in hundreds of thousands or millions of people living in misery... well, since my right depends on positive law anyway, and a law designed to prevent the harms just mentioned would be a pretty good one, I would be williing to admit that it trumps my "right."

Of course, I would be even happier in a democratic society in which I not only have a right to my property, but I have the opportunity to participate in decisions regarding how far that right extends.

If one doesn't believe in property rights, they might have a problem with someone stealing their computer for their own use and taking away their right to use it. That's different from having a problem with someone who would take their computer for ANYONE to use, thus making all computers, including their own, public, effectively. If someone took my computer and used it for their own use and denied me use, that would be theft and I would have no trouble having them thrown in jail for it. If they take my computer and declare that anyone can use it, then I would ask if that comes true for all computers in the interest of fairness. If it does, then that's fine; if not, then I would tell them they can't have it both ways and take my computer back.

Why should they receive something for contributing nothing?

What about the sick, the old, the disabled? There must be some exceptions.

People aren't just motivated by money, they're motivated by a number of things;

Agreed!

status, which can be demonstrated by the extra money they might earn - the responsibility that comes with it.

Status, which can be demonstrated by extra money... but may also be demonstrated by titles (people respect a "doctor" as soon as they hear he is a doctor), by professional esteem (as an academic, publishing does not directly affect my income... but it does get me recognition), and so on.

the reality it, however, humans are greedy,

I hope you're just talking about some particular subset of humans... because plenty of communal societies have persisted for thousands of years without destroying themselves due to greed (as so many capitalists think they should).

The fact is, humans are competitive animal, and unfortunately that is one key component that Karl Marx forgot to take into account, along with human greed.

Marx was, to a large extent, caught up in the romanticism of the nineteenth century. He may have discounted competitiveness too much... although I suspect he knew that people would compete for non-material rewards, since that is precisely what he did for most of his life. (His wife loved the material goods, of course, and persistently kept them in debt in an attempt to appear wealthier than they were.)

I, on the other hand, whole-heartedly agree with you. Human beings are competitive animals. We are so competitive, in fact, that if you take away one measure of status (wealth), we will persistently compete for another. We certainly won't just throw up our hands and say, "that's it, I don't care who thinks I'm lazy." We care too much about what other people think of us.

There are some exceptions, of course. But no more, I think, than there are exceptions (lazy people) in capitalist society.

However, no, it would not be OK for you to take everything that I own. That would result in me having nothing. However were there no property laws:

With no property laws, you could not take anything that I own because I wouldn't own anything

a) you would not be able to take what is "mine"

If there is no property, there is no fear of having less property than you need/than others have and thus there is no motivation to take more than you need

b) you would have no motivation for taking what is "mine"

In the event that you did move into the home that I was inhabiting, assuming that there was not enough room for both of us, I would jsut take up the house that you left vacant, or another vacant house.

c) if you did take what was mine I could just take whatever I need from elsewhere (mabye even from you)

Government is a form of organized crime, they just showed up first and managed to convince everyone they were legit.
In some cases, sure.
In other cases, not so much. How are you going to make some sort of collective decision regarding things that matter to all?
People are individuals, we know that much, so we won't be able to agree on everything. And the best way we've come up with so far is democracy.
It's not always optimal, but as so many people said over the years, it's the least bad system we have.

No, it seems fairly straightforward to me. If you don't beleive in property rights, you shouldn't have a problem with losing your posessions.
That's the point. We live in a world with posessions. In this world, my posessions matter to me.
The idea that property rights don't exist, as communists and the like propose, would only work in conjunction with the idea that everything is shared.
As was said before, he is yanking one little bit out of the construct, and putting it into a completely different position.
If the idea was now that we would commonly use the PC, maybe. But as I understand the question, he would simply take it away, and I wouldn't be able to use it anymore.

....because most police departments enforce the concept of property. And rightly so.
Strangely enough, that is something that we collectively agreed upon in the democratic process, wouldn't you say?

Garbage. Morals and ethics are impervious to whatver $GROUP happens to think of them; by your "rationale" the rights ascribed to citizens in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or ancient Egypt were perfectly legitimate ones.
No, no.
Personally, I don't think there is a "right" and "wrong" independent of the environment, that just first up.
But it is my belief that over time, societies will reflect the ideas and values shared by most of the individuals in it. Some people will be unhappy with those, and I suspect that over time they will either leave or try to change them.
Dictatorships and the like are usually resistant to that sort of change, which is why often there are quite significant differences between what the people probably want, and what's actually happening.
In a democracy though, the potential for laws to accurately reflect some sort of consensus is much greater. It's not perfect, obviously there are a lot of laws I disagree with passionately. But some basics, like that taxation is not considered theft, are generally agreed upon by pretty much everyone I spoke to, except a few people on this forum. People recognise that there is a sensible and convincing case to be made for the government to spend tax money, or at least they believe so. Most (and this is all just the people I spoke to about things like that in Germany and Australia) agree that even things like welfare are a good idea. They don't want to live in a dog-eat-dog world, and they seem to be quite happy with the idea that in tough times, they can count on some support.

So, sure, you can make some moral case for why this is all wrong. But I've said it before: I don't do the whole moral thing anymore, or at least I don't much enjoy it.
We all disagree on what is right and wrong, and neither side can ever convince the other. So I'm afraid the best we can hope for is that our laws accurately reflect the conclusions people come to when they for themselves define what is right and what isn't.

If I came along and yanked, say, 30% of your paycheck right out of your hands, you would be singing a different tune.
I certainly would. But that is the difference in our view of what a government is.
If I lived in an oppressive dictatorship, I sure would be unhappy about the government doing things to my paycheck. But as long as things don't get too outrageous, ie as long as I roughly agree with what the money is being used for, I'm okay with them taxing me.
And if I don't agree with their spending, I still have the option of trying to influence the process if I can find enough people who agree with me.

Both propositions suggest that order trumps freedom, and if you think that's the case you might want to hit up LL Bean for some of those nice brown shirts.
No, I just think that $ETHICAL CONCEPT is dependent of the person who looks at it. Unlike Objectivists though, I don't use that as the reason for why no one should ever be able to tell me what to do.

Look at traffic. I drive quite a quick car, and I often break the rules. I obviously have quite a different idea of what is safe and what isn't than most other people.
Nonetheless, does that mean that I am right in endangering others, or hindering their progress with the way I drive? In this case, a case can easily be made for state intervention in the form of road rules and police enforcement. In a way, the same sort of concept can be applied to the way people behave in other areas as well.

I don't think that's quite fascist just yet.

I'll say it again: property rights existed before laws did, the freedom to think and to turn that thought into action has also and always will.
Property Rights as a practical thing though has only existed since that caveman got a stick and bashed over the head anyone who wanted to take his stuff. That's the important point.
A Lion doesn't have property rights to his kill: If a bunch of Hyenas takes it, it's gone. There is no independent sort of universal law that prevents one animal from taking stuff from another animal.

You can call it unfair, but you can't call it "immoral" or "unethical".

by your "rationale" the rights ascribed to citizens in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or ancient Egypt were perfectly legitimate ones.

No, theories of positive right are generally tied to restrictive theories of government legitimacy. In particular, over the last several hundred years legitimacy has depended on "consent of the governed"... or, for those of us who think that as an abstraction, that's pretty weak, we think that "participation of the governed," i.e. democracy, is the standard of legitimacy.

Thus, laws are not "legitimate" just because they are laws. They are legitimate only when they are promulgated and approved by the popular will. And in this case the "law that we make for ourselves" is the legitimate source of positive rights.

(This is not to say there are no natural laws anterior to society, just that whatever rights do not exist in nature--such as a right to fence off 1000 acres of land and call it "mine"--are positive ones.)

"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

--Jean-Jacques Rousseau ;)

smart man

"From the nature and purpose of civil institutions, all the lands within the limits which any particular society has circumscribed around itself, are assumed by that society, and subject to their allotment only. This may be done by themselves assembled collectively, or by their legislature to whom they may have delegated sovereign authority: and, if they are allotted in neither of these ways, each individual of the society may appropriate to himself such lands as he finds vacant, and occupancy will give him title."

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance."

"[T]his enormous inequality produces so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property."

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed."

-- Thomas Jefferson

I also dislike the notion that we can buy and sell land as we see fit. Why does man have a right to own what has always been here and what will be here after humanity is gone?
That's the cornerstone of the denial of property rights. Property rights don't really make any sense since all that we claim to own comes from things that we had nothing to do with the creation of. On the other hand, I think that it is a pragmatic necessity to recognise property rights to some degree, even if it's philosophically invalid.

Several posters here who claim they don't believe in property rights.

Since you don't own anything, would it be OK if I came to your house and took your computer? How about if I gave it to someone who needed it more than you do? If not, why?

Nice strawmen.

**gives gold fallacy (not phallus) award**

Somebody doesn't know the difference between "private property" (means of production) and personal property. Either that or someone willfully misinterprets. :rolleyes:

A few people have accused me of building a strawman.

I assume you refer to the "Since you don't own anything," in the question. I apologise if this was a misunderstanding, but I understood from earlier postings by the posters who inspired this thread that it was their position that no property rights included individual possessions. Thanks for the clarification on what you see as the distinction.

(However, I must add that making that distinction makes me see you as even more morally bankrupt.)

Somebody doesn't know the difference between "private property" (means of production) and personal property. Either that or someone willfully misinterprets. :rolleyes:

Nope. I haven't seen anyone make that distinction before this thread. And I still don't understand it. To me, it looks like you are saying "I can own little stuff, but you can't own big stuff" (and thus the comment above re moral bankruptcy.)

Nope. I haven't seen anyone make that distinction before this thread. And I still don't understand it. To me, it looks like you are saying "I can own little stuff, but you can't own big stuff" (and thus the comment above re moral bankruptcy.)

The distinction is obvious, contained in the very etymology of the words "personal" and "private."

The distinction is obvious, contained in the very etymology of the words "personal" and "private."

First, I can't recall ever having heard anyone make that distinction.
Second, I'm sorry but I still don't understand that. It still sounds to me like the distinction being made is one of scale. Can you elaborate please?

First, I can't recall ever having heard anyone make that distinction.

I certainly cannot argue with your experience, but the distinction has been made for centuries.

Second, I'm sorry but I still don't understand that. It still sounds to me like the distinction being made is one of scale. Can you elaborate please?

Sure. It is actually a qualitative distinction that tends to bleed into a quantitative one.

By "personal" property we mean those possessions relating directly to a person, in an ontological and a practical sense. When we speak of someone "mixing her/his labor with raw material" and we say that he/she has a property in the result, that is personal property: if I make it, I own it. The possessions, moreover, that are necessary (or very obviously expedient) to my existence and sense of myself as a "person"--such as the home in which I live, the clothes I wear, the computer I use, my toys, my movies, my books... these are all personal possessions, because they belong to my "person."

All societies have a conception of personal property. It is a natural right.

"Private" property is that which has been deprived (like I said, etymology) of its public quality. Land, for instance, has a primarily public quality--it belongs to and is administered by the society that occupies it, for the preservation and well-being of the society. (I am willing to admit a grey area here where some theorists may not. I allow, for instance, that an individual may have a personal property in the land, say, on which his home is built, or on which he farms to make his living. I call this a "grey" area because I nevertheless retain a belief in eminent domain... that, paying due compensation, the society may reclaim land whose primary nature is public.)

Not all societies have a conception of private property, i.e. property that has no clear relation to an individual's "person" yet in which that individual may have a property by law. In some societies, the very notion of private property in land would be ridiculous.

Other societies (ours, for instance) find it expedient to public purposes to allow individuals to hold exclusive rights to non-personal property such as vast tracts of land, factories, and the like.

Private property of this sort--property deprived by law of its public nature--is a matter of positive, not natural, law. As such any "rights" to this property are to be determined as a matter of the social interest.

You need not retort that the distinction is blurred and not necessarily determinate... honest theorists of positive property law are well aware of this fact. We can only reply that most areas of the law are blurred and indeterminate, which is why we inevitably resort to judges and other impartial arbiters to settle disputes. Nevertheless, the distinction is meaningful and determinable (which is quite different than determinate).

I do hope that helps.

Several posters here who claim they don't believe in property rights.

Since you don't own anything, would it be OK if I came to your house and took your computer? How about if I gave it to someone who needed it more than you do? If not, why?

No. I'm happy with sharing my possessions, but don't expect me to give everything away when I get nothing in return. If a truly communal society did come about, I would happily give up everything I own, knowing that I would be able to obtain what I need. In our current society, it would make no sense, as my needs would be irrelevant when everyone can have free reign over my stuff. I would end up sleeping on a cold floor in a bare room.

No. I'm happy with sharing my possessions, but don't expect me to give everything away when I get nothing in return. If a truly communal society did come about, I would happily give up everything I own, knowing that I would be able to obtain what I need.

Even personal family heirlooms? Pictures of your children? The crappy but sentimental noodle-art you made in 5th grade?

Come on... I'm happy to defend communists against the dishonest attacks of capitalist ideologues, but I have to plead the "middle ground" on this one!!

Even personal family heirlooms? Pictures of your children? The crappy but sentimental noodle-art you made in 5th grade?

Come on... I'm happy to defend communists against the dishonest attacks of capitalist ideologues, but I have to plead the "middle ground" on this one!!

Well, I guess it's my bad for not clarifying that, but obviously, nobody actually has a need greater than mine for those things anyway. I actually didn't even consider that anyone would want to take those...I didn't even figure them as "property" when I wrote my post.

Someone however might need my bed, my computer, etc. I figured that's what Daistallia was referring to considering the content of his original post rather than personal artifacts.

Someone however might need my bed, my computer, etc. I figured that's what Daistallia was referring to considering the content of his original post rather than personal artifacts.

Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree, but I like my bed and my computer perfectly well, and seeing as I have slept in one and used the other for quite some time, I would feel personally violated if they were taken. Thus, one would have to have a pretty damned good reason to get me to give them up.

If someone else needs a bed or a computer, I would much prefer to donate money to buy these things, or contribute my labor to produce them, than to pretend that I do not become attached to the things that are "mine" and make up a part of my personal space.

To suppose that people are capable of such free sharing without jealousy is, perhaps, to pick a (friendly) fight with human nature.

;)

The distinction is obvious, contained in the very etymology of the words "personal" and "private."
Bullshit. Anything that can be said to be "personal" can be said to be "private" as well. The distinction is utterly useless because your personal opinions, attitudes, effects, or adorations can also be described as private. The "distinction" between private and personal property is a morally bankrupt one, and it's little more than an excuse to subsidize $OBJECT for the 'greater good.'

A lot of people [Communists, Market Socialists, etc.] like to lump the "means of production" into the Private Property category in order to justify their theft of it; but the means of production are not factories, steel mills or assembly plants, the means of production are our two hands and a reasoning mind, since nothing can be produced without them. When people talk about controlling the means of production, this is what they're talking about whether they know it or not. Most of them don't.

Oh, and don't think I'm not going to respond to you in our other thread, AnarchyeL. I've just been abducted by Guild Wars again recently and I've still only got a little less than half of my reply written. You ain't getting off that easy... or at all, really ;)

Bullshit. Anything that can be said to be "personal" can be said to be "private" as well. The distinction is utterly useless because your personal opinions, attitudes, effects, or adorations can also be described as private.

Maybe. But can everything that is private be said to be personal?

These are competing schemes of division: personal/public v. private/public.

Obviously, there are all kinds of overlap. The private includes the personal plus a chunk of the public. Again, that's why it's called "private" property, it is deprived of its public use.

Your argument proves nothing of significance.

As usual. ;)

Bullshit. Anything that can be said to be "personal" can be said to be "private" as well. The distinction is utterly useless because your personal opinions, attitudes, effects, or adorations can also be described as private. The "distinction" between private and personal property is a morally bankrupt one, and it's little more than an excuse to subsidize $OBJECT for the 'greater good.'

A lot of people [Communists, Market Socialists, etc.] like to lump the "means of production" into the Private Property category in order to justify their theft of it; but the means of production are not factories, steel mills or assembly plants, the means of production are our two hands and a reasoning mind, since nothing can be produced without them. When people talk about controlling the means of production, this is what they're talking about whether they know it or not. Most of them don't.
Oh, and don't think I'm not going to respond to you in our other thread, AnarchyeL. I've just been abducted by Guild Wars again recently and I've still only got a little less than half of my reply written. You ain't getting off that easy... or at all, really ;)


Cute. You get to define other people's own terms for them. How convenient for winning an argument.

Maybe. But can everything that is private be said to be personal?
Obviously that's the implication. "Personal" and "Private" are synonyms in any Thesaurus you should care to read.

These are competing schemes of division: personal/public v. private/public.

Obviously, there are all kinds of overlap. The private includes the personal plus a chunk of the public. Again, that's why it's called "private" property, it is deprived of its public use.
Also useless. "The public" shouldn't earn any rights that I don't have simply on virtue of the fact that there's more of them than there are of me. The idea that some things are legitimate for public use but not private use suggests that groups of people have rights that the individual does not, which is something I won't stand for.

Of course, it's inevitable for someone to come along and throw the following in my face, so I'll steal your thunder by saying that no, private citizens should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, but the government can. The reason for this is because national defense is a legitimate function of our government, and the tools by which it is carried out shouldn't be available for widespread use, or else their job would become impossible.

Your argument proves nothing of significance.

As usual. ;)
Yeah, sorry about that. It's kind of hard to prove things of significance if your opponent is unwilling [or unable] to actually process the data and interpret it correctly. I'm not really writing any of this for your benefit anyway, but rather for the few people out there who might have some interest in a differing opinion, or those who haven't yet made up their mind on the issue.

Cute. You get to define other people's own terms for them. How convenient for winning an argument.
It's not my fault I understand them better than they understand themselves.

Just try to tell me with a straight face that your hands and mind aren't the means of production. I'll bet you can't do it. If you can, you're probably a better attorney than I'd ever given you credit for.

It's not my fault I understand them better than they understand themselves.

Just try to tell me with a straight face that your hands and mind aren't the means of production. I'll bet you can't do it. If you can, you're probably a better attorney than I'd ever given you credit for.

My hands and mind are a means of production. They are not the only ones. Nor are they the ones people usually refer to when they refer to the "means of production" and you damn well know it.

Saying your opponent says Y when he says X and then saying Y is wrong isn't a valid way of arguing.

My hands and mind are a means of production. They are not the only ones.
What else is?

Nor are they the ones people usually refer to when they refer to the "means of production" and you damn well know it.

Saying your opponent says Y when he says X and then saying Y is wrong isn't a valid way of arguing.
Whether they mean it that way or not is irrelevant; because in practice that's always what ends up happening. When you talk about taking control of factories, mills, and the like, you're essentially talking about seizing and commanding the use of someone's thought, usually without their permission. If they give it, there really isn't anything to complain about, in a moral sense.

The distinction is utterly useless because your personal opinions, attitudes, effects, or adorations can also be described as private.

equivocation

The "distinction" between private and personal property is a morally bankrupt one

interesting choice of terms

The idea that some things are legitimate for public use but not private use suggests that groups of people have rights that the individual does not, which is something I won't stand for.

Of course, it's inevitable for someone to come along and throw the following in my face, so I'll steal your thunder by saying that no, private citizens should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, but the government can. The reason for this is because national defense is a legitimate function of our government, and the tools by which it is carried out shouldn't be available for widespread use, or else their job would become impossible.

in other words, you won't stand for it except when you will stand for it.

What else is?.

You name some in the first paragraph.


Whether they mean it that way or not is irrelevant; because in practice that's always what ends up happening. When you talk about taking control of factories, mills, and the like, you're essentially talking about seizing and commanding the use of someone's thought, usually without their permission. If they give it, there really isn't anything to complain about, in a moral sense.


"essentially" is the key word in that sentence. And it is a farce.

(And I'm not a communist or socialist or anything of that sort. I just don't like the way you are manipulating the argument.)

Obviously that's the implication. "Personal" and "Private" are synonyms in any Thesaurus you should care to read.

Merriam-Webster Online:

Entry for "private":
Synonyms: confidential, hushed, inside, intimate, nonpublic, privy, secret.

"Personal" only appears under "related words", as it should.

Also useless. "The public" shouldn't earn any rights that I don't have simply on virtue of the fact that there's more of them than there are of me.

I never said they did. My argument all along has been that certain individual rights only come into existence through social efforts. You have a personal right to your personal possessions... but if you go outside and fence off an acre of land, the only thing that makes it "yours" is the willingness of a social organization to punish anyone who walks on it without your permission.

The idea that some things are legitimate for public use but not private use

"Legitimacy" is a different matter. I think that I have a positive right to certain private property, which means that I think it would be illegitimate for the existing government to take it away... but that legitimacy has to do with the structure of the existing government and economy, not any inherent quality of my property.

Private property rights vary from one society to another. Some societies are perfectly happy without any property rights at all. Others define property rights to serve their ends, and in these it would be illegitimate to take property arbitrarily.

And don't reply with the tired refrain that "some societies practice slavery, too, so I guess you think that's okay?" The cases are easily distinguishable. Slavery is a form of "property" in which one group clearly protests to the arrangement. I am referring to "primitive" communal societies that last for thousands of years without one class oppressing another such that the latter demands change.

suggests that groups of people have rights that the individual does not, which is something I won't stand for.

I don't think "groups of people" have rights that individuals do not... but I do think that all individuals who are part of society have the same natural rights... such as the rights to life, the pursuit of happiness, and personal possessions. Therefore, when an arrangement of positive law, such as laws regarding private property, create a situation in which some people's natural rights to life, personal possessions, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and so on are sacrificed to the positive (invented) rights of some others, I see a problem.

I believe in individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you?

(Gee, I wonder why Jefferson changed the straight Lockean phrase, "life, liberty, and estate"?)

Of course, it's inevitable for someone to come along and throw the following in my face, so I'll steal your thunder by saying that no, private citizens should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, but the government can.

I would never be so simple. You are the one whos is prone to hyperbole.

It's kind of hard to prove things of significance if your opponent is unwilling [or unable] to actually process the data and interpret it correctly.

It's nice of you to sympathize. It would be more helpful if you could actually process the data and interpret it correctly.

I'm not really writing any of this for your benefit anyway

I'm insulted! I thought you cared!

but rather for the few people out there who might have some interest in a differing opinion, or those who haven't yet made up their mind on the issue.

I'll take this to imply that by now you realize the theory of "natural" property rights is very much on the defensive, and has been for the last hundred years and more.

At least that's progress.

Just try to tell me with a straight face that your hands and mind aren't the means of production. I'll bet you can't do it. If you can, you're probably a better attorney than I'd ever given you credit for.

I'll do that when you manage to make me dinner, with your hands and mind...

... and nothing else.

The distinction is utterly useless because your personal opinions, attitudes, effects, or adorations can also be described as private.

equivocation
Okay. The equivocation is utterly useless because your personal opinions, attitudes, effects, or adorations can also be described as private.

Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree, but I like my bed and my computer perfectly well, and seeing as I have slept in one and used the other for quite some time, I would feel personally violated if they were taken. Thus, one would have to have a pretty damned good reason to get me to give them up.

If someone else needs a bed or a computer, I would much prefer to donate money to buy these things, or contribute my labor to produce them, than to pretend that I do not become attached to the things that are "mine" and make up a part of my personal space.

To suppose that people are capable of such free sharing without jealousy is, perhaps, to pick a (friendly) fight with human nature.

;)

So would I, but it's a question of need:

If, hypothetically, there was an outbreak of some sort of very debiliatating plague and there is a grave shortage of hospital beds while I remain perfectly healthy and capable of sleeping on the floor - I have no qualms in giving it up. Just as if there was an urgent need for my computer.

(as for "human nature", don't get into that. I don't think there's any such thing as a universal human nature.)

Merriam-Webster Online:

Entry for "private":
Synonyms: confidential, hushed, inside, intimate, nonpublic, privy, secret.

"Personal" only appears under "related words", as it should.

[emphasis added]
I'll bet if you look up their entry for "intimate" they have the word "personal" under that one. Frequently, the structure is different from Thesaurus to Thesaurus, but the link is clearly there. I don't know precisely what they meant by "related words," but if something is a synonym of a synonym, I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the two terms somehow aren't synonymous.

I never said they did. My argument all along has been that certain individual rights only come into existence through social efforts. You have a personal right to your personal possessions... but if you go outside and fence off an acre of land, the only thing that makes it "yours" is the willingness of a social organization to punish anyone who walks on it without your permission.
Theres a lot of truth to this, but in an ultimate sense what really makes it mine is the work and thought and life that went into it, provided the land was obtained legitimately and not by fraud.

Now, if you're going to say that that doesn't matter worth a shit if the local populace decides to kick you off ot it, you're right--but again, this has never been a particularly compelling argument for the definition of right or wrong.

"Legitimacy" is a different matter. I think that I have a positive right to certain private property, which means that I think it would be illegitimate for the existing government to take it away... but that legitimacy has to do with the structure of the existing government and economy, not any inherent quality of my property.

Private property rights vary from one society to another. Some societies are perfectly happy without any property rights at all. Others define property rights to serve their ends, and in these it would be illegitimate to take property arbitrarily.

And don't reply with the tired refrain that "some societies practice slavery, too, so I guess you think that's okay?" The cases are easily distinguishable. Slavery is a form of "property" in which one group clearly protests to the arrangement. I am referring to "primitive" communal societies that last for thousands of years without one class oppressing another such that the latter demands change.
Unless I miss my guess, this is largely a restatement of your earlier premise, that all these things we're talking about are dependent on society. Society does not dictate reality; existence does. The fact that I put my life to use for something makes that something mine, not the laws that permit [or forbid] it.

I don't think "groups of people" have rights that individuals do not...
Clearly you do, since it's "right" for a group of individuals, [known as the Government] to appropriate the wages of the entire populace, a practice which you or I could likely never be brought to endorse on an individual level. You're not examining your philosophy very criticially at all.

but I do think that all individuals who are part of society have the same natural rights... such as the rights to life, the pursuit of happiness, and personal possessions. Therefore, when an arrangement of positive law, such as laws regarding private property, create a situation in which some people's natural rights to life, personal possessions, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and so on are sacrificed to the positive (invented) rights of some others, I see a problem.
Here we agree, but our definitions are likely to vary on a few key points. Like I've said before, property rights are not founded in "positive law," and my reasons for refuting this theory have been explained at length elsewhere.

I believe in individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you?
What do you think?

(Gee, I wonder why Jefferson changed the straight Lockean phrase, "life, liberty, and estate"?)
Funny you should mention that, as I regard that change [and the phrase "general welfare"] to be the two greatest philosophical flaws of our country's legal framework. All in all though, it's a hell of a lot better than anything that preceded it.

Sorry I'm breaking my usual "reply to everything" rule, but there didn't appear to be any actual arguments beyond this point so I left them out. If there's anything in specific that I overlooked, please direct me to the desired passage. You broke my post up into a lot of tiny bits and it was a bit exasperating to follow.

I'll do that when you manage to make me dinner, with your hands and mind...

... and nothing else.
Well, leaving aside the fact that that's actually possible, I feel compelled to point out that the tools that make that task easier are, in fact, ultimately products of someone's reasoning mind and the attendant appendages. The means by which these tools are produced (!) ultimately boil down to that level. That's kind of my whole point, actually.

Well, leaving aside the fact that that's actually possible, I feel compelled to point out that the tools that make that task easier are, in fact, ultimately products of someone's reasoning mind and the attendant appendages. The means by which these tools are produced (!) ultimately boil down to that level. That's kind of my whole point, actually.

But, as you must concede, one can distinguish the tools from the hands and mind.

But, as you must concede, one can distinguish the tools from the hands and mind.
Well yeah, but I don't think I ever really said you couldn't. Obviously, a kitchen knife is not my mind and a soup spoon is not my hands, but the means by which these tools were produced is invariably the same. The distinction can be made on a physical level whenever the product is released into the world, but that doesn't mean much in this context.

I suppose what you're trying to get at with this is because it's okay to make a distinction between the soup spoon and my hands or the knife and my brain is that it's also okay to make the distinction between private and personal property for presumably the same reason. Unfortunately, this ignores [as I've already pointed out] that 'personal' and 'private' are synonymous, while 'production' and 'use' are not. It's okay to identify these tools and describe their uses as being different than the actual function of my brain and hands. I'm not attempting to suggest that these tools and my means of cognition are to be treated interchangably, just that all of these tools have the same ultimate source.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at here is that the traditional definition of "means of production" is an erroneous one. A better way to describe them would be "aids to production."

Well yeah, but I don't think I ever really said you couldn't. Obviously, a kitchen knife is not my mind and a soup spoon is not my hands, but the means by which these tools were produced is invariably the same. The distinction can be made on a physical level whenever the product is released into the world, but that doesn't mean much in this context.

I suppose what you're trying to get at with this is because it's okay to make a distinction between the soup spoon and my hands or the knife and my brain is that it's also okay to make the distinction between private and personal property for presumably the same reason. Unfortunately, this ignores [as I've already pointed out] that 'personal' and 'private' are synonymous, while 'production' and 'use' are not. It's okay to identify these tools and describe their uses as being different than the actual function of my brain and hands. I'm not attempting to suggest that these tools and my means of cognition are to be treated interchangably, just that all of these tools have the same ultimate source.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at here is that the traditional definition of "means of production" is an erroneous one. A better way to describe them would be "aids to production."

Your problem isn't so much with the traditional definition of "means of production" as it that you don't believe that label as accurately fits the items described as your term.

[emphasis added]
I'll bet if you look up their entry for "intimate" they have the word "personal" under that one.

As a matter of fact, it does not. Try again.

Theres a lot of truth to this

I take it that means we're making progress.

but in an ultimate sense what really makes it mine is the work and thought and life that went into it, provided the land was obtained legitimately and not by fraud.

If work and thought and life go into it, then I have already admitted that it would be personal, not private, property. Allow me to take the argument to its furthest extreme: you purchase a plot of land on the other side of the country, which you have never seen. The only thing that allows you to do this is a set of laws and social relations that make it possible. Even if you claim that it was your money, which "represents" other work that you may have done, that allows you to make the purchase, you are committing yourself to the social arrangements involved in the monetary system.

Now, if you're going to say that that doesn't matter worth a shit if the local populace decides to kick you off ot it, you're right--but again, this has never been a particularly compelling argument for the definition of right or wrong.

No, I think you have a legitimate right to what you work for with your mind and your own two hands. But as soon as social relations become necessary to exchange and accumulate property, you enter the realm of positive--not natural--law.

Clearly you do, since it's "right" for a group of individuals, [known as the Government] to appropriate the wages of the entire populace, a practice which you or I could likely never be brought to endorse on an individual level. You're not examining your philosophy very criticially at all.

Well, if person A produces wages X, but he can only do it because person B established the rules for the transaction, protected it against fraud, and otherwise facilitated the production of wages X.... then yes, I would allow person B to "appropriate" some of the wages of A--which is only to say that "B" should get his fair share.

Now replace "person B" with "the executor of the people" or "the government."

Not a different right. The same right.

You broke my post up into a lot of tiny bits and it was a bit exasperating to follow.

Sorry. When you try to disguise arguments as dependent clauses of sentences, actual argument makes it necessary.

Oddly enough, as much as I admire him, Jefferson does precisely the same thing in the Declaration of Independence. The entire "argument" occurs in a dependent clause in the first paragraph. It is an excellent piece of rhetoric, but rather poor from a critical philosophical point of view. His better work appears elsewhere.

Your problem isn't so much with the traditional definition of "means of production" as it that you don't believe that label as accurately fits the items described as your term.
I'm confused. I may be deciphering this erroneously, but it seems to me like you're saying "Your problem isn't so much with the traditional definition of 'means of production' as it is that you don't beleive the definition is accurate," since definitions are all about how a label fits its term.

If I've got this all wrong please eludicate me, but it's late, my ass hurts from sitting here too long, and I may be missing something.

Well, leaving aside the fact that that's actually possible,

Ewww... are you implying that I should lick your hands for nutrients?

Come on.

I'm confused. I may be deciphering this erroneously, but it seems to me like you're saying "Your problem isn't so much with the traditional definition of 'means of production' as it is that you don't beleive the definition is accurate," since definitions are all about how a label fits its term.

If I've got this all wrong please eludicate me, but it's late, my ass hurts from sitting here too long, and I may be missing something.

No. You know what the traditional definition of "means of production" is. You don't disagree with the definition per se. What you want to argue is that "means of production" should be called something else because you nit-pick what the words "means of production" literally describe.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but I am tired too.

Obviously, a kitchen knife is not my mind and a soup spoon is not my hands, but the means by which these tools were produced is invariably the same.

Regardless of what the "original" means may have been, these remain means of production. (More importantly, they are irrelevant to the real argument, which is about social--not individual--tools.)

By your argument, I should not be allowed to call L'Hospital's rule a "means" of solving a certain kind of limit... because some other rule was used to produce it... and some other rule was used to produce it... all the way back to the mind that figured out that, for numerical purposes, "x=x".

Unfortunately, this ignores [as I've already pointed out] that 'personal' and 'private' are synonymous,

No, they aren't.

All personal possessions are private property.
All private property is not a personal possession.

If these are synonyms, then "human" = "mammal."

Basically, what I'm trying to get at here is that the traditional definition of "means of production" is an erroneous one. A better way to describe them would be "aids to production."

That's a spurious distinction.

EDIT: For analogous examples, consider the distinction between "products" and "by-products"... they are both produced by a process, but for rhetorical purposes interested parties want you to focus on one rather than another. Similarly medications have "effects" and "side-effects"... but all this really means is "good effects" and "bad effects." Both effects.

For you, there are "means of production" and "aids to production"... both of which are necessary for production.[/EDIT]

Moreover, if you want to claim that the "traditional", well-established meaning for a word is "erroneous," the burden of proof is yours.

So far, I do not think you have convinced anyone.

As a matter of fact, it does not. Try again.

Yes it does, even from your own source:

Entry Word: intimate
Function: adjective
Text: 1 closely acquainted <intimate friends who can practically finish each other's sentences> -- see FAMILIAR 1
2 not known or meant to be known by the general populace <they broke up after she shared intimate information with all 500 of her closest friends> -- see PRIVATE 1
Granted, I couldn't get it to give me a Thesaurus entry [even in the "Thesaurus" field], which was curious, but the linked definition speaks for itself. Other sources include Thesaurus.com (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=private), and Wordsmyth.com (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=private)

How's that crow taste?

If work and thought and life go into it, then I have already admitted that it would be personal, not private, property. Allow me to take the argument to its furthest extreme: you purchase a plot of land on the other side of the country, which you have never seen. The only thing that allows you to do this is a set of laws and social relations that make it possible. Even if you claim that it was your money, which "represents" other work that you may have done, that allows you to make the purchase, you are committing yourself to the social arrangements involved in the monetary system.
You've already used this argument about a dozen times, and I've already explained why social approval is not a moral blank check on my life and the product of it.

No, I think you have a legitimate right to what you work for with your mind and your own two hands. But as soon as social relations become necessary to exchange and accumulate property, you enter the realm of positive--not natural--law.
Well, obviously these rights won't be enforced without the positive law to back them up, but you seem to be implying that they don't exist unless the positive law says they do. Again, we've already been over this numerous times. It's basically a restatement of your premise.

Well, if person A produces wages X, but he can only do it because person B established the rules for the transaction, protected it against fraud, and otherwise facilitated the production of wages X.... then yes, I would allow person B to "appropriate" some of the wages of A--which is only to say that "B" should get his fair share.

Now replace "person B" with "the executor of the people" or "the government."
Not a different right. The same right.
You're evading my accusation. Clearly, despite your own denial, you're advocating the distribution of more widespread rights to a group [since the government can do this pretty much no matter what, and your exception on an individual level requires a very specific set of circumstances] than exist in our private lives. Your example above doesn't demonstrate how this is not the case. You can't just replace an individual with a mass of individuals in terms of moral questioning.

Yes it does, even from your own source:
Originally Posted by Miriam Webster Online
Entry Word: intimate
...
PRIVATE

Come again? You said:

I'll bet if you look up their entry for "intimate" they have the word "personal" under that one.

Yum yum... crow...

You've already used this argument about a dozen times, and I've already explained why social approval is not a moral blank check on my life and the product of it.

No, you just persistently misread what I write.

Let me make it simple for you:

1. What I am NOT saying: "Social approval is a moral blank check on your life and the product of it."
2. What I AM saying: "Social cooperation is necessary to any claim you make to ownership beyond your life and the product of it."

It would be nice if we could get past this "misunderstanding."

If you want to attack my arguments, attack the ones I make... not the ones you wish I'd made.

Well, obviously these rights won't be enforced without the positive law to back them up, but you seem to be implying that they don't exist unless the positive law says they do.

I am unable to see on what other basis you could have a property right in something you neither produce nor work on.

You can't just replace an individual with a mass of individuals in terms of moral questioning.

In order to claim that no right adheres to a group that does not adhere to the individuals that make it up, you all but have to.

Stop contradicting yourself. It makes me feel all embarassed for you.

Regardless of what the "original" means may have been, these remain means of production. (More importantly, they are irrelevant to the real argument, which is about social--not individual--tools.)
They're not means, they're aids.

By your argument, I should not be allowed to call L'Hospital's rule a "means" of solving a certain kind of limit... because some other rule was used to produce it... and some other rule was used to produce it... all the way back to the mind that figured out that, for numerical purposes, "x=x".
Wrong. Ideas are a slightly different realm, since ideas can be shared by all people at [hopefully] no loss to the creator, unless his ideas are used to destroy him. In a cognitive sense, "means" of solving issues can be said to be logical processes or rules or what-have you. You're confusing problem-solving with product-making. You're attempting to draw parallels between two distinctly different [albeit frequently connected] modes of thought.

No, they aren't.

All personal possessions are private property.
All private property is not a personal possession.

If these are synonyms, then "human" = "mammal."
Again, here is the source of our disagreement made manifest. I maintain that all private property is a personal possession, regardless of how badly you wish that weren't the case.

That's a spurious distinction.

Moreover, if you want to claim that the "traditional", well-established meaning for a word is "erroneous," the burden of proof is yours.

So far, I do not think you have convinced anyone.
I've got no problem with the burden of proof, and in fact I've already fulfilled that burden. I've pointed out that the ultimate means of production are not factories, but minds, and that only minds make production possible in the first place.

And of course I haven't convinced anyone [since you and Cat-Tribe have been my only audience so far]--do you really think I'm even trying to convince you or Cat-Tribe? Such an attempt would be an excersize in futility: my time would be better put to use by covering myself in gasoline and rolling around over hot coals. As I've said before [and you've obviously already forgotten], I do not write here for my opponent's benefit, in most cases. You are clearly as set in your beleifs as I am, and any attempt on either of our parts to "convince" the other as to the validity of their position is useless. This discourse exists primarily for the benefit of people who might care to read and think about it. Many people out there are still in something of a formative ethical phase, and I'm trying to help them along.

Yes it does, even from your own source:

Entry Word: intimate
Function: adjective
Text: 1 closely acquainted <intimate friends who can practically finish each other's sentences> -- see FAMILIAR 1
2 not known or meant to be known by the general populace <they broke up after she shared intimate information with all 500 of her closest friends> -- see PRIVATE 1

Granted, I couldn't get it to give me a Thesaurus entry [even in the "Thesaurus" field], which was curious, but the linked definition speaks for itself. Other sources include Thesaurus.com (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=private), and Wordsmyth.com (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=private)

How's that crow taste?

wait, what?


[emphasis added]
I'll bet if you look up their entry for "intimate" they have the word "personal" under that one.


edit: damn, beaten to it

Come again? You said:
Apologies. It's late and I was confusing my p-words: not only that but the "thesaurus" section of the Miriam Webster site seems to be reverting to the "dictionary" function, something which I haven't quite figured out how to wrap my head around yet.

Yum yum... crow...
Glad to know you're actually eating it [since I had two other sources as well, which you clearly ignored].

No, you just persistently misread what I write.

Let me make it simple for you:

1. What I am NOT saying: "Social approval is a moral blank check on your life and the product of it."
2. What I AM saying: "Social cooperation is necessary to any claim you make to ownership beyond your life and the product of it."

It would be nice if we could get past this "misunderstanding."
We're talking past each other then, as I never implied that it was morally appropriate to 'stake a claim' on something beyond your life and its product. my point is that, ultimately, the "means of production" can't be said to be a social possession because the factories, mills, and assembly machines and such aren't any less the product of someone's life work just because they can build things really fast or employ thousands of people.

Land, I'll admit, is a trickier issue, and I'm still trying to formulate my opinions on that particular subject.

They're not means, they're aids.

I need my hands to make X.
I need tools to make X.

Without either, I cannot make X.

Explain to me again how one is the "means" to X, while the other is merely an "aid".

Wrong. Ideas are a slightly different realm, since ideas can be shared by all people at [hopefully] no loss to the creator, unless his ideas are used to destroy him. In a cognitive sense, "means" of solving issues can be said to be logical processes or rules or what-have you. You're confusing problem-solving with product-making.

Now you're really stretching. Are you saying that L'Hospital's rule is not the product of his thought?

If that's true, then how is the "mind" a "means of production" at all... if, according to you, all it does is solve problems, not make products?

You're attempting to draw parallels between two distinctly different [albeit frequently connected] modes of thought.

You are attempting to draw an equivalency between two distinctly different (albeit clearly connected) forms of property.

Again, here is the source of our disagreement made manifest. I maintain that all private property is a personal possession, regardless of how badly you wish that weren't the case.

I assumed you must. But you have not written one word to support that claim. Indeed, this is the first time you have been bold enough to assert it.

I've got no problem with the burden of proof, and in fact I've already fulfilled that burden. I've pointed out that the ultimate means of production are not factories, but minds, and that only minds make production possible in the first place.

Even if that's so, you've given no reason why the distinction between the "ultimate" means of production and the immediate means of production is a significant one.

You are clearly as set in your beleifs as I am,

Speak for yourself!! I remain open to convincing new ideas. Indeed, not only do my opinions evolve, but some of that evolution can be traced to conversations right here on this very forum.

When people make a solid argument, I am willing to reconsider my own.

It is forthright of you to admit that you lack such maturity. Right now I am reconsidering the value of continuing a discussion with someone who explicitly admits that he has no intention of considering what I have to say.

and any attempt on either of our parts to "convince" the other as to the validity of their position is useless.

And here I thought we were adults.

I admit it. I was wrong about that, at least.

This discourse exists primarily for the benefit of people who might care to read and think about it. Many people out there are still in something of a formative ethical phase, and I'm trying to help them along.

How self-important and patronizing of you.

I was being selfishly cooperative: I thought we might gain mutual benefit from an exchange of ideas. Again, I'll admit that I was wrong.

I had two other sources as well, which you clearly ignored.

No, I looked at them.

But I satisfied my burden of proof. You said I could choose "any" thesaurus, implying that any synonymy between "public" and "personal" should be so obvious that any source would recognize it.

I chose. I happened to choose a counter-example to your claim. And all it takes is one.

A thesaurus may stretch to get all sorts of interesting "synonyms." Check the thesaurus function in Wordperfect... It will tell you that "fucking" is a synonym of "perfect"!!

We're talking past each other then, as I never implied that it was morally appropriate to 'stake a claim' on something beyond your life and its product. my point is that, ultimately, the "means of production" can't be said to be a social possession because the factories, mills, and assembly machines and such aren't any less the product of someone's life work just because they can build things really fast or employ thousands of people.

If you and I build a bridge together, which one of us owns it?

Land, I'll admit, is a trickier issue, and I'm still trying to formulate my opinions on that particular subject.

Thank you for that concession. It is a tricky issue.

To the OP: yes, the day we'll treat each other as brothers and sisters, until then you can't have my PC just by starting a poll like this, maybe if you said pretty please with sugar on top... ;)

Property Rights as a practical thing though has only existed since that caveman got a stick and bashed over the head anyone who wanted to take his stuff. That's the important point.
A Lion doesn't have property rights to his kill: If a bunch of Hyenas takes it, it's gone. There is no independent sort of universal law that prevents one animal from taking stuff from another animal.
You can call it unfair, but you can't call it "immoral" or "unethical".

Duh, the lion could try to claw and bite the hyenas, just like the caveman, what's the difference? Or many cavemen could steal from the club wielding one... I could steal from you and all you can do is imprison me (or cut my hands off) if you catch me: there is no sort of universal law that prevents one man from taking stuff from another man even today.

"The public" shouldn't earn any rights that I don't have simply on virtue of the fact that there's more of them than there are of me.

There are six billions people on earth, how many do you think will starve to death or become criminals or sweatshop slaves before people like you acknowledge that your society gives them no chance?
Still you have the right to not care, that makes me sick.

I don't think "groups of people" have rights that individuals do not... but I do think that all individuals who are part of society have the same natural rights... such as the rights to life, the pursuit of happiness, and personal possessions. Therefore, when an arrangement of positive law, such as laws regarding private property, create a situation in which some people's natural rights to life, personal possessions, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and so on are sacrificed to the positive (invented) rights of some others, I see a problem.

Isn't the only natural right "the law of the strongest"?
Also, aren't you guys agreeing with each other on this specific issue?

I'll do that when you manage to make me dinner, with your hands and mind... ... and nothing else.

Would you like a nice Chianti with that? (sorry, couldn't help)

Like I've said before, property rights are not founded in "positive law," and my reasons for refuting this theory have been explained at length elsewhere.

Link please?

I never implied that it was morally appropriate to 'stake a claim' on something beyond your life and its product.

Product of our lives is supernatural consciousness (far above that of the uneducated, and any other living being for that matters).
As far as I'm concerned we, as human race, own the universe (material), while we, as individuals, own our world (in a metaphisical sense, not the planet earth).
Supporting egoism and greed as fundamental (materialistic level) rights infringes severely on both property levels for someone else (the fact that it happens to be the vast, helpless, majority is just corollary).

First one would have to define what exactly one means by "property rights".

In real world settings the civilizations/local peoples/nations, etc. that did not have private property, or had limited private propert had generally a few things in common. First off was a distinguishment between productive property (which was held in common) and personal possesion (items, food, etc.) Since for the most part they had little in the form of material possession the latter was simply unimportant. Food sharing however was a necissary element of survival and thus there where significant social incentives not to hoard food. Likewise, since there was little non-land capital (indeed, typically speaking productive capital in the form of tools, etc. were mostly identical, so it didn't make sense at all to have more than you could use), labor pooling/exchange was also socially managed. In a tight knit community you did not want to be known as someone who shirked their work.

So we get back to land management. Land was typically reguarded as owned by the community yet possessed by those who worked it. You had indefinate claim to live and work on your land, so long as you didn't harm neighboring farms or streams, etc. If you failed to work the land you had no more claim to it. This is entirely sensible in the context of local democratic management.

In the modern context, people who do not believe in property typically speaking do not believe in private allocation of productive property, seeing resources as social property and production as toward common good. Now whether you agree or not with this proposition is entirely another point, but the point is don't make a caricature of the position.

Especially since even if you don't agree with the above examples there are noteable reasonable limitations on property rights even within a fully capitalist setting. Such as say limiting a landowners right to make bombs next to a baby nursery. Or likewise to what extent "intellectual property" should go, etc. There are plenty of perfectly sensible and reasonable limitations on private property, and also there are at least historical examples of societies that had no definition of private productive property or wealth hoarding. There are also existing intentional communities that do not recognize private property as above either, so its not entirely an unrealistic position if that is how you want to live.

And by the way: "Property is Theft" is a quote from Proudhon, who looking into the origins of property law in europe pretty much discovered exactly that. Someone would conquer a people, claim their common lands as property and tax them or own them as chattle, this would evolve into the fuedal system in europe which would work its way into the mercantilist and capitalist systems. Originally of course in order to run a factory or the like you would have to have the local lord's permission or patronage which often meant quite a bit of graft or partial ownership on the part of unproductive gentry, this meant much productive capital was simply given away and reappropriated to those who were in the local authorities favor.


As such Proudhon was no where near mistaken in his early denunciation of the origins of property, and the current practices concerning property in his day and age. And again, it is worth noting that he made the distinction between productive property and personal possession.

Isn't the only natural right "the law of the strongest"?

Some would say so. The whole notion of "natural right" has been largely discredited within educated circles over the last century or so. Indeed, in a rigorous discussion on natural law/right alone, I am not sure how far I would extend myself on the notion: it simply lacks sufficient philosophical grounding. For the purposes of this discussion, however, and within the strained range of meanings that it encompasses, I am willing to distinguish certain fundamental rights as "natural" in more or less the sense that my interlocutors intend it, so that we do not get sidetracked too far into a pedantic discourse on philosophical foundations.

Also, aren't you guys agreeing with each other on this specific issue?

We are indeed, far more than Melkor would care to admit. He would like you to believe that if one rejects the notion of private property in non-personal possessions as a matter of natural law, then one also rejects any natural right to possessions of a purely personal nature. (This is because he refuses to acknowledge the distinction between personal possessions--which, yes, are also private property--and private property of a non-personal nature.)

We actually agree quite explicitly on the justification in natural law of an exclusive right to personal possessions.

The problem arises in that he attempts to use the same justification, by some mysterious sophistry that (at best) may be traceable to Locke, to establish non-personal private property as a matter of natural right, and not positive law.

We actually agree quite explicitly on the justification in natural law of an exclusive right to personal possessions.

The problem arises in that he attempts to use the same justification, by some mysterious sophistry that (at best) may be traceable to Locke, to establish non-personal private property as a matter of natural right, and not positive law.

I can trace this particular line of reasoning. It's typically based on a belief in atomistic humanity (which does not exist) and the lack of knowlege of or refusal to acknowledge the social mechanisms that allow stores of value and capital to develop. Which precisely allow one to "own" something that one does not personally possess nor utilize, yet still reaps benefits from. The same social functions which do allow them also govern what is a "public good", and why a functioning body which allows commerce and survival to take place in any event has the same sort of legitimacy to tax a portion of your labor pr earnings for facilitating that ability.

I certainly cannot argue with your experience, but the distinction has been made for centuries.



Sure. It is actually a qualitative distinction that tends to bleed into a quantitative one.

By "personal" property we mean those possessions relating directly to a person, in an ontological and a practical sense. When we speak of someone "mixing her/his labor with raw material" and we say that he/she has a property in the result, that is personal property: if I make it, I own it. The possessions, moreover, that are necessary (or very obviously expedient) to my existence and sense of myself as a "person"--such as the home in which I live, the clothes I wear, the computer I use, my toys, my movies, my books... these are all personal possessions, because they belong to my "person."

All societies have a conception of personal property. It is a natural right.

"Private" property is that which has been deprived (like I said, etymology) of its public quality. Land, for instance, has a primarily public quality--it belongs to and is administered by the society that occupies it, for the preservation and well-being of the society. (I am willing to admit a grey area here where some theorists may not. I allow, for instance, that an individual may have a personal property in the land, say, on which his home is built, or on which he farms to make his living. I call this a "grey" area because I nevertheless retain a belief in eminent domain... that, paying due compensation, the society may reclaim land whose primary nature is public.)

Not all societies have a conception of private property, i.e. property that has no clear relation to an individual's "person" yet in which that individual may have a property by law. In some societies, the very notion of private property in land would be ridiculous.

Other societies (ours, for instance) find it expedient to public purposes to allow individuals to hold exclusive rights to non-personal property such as vast tracts of land, factories, and the like.

Private property of this sort--property deprived by law of its public nature--is a matter of positive, not natural, law. As such any "rights" to this property are to be determined as a matter of the social interest.

You need not retort that the distinction is blurred and not necessarily determinate... honest theorists of positive property law are well aware of this fact. We can only reply that most areas of the law are blurred and indeterminate, which is why we inevitably resort to judges and other impartial arbiters to settle disputes. Nevertheless, the distinction is meaningful and determinable (which is quite different than determinate).

I do hope that helps.

Sorry, but not really.

And if it helps to understand why I don't understand, here are some definitions of personal and private I came accross:
per·son·al adj. Of or relating to a particular person; private
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=personal - Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

pri·vate Of or confined to the individual; personal:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=private The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Further more, the definition of private property is given as:
private property

n : movable property (as distinguished from real estate) [syn: personal property, personal estate, personalty]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=private%20property
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

And the defintion of personal property is given as:
personal property
n. Law

Temporary or movable property.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=personal%20property
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


This confuses me more as to your distinctions. I don't really see a distinction being made there. Can you post a source for the distinction you are making?

Essentially he's saying that personal property is easily defined: It is that which you use and relates directly to your personage.

Private property is that which requires social or legal convention to retain rights to it.

Land which I live and work on is easily defined as my personal possession, as I am the one utilizing it. It is my home, it has my house, I work the land to produce my food. When I own 15 other parcels of land which I don't live in, don't work on, and don't use to produce, I require a legal or social convention which allows me to hold a private claim to it, since I have no claim to it in accorance to natural rights, but rather whatever positive social or legal convention allows me to have it. It is private because I have taken and appropriated resources of the public (or commons), and privated the use of them to the exclusion of the public. And the only thing which allows me to is the consent of the public or legal authority.

Some would say so. The whole notion of "natural right" has been largely discredited within educated circles over the last century or so. Indeed, in a rigorous discussion on natural law/right alone, I am not sure how far I would extend myself on the notion: it simply lacks sufficient philosophical grounding. For the purposes of this discussion, however, and within the strained range of meanings that it encompasses, I am willing to distinguish certain fundamental rights as "natural" in more or less the sense that my interlocutors intend it, so that we do not get sidetracked too far into a pedantic discourse on philosophical foundations.

Fair enough, misunderstood with natural law.

I need my hands to make X.
I need tools to make X.

Without either, I cannot make X.

Explain to me again how one is the "means" to X, while the other is merely an "aid".
Because one is the source of production and the other is a tool by which production is facilitated.

Now you're really stretching. Are you saying that L'Hospital's rule is not the product of his thought?
No, actually, the above passage makes precisely no insinuation to that effect.

If that's true, then how is the "mind" a "means of production" at all... if, according to you, all it does is solve problems, not make products?
Ummm... I beleive the implication is fairly clear that I'm suggesting they do both. I was attempting to make a distinction between, say, solving an equation and making a widget. More often than not either function may be dependent on the other [as problem solving is often a component of production], but the two activities are hardly identical.

You are attempting to draw an equivalency between two distinctly different (albeit clearly connected) forms of property.

I assumed you must. But you have not written one word to support that claim. Indeed, this is the first time you have been bold enough to assert it.
Wait, what? You didn't gather from my assertion that "personal" and "private" are goddamn synonyms that I think the two forms of property are identical? What did you think we were talking about?! My entire dicourse here has been nothing but support of that claim.

Even if that's so, you've given no reason why the distinction between the "ultimate" means of production and the immediate means of production is a significant one.
Well, then why is any distinction a significant one? I'm just trying to force some consistency from people philosophically.

Speak for yourself!! I remain open to convincing new ideas. Indeed, not only do my opinions evolve, but some of that evolution can be traced to conversations right here on this very forum.
Yeah, I bet. Ever sat down with someone with the intent of changing their political ideas? Nine times out of ten, you're pissing in the wind. Be careful which way you squirt.

When people make a solid argument, I am willing to reconsider my own.
Incorrect. When you understand a solid argument, you are willing to reconsider your own. At least in theory.

It is forthright of you to admit that you lack such maturity. Right now I am reconsidering the value of continuing a discussion with someone who explicitly admits that he has no intention of considering what I have to say.
I hate to break it to you, but I've heard it all before. It's got nothing to do with "maturity." For future reference, "maturity" generally refers tothe civility of one's conduct and whether or not it is a appropriate in a given context. Typically, "maturity" is not contingent on one's political views and whether or not one is willing to change them. Obviously, this is an attempt at a dig, and a rather poor one at that.

And here I thought we were adults.

I admit it. I was wrong about that, at least.
Umm... it's the fact that we are adults that makes changing our minds about politics such a useless pastime. I think it's funny that you're fixated on labelling me a child because I have a set of ideas that I like, and aren't easy challenged by Rosseau or yourself.

How self-important and patronizing of you.
Finally, a compliment! Thank you.

I was being selfishly cooperative: I thought we might gain mutual benefit from an exchange of ideas. Again, I'll admit that I was wrong.
Again, I can't understand why you'd suggest this, as you have expressed nothing but animosity for everything that's come out of my mouth since we first met. You clearly have no respect for my ideas where you deign to actually understand them [and I for yours, though I'm honest enough to admit it], so why would you expect me to beleive this?

Because one is the source of production and the other is a tool by which production is facilitated.



That's actually not really a good definition. Tools and productive capital are merely stores of past labor mixed with resources for added marginal productivity. They are a *store* of production, as well as a multiplier and facilitator there of.

Bollocks!

What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too!

No, I looked at them.

But I satisfied my burden of proof. You said I could choose "any" thesaurus, implying that any synonymy between "public" and "personal" should be so obvious that any source would recognize it.

I chose. I happened to choose a counter-example to your claim. And all it takes is one.
Merriam Webster's online interface is so ridiculous I don't even know what its doing half the time: the only Thesaurus entry I can get it to return is the one for "private;" all of the others simply give me a definition and a "See $WORD" clarification at the end of the definition. For some reason [and I don't know if this is just me or what] I can't get it to give me a list of synonyms for "personal" or "intimate." I'm not saying I can't count this as a source, but it's hard to cross-reference your claims when I can't get the damn thing to work.

If I say, for example, that apples are razors and oranges are shaving cream, therefore one can shave with fruit salad, I do not earn legitimacy for that claim by finding a source that suggests this is the case, when every other source cited [not to mention reality] clearly suggests that this is not the case. Yes, I did say "any" Thesaurus, but that doesn't mean an error in one validates centuries of erroneous philosophical groupings.

A thesaurus may stretch to get all sorts of interesting "synonyms." Check the thesaurus function in Wordperfect... It will tell you that "fucking" is a synonym of "perfect"!!
Cute. Suggest the legitimacy of your Thesaurus entry while subtly implying that the entire publication is ridiculous based on the behavior of one of them [Wordperfect] which ironically I didn't even cite as a source. Again, isolated errors do not vindicate you.

If you and I build a bridge together, which one of us owns it?
The one who made the project possible by procuring [or producing] the steel, and gathering the labor tomake it happen in the first place. Assuming [through the vagueness of your question] that we both did it and have an equal share in its creation, then we own it jointly.

This does not mean that it's okay to "jointly" own things with men whom you have no prior connection, and it doesn't mean that it's justified for society to "jointly" own any given factory since generally societies don't gather entirely in one place and pool their resources to build such a structure. Where this does happen, it generally only happens under the auspices of a certain group within society, rather than the whole thing.

If a local community, for example, gathers willing participants to build a homeless shelter or soup kitchen or bank or office or whatever else, it's perfectly okay for the community at large to claim ownership of it. If the people putting the money up for it say "okay, $COMMUNITY owns this now," that's perfectly alright as long as such a declaration comes about as a result of his own volition and not someone else's. Managing it will probably be a mess, but that's a different issue.

That's actually not really a good definition. Tools and productive capital are merely stores of past labor mixed with resources for added marginal productivity. They are a *store* of production, as well as a multiplier and facilitator there of.
[emphasis added]
I find it humourous that you couldn't attack my definition without actually invoking it. You're right, of course, but that doesn't contravene my definition.

Melkor Unchained : raw material is not produced, it is extracted from the earth. How are you justifying private property of raw material when you are not using it?

Melkor Unchained : raw material is not produced, it is extracted from the earth. How are you justifying private property of raw material when you are not using it?
I didn't think I was, since it's sort of hard to suggest that one owns a giant slab of ore that's still sitting 200 miles beneath the earth's surface.

I can only assume you're referring to the bridge example, in which case the "production" of steel is only acheived once the neccesary processes are carried out to make the steel, since it isn't a natually occuring element. It becomes property once the neccesary chemical combination is acheived, primarily on virtue of the fact that such a process can only take place under the auspices of human cognition and action.

On a related note, I would tend to maintain that naturally occuring resources are the domain of whoever should happen to come across them first [just as we name diseases and elements after their first victims, or discoverers respectively].

On a related note, I would tend to maintain that naturally occuring resources are the domain of whoever should happen to come across them first [just as we name diseases and elements after their first victims, or discoverers respectively].This is not a related note : it is the only part addressing the question.
I think this is not workable.
- I saw that first!
- No I did saw it before you saw it!
- liar!

This reminds me Palestine (and not only that).

[emphasis added]
I find it humourous that you couldn't attack my definition without actually invoking it. You're right, of course, but that doesn't contravene my definition.


I find it interesting that you think I'm attacking it, your definition was incomplete that is all. I had no reason to exclude facilitation from my definition, as it is *one* of the functions of productive capital I included it at the end for emphasis purposes. In fact, rather than the emphasis being on "facilitator" in my above sentence, it should be on the word "and".

Sorry, but not really.

And if it helps to understand why I don't understand, here are some definitions of personal and private I came accross:

This confuses me more as to your distinctions. I don't really see a distinction being made there. Can you post a source for the distinction you are making?

As a general rule, common usage dictionaries are not good sources for philosophical or other technical distinctions.

For a start, try Property Rights: Cooperation, Conflict, and Law, edited by Terry L. Anderson and Fred S. McChesney, Princeton University Press.

If you want to understand political theory, you'll have to get a real education... That is, one you can't buy over the Internet.

Fair enough. edit: discredited as in "dysfunctional" or what?

"Discredited" as in lacking any philosophical foundation that can withstand serious scrutiny.

if you stop there (with positive rights) you still have dog-eat-dog competition that will have to be enforced with brute-force,

What makes you think that?

Because one is the source of production and the other is a tool by which production is facilitated.

To "facilitate" is to make easier. But having the right equipment does not just make it "easier", does not just "facilitate" my building a microchip--it is a required component of the process. To distinguish it as anything other than the means to my end is completely disingenuous.

No, actually, the above passage makes precisely no insinuation to that effect.

You did say that thoughts are not "products", right? Do I need to go back to quote you?

Ummm... I beleive the implication is fairly clear that I'm suggesting they do both. I was attempting to make a distinction between, say, solving an equation and making a widget.

That's fine, as long as you admit that to solve an equation, one uses various intellectual products, just as in making a widget one uses both intellectual and material products.

Well, then why is any distinction a significant one?

Human beings and dolphins are both mammals. For the purposes of determining whether or not they breathe oxygen, any distinctions I make between them are not significant, because they do not relate to the purpose of inquiry.

Minds, hands, and machinery are all means of production. For the purposes of determining what I need to produce item X, there is no meaningful distinction between them.

Ever sat down with someone with the intent of changing their political ideas?

Yes. It's my job.

Nine times out of ten, you're pissing in the wind. Be careful which way you squirt.

You must only have experience sitting down with people as ignorant and pig-headed as yourself. In civilized company, ideas are exchanged more rationally, and more honestly.

I hate to break it to you, but I've heard it all before. It's got nothing to do with "maturity." For future reference, "maturity" generally refers tothe civility of one's conduct and whether or not it is a appropriate in a given context.

You have a lot to learn about maturity. It does not refer merely to manners and appearance, as you suggest, but to actual attitude as well. It entails a degree of humility and respect for others that you clearly have yet to learn. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that some day you will.

Typically, "maturity" is not contingent on one's political views and whether or not one is willing to change them.

No, "maturity" means arguing on principle, not merely to win. It entails the humility to recognize when you are wrong, and not storm off, pout, or rage in denial because you are wrong.

Again, you have much to learn about maturity.

Obviously, this is an attempt at a dig, and a rather poor one at that.

I guess you may feel insulted. I apologize for that... but I am merely resigning myself to the fact that you never wanted to have a friendly conversation. Your attitude has been vile and aggressive from the outset, but I had hoped that you would eventually cool your jets and engage in rational discussion. So, my comments are not so much "digs" at you, as a sad recognition that this will never be an adult conversation.

Umm... it's the fact that we are adults that makes changing our minds about politics such a useless pastime.

Children latch onto ideas wholeheartedly and without reservation. Adults learn that truth is rarely as simple as it seems. The problems of the world cannot be reduced to "state bad; property good" any more than they can be reduced to "state good; property bad"--if they could, we might have resolved them a long, long time ago.

I think it's funny that you're fixated on labelling me a child because I have a set of ideas that I like,

"Liking" ideas is precisely your problem. When I was younger, I "liked" the pure ideas of communist libertarianism ("state bad; property bad"). In many ways, I still "like" them: they appeal to me on a basic level, to my sense of how the world "should" be. Unfortunately, I have since discovered that, in their pure form certainly and possibly in any other, they are largely indefensible. Gradually, I have adopted new ideas, not according to a standard of what I "like" or what "appeals" to me, but according to the standard that they should be rationally defensible in terms of right and justice.

The ideas I hold now are more complicated than the ones I did in my youth. They are, largely for that reason, less appealing. They are less "ideological", so there is no one "cheering" for them, because they are not "exciting" or "controversial."

But they are more convincing. That is what becoming an intellectual adult is all about.

Again, I can't understand why you'd suggest this, as you have expressed nothing but animosity for everything that's come out of my mouth since we first met.

That is because your opinions have been not only unconvincing, but presented in the most antagonistic and insulting mode possible. I have endeavored to present a rational case, which you have ignored, and only lately have your ignorance, your straw man attacks, and your perennial equivocation on basic terms led me, in desperate frustration, to discover that I am engaging in a patronizing lesson on your need to grow up--precisely the charge with which I accused you earlier.

Damn you. Now I'm going to feel all guilty and I won't be able to sleep.

You clearly have no respect for my ideas where you deign to actually understand them [and I for yours, though I'm honest enough to admit it], so why would you expect me to beleive this?

I disagree with your ideas. I have no respect for your blatant attempts to strong-arm every argument you get into.

No, it seems fairly straightforward to me. If you don't believe in property rights.There is nothing straightforward about defining "Property rights"..

There is multiple Moral definitions.. and multiple Legal definitions..

I believe in some "Property rights" (probabably the same as you) .. But I would not give away a blank Check on "Property rights".. And that is why I vote for POLL option#5... "other"

Yes, I did say "any" Thesaurus, but that doesn't mean an error in one validates centuries of erroneous philosophical groupings.

You made a universal claim. I needed only one counter-example to disprove it. You can't backpedal now, and calling it an "error" requires circular logic: "I'm right, so if I'm wrong, it's a mistake."

Cute. Suggest the legitimacy of your Thesaurus entry while subtly implying that the entire publication is ridiculous based on the behavior of one of them [Wordperfect] which ironically I didn't even cite as a source.

Hey, you're the one who wanted to go to the thesaurus. I merely accepted your challenge.

For the record, I think they are all horrible sources for identifying the connections between words. Two words are rarely if ever exact synonyms, indicating that they have the same exact "meaning." The Thesaurus stretches meaning along a whole spectrum of connotations.

See Quine on "meaning" for some really interesting problems here.

The one who made the project possible by procuring [or producing] the steel, and gathering the labor tomake it happen in the first place.

By this logic, since the King of England provided the materials for sailing to and exploiting the newly discovered territory in America, and gathering the labor to send over here, he owned every bit of it. EDIT: Not every bit, since he didn't charter every settlement. But quite a bit of it. (And Jefferson does explicitly attack the King's property right to America, holding that the land belongs to the laborers regardless of where they got the tools to labor.)

Thomas Jefferson was at pains to disprove this theory of property for a reason: it undermines the whole cause of revolution.

If a local community, for example, gathers willing participants to build a homeless shelter or soup kitchen or bank or office or whatever else, it's perfectly okay for the community at large to claim ownership of it.

And this differs from the justification for communism (which is perfectly happy to let unwilling participants go their own way)... how, exactly?

All right, children... It's nap time. For me, anyway.

I may or may not be back to continue this later, as my patience and my workload allow.

Property Rights are what we as a society define them to be, through a government because that's the best way we have at this point.

We are all born with the same rights, they are not defined by society. Society decides what rights you can freely use and exploit, but does not define rights, only nature can do that.

Therefore taxes are not theft. Nationalisation is not necessarily theft either - depending on who makes the decisions of course.

This is completely dependent on what form of theft you are speaking of. There is theft in the legal sense and theft in the moral sense. Taxation is is not theft in the legal sense, but it is certainly theft in the moral sense.

We are all born with the same rights, they are not defined by society.
I'm afraid that while I would like to agree with you, I can't really see it in the real world.

All we are born with is our body and our mind. As I said before, a lion doesn't have property rights to its kill. Neither does a chimp. The only thing they have is the use of force to defend what is theirs.

"Rights" are only the manifestation of the power of someone to defend something. That doesn't mean we for ourselves can't make up our minds on what we thing people are entitled to - in fact, that's the idea behind laws: To give people the power to defend themselves against violations of things most people would consider to be a right.

We are all born with the same rights, they are not defined by society. Society decides what rights you can freely use and exploit, but does not define rights, only nature can do that.



This is completely dependent on what form of theft you are speaking of. There is theft in the legal sense and theft in the moral sense. Taxation is is not theft in the legal sense, but it is certainly theft in the moral sense.

No it is not theft, even in the moral sense, because there is an intentionality to theft that you are not considering.

Suppose for instance that little Suzy were to find Jimmy's coat on the playground. Not knowing who Jimmy is or that it is his coat, she takes it to the lost-and-found and drops it in. Is this theft? It is the taking of someone else's property without their permission. The obvious answer, however, is no: Suzy intends only the best in her actions to the owner of the coat, even if she doesn't know who he is.

By contrast, suppose that Suzy knew that Jimmy had a nice watch, and because Jimmy had taunted her at recess the prior day, she thought it would be nice to have it for herself in payment of sorts. So one day, when he sets it aside, she tries to grab it off his desk, and he stops her. Is this theft? In this case, no property has changed hands. Even so, however, pretty clearly Suzy is a thief, because even though she didn't actually succeed in theft, she clearly intended first to take someone else's property without permission, and secondly to do so for a reason other than Jimmy's best interests.

So what do we get out of these thought experiments? A more clear definition of theft. Theft is the taking of someone else's property without their consent with the intent of using such property for your own gain or advantage. If so, then what is taxation? Taxation is the taking of the property of citizens within a society in order to provide for the general welfare of society. Taxation in the general sense does not entail the using of public funds for any one person's private mean interest. If so, then taxation cannot be theft, because it does not fit the clear definition of theft.

Do *you* believe in property rights? If not, can I have your computer?

Yes, I do. It's an object, it's mine, I bought it (in the real world), I have the right to decide over it.
I've developed software that is free to use but isn't open-source for one reason: I made it, I'm still working on it and I feel I have the right to reserve it for further development without having to share it's source with someone else. As simple as that.
It's hilarious to see some open-source fanatics ending up developing software based on LGPL licenses (RedHat anyone?).

I'm afraid that while I would like to agree with you, I can't really see it in the real world.

All we are born with is our body and our mind. As I said before, a lion doesn't have property rights to its kill. Neither does a chimp. The only thing they have is the use of force to defend what is theirs.

"Rights" are only the manifestation of the power of someone to defend something. That doesn't mean we for ourselves can't make up our minds on what we thing people are entitled to - in fact, that's the idea behind laws: To give people the power to defend themselves against violations of things most people would consider to be a right.

So do rights not exist when defense is not necessary? When the lion is alone, does he not have the right to dispose of its kill in whatever way it sees fit.

Even the ability to fight to defend property is a natural right.

To "facilitate" is to make easier. But having the right equipment does not just make it "easier", does not just "facilitate" my building a microchip--it is a required component of the process. To distinguish it as anything other than the means to my end is completely disingenuous.
It's a means to production, not the means [since the machines can't operate unless a human mind activates it]; I probably should have said this right off the bat but I started arguing with you at about 2 am last night. Again, part of my problem with the economic theory that supposes that factories are the means of production aren't giving its creators the credit they deserve.

You did say that thoughts are not "products", right? Do I need to go back to quote you?
Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Thoughts are not physical products, like L'Hospital's rule and the Phythagorean theorem. They're intellectual products; i.e. Ideas. I didn't think I'd actually have to draw this particular picture but I'm not terribly surprised by this point. Apparently, in making my distinction between the validity of sharing material products and that of sharing intellecual ones, you came to the conclusion that I was suggesting that L'Hospital's rule was "not the product of his thought."

That's fine, as long as you admit that to solve an equation, one uses various intellectual products, just as in making a widget one uses both intellectual and material products.
Yeah, that's fine but that doesn't imply that it's okay to share material goods in the same way.

Minds, hands, and machinery are all means of production. For the purposes of determining what I need to produce item X, there is no meaningful distinction between them.
Gee, I can feel your humanitarian side just seeping through after suggsting that any distinction between my brain and an automated machine is useless when it comes to production.

I think you're forgetting that assembly lines don't invent stuff.

Yes. It's my job.
Sounds fun.

You must only have experience sitting down with people as ignorant and pig-headed as yourself. In civilized company, ideas are exchanged more rationally, and more honestly.
Mmmmm, I love the smell of ad hominem in the morning. By resulting to such attacks, you're not exactly doing a very good job of establishing your philosophical credibility here. I think I'll just grin and bear it: I think your resorting to such tactics speaks more strongly to the weakness of your position than you'd ever suspect.

You have a lot to learn about maturity. It does not refer merely to manners and appearance, as you suggest, but to actual attitude as well. It entails a degree of humility and respect for others that you clearly have yet to learn. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that some day you will.
Wait, so what, I'm only mature if I change my mind when you tell me to? What the hell kind of bullshit is that?

I respect others... if I have a reason to. I don't dole out "unearned" respect like some people do. Likewise, I have no reason for humility unless I've earned it. I'll be plenty humble if I make the necessary mistakes, but suggesting that I live my life in a perpetual state of humility is ridiculous. If you'd like to do it, fine: I have a little more confidence in myself thankyoudrivethrough.

No, "maturity" means arguing on principle, not merely to win. It entails the humility to recognize when you are wrong, and not storm off, pout, or rage in denial because you are wrong.
Uhhh.... I'm not the one hurling ad hominem attacks at you, at least not last time I checked. I haven't "stormed off" [as you'll note I'm still very much present in this thread] and I'm having a hard time exactly figuring out where I'm "pouting" or "rag in denial." I would tend to guess your "ignorant and pig-headed" accusation carries more weight to this effect than anything [i]I've had to say about you.

I guess you may feel insulted. I apologize for that... but I am merely resigning myself to the fact that you never wanted to have a friendly conversation.
You must be new to these forums.

I seldom do.

Your attitude has been vile and aggressive from the outset, but I had hoped that you would eventually cool your jets and engage in rational discussion. So, my comments are not so much "digs" at you, as a sad recognition that this will never be an adult conversation.
Aggressive yes, "vile" is a bit of a stretch; methinks you may be taking my [rather overt] attacks on your philosophy a little too personally. A philosophically aggressive attitude and a rational discussion aren't mutually exclusive. The only way to make these challenges is to be aggressive, and any discussion wherein the two parties agree on everything or refuse to challenge anything on the grounds that they'll be labelled "agressive" is likely not to get anywhere.

Children latch onto ideas wholeheartedly and without reservation. Adults learn that truth is rarely as simple as it seems. The problems of the world cannot be reduced to "state bad; property good" any more than they can be reduced to "state good; property bad"--if they could, we might have resolved them a long, long time ago.
If that's all you've gathered from my discourses, I weep for the future.

"Liking" ideas is precisely your problem. When I was younger, I "liked" the pure ideas of communist libertarianism ("state bad; property bad"). In many ways, I still "like" them: they appeal to me on a basic level, to my sense of how the world "should" be. Unfortunately, I have since discovered that, in their pure form certainly and possibly in any other, they are largely indefensible. Gradually, I have adopted new ideas, not according to a standard of what I "like" or what "appeals" to me, but according to the standard that they should be rationally defensible in terms of right and justice.

The ideas I hold now are more complicated than the ones I did in my youth. They are, largely for that reason, less appealing. They are less "ideological", so there is no one "cheering" for them, because they are not "exciting" or "controversial."

But they are more convincing. That is what becoming an intellectual adult is all about.
Yes, and those ideas that you liked in the past have been replaced with new ones..... that you like. Non-point. Liking ideas is not an automatic indicator for intellectual childishness or what-have you.

That is because your opinions have been not only unconvincing, but presented in the most antagonistic and insulting mode possible. I have endeavored to present a rational case, which you have ignored, and only lately have your ignorance, your straw man attacks, and your perennial equivocation on basic terms led me, in desperate frustration, to discover that I am engaging in a patronizing lesson on your need to grow up--precisely the charge with which I accused you earlier.
Right back atcha. Obviously neither of us will ever be convinced that the other is responding for his ideas, which is why I avoid the headache of writing for my opponent's benefit. I'll allow the reader to come to his own conclusions about who has or has not answered who.

I’m going to have to side with the damn commies on this one. You really can’t apply their distorted and fucked up reasoning to current situations and establishments.

We are all born with the same rights, they are not defined by society. Society decides what rights you can freely use and exploit, but does not define rights, only nature can do that.


Except that the purpose of nature is to see to my death as quickly as possible so that I fail to pass on my genes to the next generation. Nature does not know of nor cares about rights. Nature's only concern is survival of the fittest, sending the biggest animal with the most teeth to eviscerate me whether I consent to it or not. This is why human beings, being the intelligent creatures they are, invented the idea of "society" and "rights," coming together for the purpose of collective defense, in order to escape the state of nature.

All human rights are the invention of human society. The concept of "natural rights" is nothing more than an attempt to make an assertion without having to defend it or provide evidence for its validity (basically similar to "well, because God said so!").

No it is not theft, even in the moral sense, because there is an intentionality to theft that you are not considering.

Suppose for instance that little Suzy were to find Jimmy's coat on the playground. Not knowing who Jimmy is or that it is his coat, she takes it to the lost-and-found and drops it in. Is this theft? It is the taking of someone else's property without their permission. The obvious answer, however, is no: Suzy intends only the best in her actions to the owner of the coat, even if she doesn't know who he is.

By contrast, suppose that Suzy knew that Jimmy had a nice watch, and because Jimmy had taunted her at recess the prior day, she thought it would be nice to have it for herself in payment of sorts. So one day, when he sets it aside, she tries to grab it off his desk, and he stops her. Is this theft? In this case, no property has changed hands. Even so, however, pretty clearly Suzy is a thief, because even though she didn't actually succeed in theft, she clearly intended first to take someone else's property without permission, and secondly to do so for a reason other than Jimmy's best interests.

So what do we get out of these thought experiments? A more clear definition of theft. Theft is the taking of someone else's property without their consent with the intent of using such property for your own gain or advantage. If so, then what is taxation? Taxation is the taking of the property of citizens within a society in order to provide for the general welfare of society. Taxation in the general sense does not entail the using of public funds for any one person's private mean interest. If so, then taxation cannot be theft, because it does not fit the clear definition of theft.

Right, but for the wrong reasons. Your examples have a clear counter example: if you rob from someone, but give the takings to a charity, have you committed a crime?

The answer is very clearly yes. However, that does not make taxation theft as taxation is a (voluntary) contract between the government and a person. Nothing is restraining the person, forcing them to stay.

So do rights not exist when defense is not necessary? When the lion is alone, does he not have the right to dispose of its kill in whatever way it sees fit.
What would the lion need a right for then? Just as in any other situation, it will just do as it pleases, in this case probably eat a bit and leave the rest to rot for a while.
In the case where enough of everything is around, and there is no competition...well, that's communism, isn't it?

Even the ability to fight to defend property is a natural right.
...:confused:
It's something you can or can't do, depending on the environment. I guess if you want to call the ability to make decisions regarding one's actions a "right", go ahead, but personally, to me that's just one of the realities of nature we can observe.

No it is not theft, even in the moral sense, because there is an intentionality to theft that you are not considering.

Suppose for instance that little Suzy were to find Jimmy's coat on the playground. Not knowing who Jimmy is or that it is his coat, she takes it to the lost-and-found and drops it in. Is this theft? It is the taking of someone else's property without their permission. The obvious answer, however, is no: Suzy intends only the best in her actions to the owner of the coat, even if she doesn't know who he is.

1. The government knows exactly whose property they are taking.

2. They do not ask me how it would best be used to serve my interest.

3. Suzy never assumes ownership of the coat, so it is not theft. The government assumes ownership of my tax money.

By contrast, suppose that Suzy knew that Jimmy had a nice watch, and because Jimmy had taunted her at recess the prior day, she thought it would be nice to have it for herself in payment of sorts. So one day, when he sets it aside, she tries to grab it off his desk, and he stops her. Is this theft? In this case, no property has changed hands. Even so, however, pretty clearly Suzy is a thief, because even though she didn't actually succeed in theft, she clearly intended first to take someone else's property without permission, and secondly to do so for a reason other than Jimmy's best interests.

This "Jimmy's best interests" idea doesn't add up, because who can better judge Jimmy's best interests than Jimmy?

So what do we get out of these thought experiments? A more clear definition of theft. Theft is the taking of someone else's property without their consent with the intent of using such property for your own gain or advantage. If so, then what is taxation? Taxation is the taking of the property of citizens within a society in order to provide for the general welfare of society. Taxation in the general sense does not entail the using of public funds for any one person's private mean interest. If so, then taxation cannot be theft, because it does not fit the clear definition of theft.

Theft is determined by permission not by intent.

In the first example, there was no possible way for Jimmy to express permission. In the second example Jimmy denied permission. So neither example even comes close to defining theft.

Except that the purpose of nature is to see to my death as quickly as possible so that I fail to pass on my genes to the next generation. Nature does not know of nor cares about rights. Nature's only concern is survival of the fittest, sending the biggest animal with the most teeth to eviscerate me whether I consent to it or not. This is why human beings, being the intelligent creatures they are, invented the idea of "society" and "rights," coming together for the purpose of collective defense, in order to escape the state of nature.

All human rights are the invention of human society. The concept of "natural rights" is nothing more than an attempt to make an assertion without having to defend it or provide evidence for its validity (basically similar to "well, because God said so!").

Existence conveys rights, society creates laws to protect those rights.

Like I asked Leonstein, does a person who must not defend himself have no rights?

Except that the purpose of nature is to see to my death as quickly as possible so that I fail to pass on my genes to the next generation. Nature does not know of nor cares about rights. Nature's only concern is survival of the fittest, sending the biggest animal with the most teeth to evicerate me whether I consent to it or not. This is why human beings, being the intelligent creatures they are, invented the idea of "society" and "rights," coming together for the purpose of collective defense, in order to escape the state of nature.

All human rights are the invention of human society. The concept of "Natural rights" is nothing more than an attempt to make an assertion without having to defend it or provide evidence for its validity (basically similar to "well, because God said so!").

Hardly. As part of nature and a being desirous of passing on your genetic legacy, you are naturally going to defend yourself to the utmost to stop this, and no other person has the ability in the state of nature of preventing you from doing so. This is the justification for the "right to life", not whether nature cares about your survival. Furthermore, no other person has the right to stop you from making the things you need to survive: no one can stop you from making a wooden spear, or building a fire, etc. Hence, the "right to liberty". Finally, you have the ability to keep those things you make as your own, and no one in the state of nature ought to take it away from you. Hence, "right to property."

The whole point to natural rights is not that these are the things that nature accords you, but rather that these are the conditions that you take for granted and presuppose in fighting for survival against nature. Now, governments may remove some of those rights from you, such as taking away your unrestricted right to property by mandating that you let them build a sewage access on your property, but only in the context of providing a net beneficial gain over what you would have in the state of nature: in this example, you no longer have to dispose of your own crap, and you no longer have to worry about dying of cholera and infecting your neighbors water supply. The justification for civil society isn't denying that natural rights exist, but in pointing out that sometimes there are advantages to giving those rights up absolutely that stand head and shoulders above the alternative.

Existence conveys rights, society creates laws to protect those rights.

Like I asked Leonstein, does a person who must not defend himself have no rights?
If a society abrogates some rights to protect other rights (or even rights of other people), is that society just?

Existence conveys rights,


I don't see how nature could operate if that were true. Divested from human society, I will probably die very quickly (and thus have my right to life violated), as nature does not seem motovated to protect my existance. Existance creates nothing more than a struggle for survival. I can only survive so long as I bleed, sweat, and cry enough to make it happen (Edit: my "rights" are the result of my effort, and the effort of other humans around me, not some pixie dust fairy in the sky called "God" or "nature"). Plus, if mere existance is enough for nature to give me "rights," then do not all natural creatures possess rights? Is one suggesting or defending the existance of animal or plant rights? Since the law of the animal kingdom is essentially "might makes right," I fail to see how that can be the case. As such...


society creates laws to protect those rights.


...society creates rights in order to make my struggle at the whim of nature easier to manage.

What would the lion need a right for then?

Oh Jesus, we just hit a big fucking wall.

Just as in any other situation, it will just do as it pleases, in this case probably eat a bit and leave the rest to rot for a while.

Yes, that is freedom, unlimited rights.

In the case where enough of everything is around, and there is no competition...well, that's communism, isn't it?

No, that's utopia. Capitalism and communism are systems of society that choose different methods for balancing the natural rights of people.

It's something you can or can't do, depending on the environment. I guess if you want to call the ability to make decisions regarding one's actions a "right", go ahead, but personally, to me that's just one of the realities of nature we can observe.

Here's the wall. We have differing definitions for a right. I can't really approach this, though, because I don't know your definition of rights. I bet if we broke it down, you would find it similar to mine.

If a society abrogates some rights to protect other rights (or even rights of other people), is that society just?

It is a tough question.

I generally think that as long as all rights are held equally, and a free people have the benefit of the doubt, then yes it is just.

In other words, strip away all government that is not completely necessary for personal freedoms, an apply what is left as decentralized and equally as possible.

1. The government knows exactly whose property they are taking.

2. They do not ask me how it would best be used to serve my interest.

3. Suzy never assumes ownership of the coat, so it is not theft. The government assumes ownership of my tax money.

Do you not vote? If you vote, then not only do they ask you how best to serve your interest, but you answer as well. The fact that you might not like the answer does not detract from the legitemacy of their claim. They asked. The public, in one form or another, answered. By voting, you affirmed that you agreed with the process by which the public answered such questions. Therefore, you have no ground to stand upon by denying them what they ask. If you don't like the process, you can move to a different country, or go to some hidden corner of Tibet and make your own.



This "Jimmy's best interests" idea doesn't add up, because who can better judge Jimmy's best interests than Jimmy?

Theft is determined by permission not by intent.

. . .Then Suzy in the first example was a thief by that definition, since she took the coat in the absence of clear permission to do so. Yet no one in that situation would honestly call her a thief. So either my intuitions are way out of whack, or intentionality plays a critical role in whether or not something is a theft. Moreover, the distinction between permission and intent is one without a difference: in any case where I can see someone trying to use another's property for his own gain is also one in which I already know the answer to the question of permission and don't need to ask. By contrast, in any case where I don't act out of mean personal advantage is also one in which people would give permission were they asked.

In the larger question, there are lots of times in which Jimmy's best interests might not be something Jimmy knows: Jimmy might be mistaken, he might be irrational, he might be paying attention to other things. Moreover, it is assumed that Suzy can reasonably infer Jimmy's best interests by saying "Gee, would I like it if someone took my watch/coat?" You are jumping the gun in this question by asking something that doesn't pertain to the narrower question posed by the thought experiments: what is the best and most complete definition of theft, not whether Jimmy is in a state to determine his own best interests.


In the first example, there was no possible way for Jimmy to express permission. In the second example Jimmy denied permission. So neither example even comes close to defining theft.

Again, you are describing a distinction without a difference. Any situation where permission would reasonably expect to be denied is also one where it would be denied because someone is using your property for their own advantage. Ergo, whether someone is using your property for your or their advantage is the critical distinction between whether or not the taking of property is theft.

Here's the wall. We have differing definitions for a right. I can't really approach this, though, because I don't know your definition of rights. I bet if we broke it down, you would find it similar to mine.
A right is being allowed something, isn't it?

That allowance must come from someone, because as we have seen, in nature, nobody allows anything, so nobody has any.
The only place where people are allowed to do stuff is in a society, where there are rules for how to live with other people. Without a society, such rules would not have to exist, there would be no allowances, and therefore no rights.

A right is not the ability to do something, but a guarantee, so to speak, that you are allowed to do something by the people around you.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=right) is not a great help, by the way.

Right, but for the wrong reasons. Your examples have a clear counter example: if you rob from someone, but give the takings to a charity, have you committed a crime?

The answer is very clearly yes. However, that does not make taxation theft as taxation is a (voluntary) contract between the government and a person. Nothing is restraining the person, forcing them to stay.

Close but not quite, because the general welfare implies that some benefit is going to come to the people from whom the money was taken, which might not be the case with the charity. If you modified the counterexample to something more accurate, like taking from someone in order to buy the DPT shots to innoculate their children, then I would be willing to say that no, it is not theft. Misguided and heavyhanded, for certain, but not theft.

Close but not quite, because the general welfare implies that some benefit is going to come to the people from whom the money was taken, which might not be the case with the charity. If you modified the counterexample to something more accurate, like taking from someone in order to buy the DPT shots to innoculate their children, then I would be willing to say that no, it is not theft. Misguided and heavyhanded, for certain, but not theft.
I'd beg to suggest that not all that the government does is in the general welfare.

I don't see how nature could operate if that were true. Divested from human society, I will probably die very quickly (and thus have my right to life violated), as nature does not seem motovated to protect my existance.

This neither helps nor hurts your argument. Under an idea of society based rights, you have no right to life outside of society, so there is nothing to be violated. Under a natural rights system, you have a right to life regardless, so there is something to be violated.

Make sure that you note that I don't believe natural rights are involiable. Natural rights can be lost with the snap of a finger.

Existance creates nothing more than a struggle for survival. I can only survive so long as I bleed, sweat, and cry enough to make it happen (Edit: my "rights" are the result of my effort, and the effort of other humans around me, not some pixie dust fairy in the sky called "God" or "nature"). Plus, if mere existance is enough for nature to give me "rights," then do not all natural creatures possess rights? Is one suggesting or defending the existance of animal or plant rights? Since the law of the animal kingdom is essentially "might makes right," I fail to see how that can be the case. As such...

Your effort is a result of nature. So your rights are a result of nature.

And animals do have rights. They just receive limited protection from our society. (I don't believe they should receive any, but for reasons that are seperate from this conversation.)

...society creates rights in order to make my struggle at the whim of nature easier to manage.

Society creates laws to make sure nature cannot supercede your rights.

It is a tough question.

I generally think that as long as all rights are held equally, and a free people have the benefit of the doubt, then yes it is just.

In other words, strip away all government that is not completely necessary for personal freedoms, an apply what is left as decentralized and equally as possible.
We can work off of that core then. If a government allows free transit of its people, can that government engage in implied contracts with the people, such as taxation, provided that the people have a say in the spending of such income? There is no force being applied here, so why wouldn't taxation count as a contract, with the people supplying the money and the government supplying services and infrastructure?

Do you not vote? If you vote, then not only do they ask you how best to serve your interest, but you answer as well. The fact that you might not like the answer does not detract from the legitemacy of their claim. They asked. The public, in one form or another, answered.


Except that the laws and institutions that govern an electoral system can be, and ususally are, engineered in such a way as to manipulate the system to produce a desirable outcome. Study the differences between various electoral systems. Some, like the single member district plurality systems employed in the United States and the United Kingdom produce situtations where only very few (usually two) political parties can win elections or offices. If I disagree with the plans presented by the only parties that have any chance of winning an electoral contest, and the electoral system prevents others I might agree with from gaining any kind fo significant political power, then I am left with essentially no political representation.

One can hardly claim that the answer is legitimate if the electoral system is engineered in such a manner that my answer is never heard.


By voting, you affirmed that you agreed with the process by which the public answered such questions.


Not necessarily. What if I choose to vote for a party whose aim is to change the electoral system or other function of government? Obviously in such a case, I participate because I do not agree with the process by which the public answered the question.


Therefore, you have no ground to stand upon by denying them what they ask.


Again, depending on the nature of the electoral system in question, it could very well be that I was never asked in any kind of meaningful way.


If you don't like the process, you can move to a different country, or go to some hidden corner of Tibet and make your own.


Of course, those who created and implemented the process in question can do the same. :)

This neither helps nor hurts your argument. ...Under a natural rights system, you have a right to life regardless, so there is something to be violated.


And I simply posit that this supposed source of my right to life has no interest in protecting it. As such, what meaning is there in pretending that nature is the source?


Your effort is a result of nature.


And the universe was created by a magical fairy in the sky in 6 days. All things through Him.


And animals do have rights. They just receive limited protection from our society. (I don't believe they should receive any, but for reasons that are seperate from this conversation.)


You state that animals have rights, yet they shouldn't recieve any. :confused:
If "natural rights" exist, animals must have rights because they exist and are a part of nature. I don't see how you can escape that.


Society creates laws to make sure nature cannot supercede your rights.

If nature is the source of my rights, why would nature want to supercede them?

Do you not vote? If you vote, then not only do they ask you how best to serve your interest, but you answer as well. The fact that you might not like the answer does not detract from the legitemacy of their claim. They asked. The public, in one form or another, answered. By voting, you affirmed that you agreed with the process by which the public answered such questions. Therefore, you have no ground to stand upon by denying them what they ask. If you don't like the process, you can move to a different country, or go to some hidden corner of Tibet and make your own.

Bullshit, democracy is not justified, it is only the form of government which placates the most people.

. . .Then Suzy in the first example was a thief by that definition, since she took the coat in the absence of clear permission to do so. Yet no one in that situation would honestly call her a thief.

She did not take possession of the coat, and it was impossible for Jimmy to convey permission either way. If she were to simply take the coat without giving Jimmy reasonable chance to give permission then she would be a thief. As it is she took it to the most convenient place for Jimmy to reestablish his property rights.

Moreover, the distinction between permission and intent is one without a difference:

Why would you even try to make that point? Take a step back think it through and come back to me.

In the larger question, there are lots of times in which Jimmy's best interests might not be something Jimmy knows: Jimmy might be mistaken, he might be irrational, he might be paying attention to other things. Moreover, it is assumed that Suzy can reasonably infer Jimmy's best interests by saying "Gee, would I like it if someone took my watch/coat?" You are jumping the gun in this question by asking something that doesn't pertain to the narrower question posed by the thought experiments: what is the best and most complete definition of theft, not whether Jimmy is in a state to determine his own best interests.

So a nanny state is what you are looking for?

And I answered the narrower question: Theft is defined by permission, not intent.

How does charity fit into your definition of theft?


Again, you are describing a distinction without a difference. Any situation where permission would reasonably expect to be denied is also one where it would be denied because someone is using your property for their own advantage. Ergo, whether someone is using your property for your or their advantage is the critical distinction between whether or not the taking of property is theft.

However the property is used after the change of possession is inconsequential because the theft occurs at the change of possession.

I'd beg to suggest that not all that the government does is in the general welfare.

I would reply that not all that the government does is lawful, since serving the general welfare is the only legitemate purpose of government. But that's a problem with the means with which government acts, not the prima facie rightness or wrongness of taxation itself, which was the subject in question. Vittos was in effect suggesting that taxation can never be moral, because it is equivocal with something we find immoral: theft. I was trying to point out that taxation can be different from theft if it is collected for the right reason. The fact that it isn't always collected for the right reason doesn't detract from that evaluation.

Except that the laws and institutions that govern an electoral system can be, and ususally are, engineered in such a way as to manipulate the system to produce a desirable outcome. Study the differences between various electoral systems. Some, like the single member district plurality systems employed in the United States and the United Kingdom produce situtations where only very few (usually two) political parties can win elections or offices. If I disagree with the plans presented by the only parties that have any chance of winning an electoral contest, and the electoral system prevents others I might agree with from gaining any kind fo significant political power, then I am left with essentially no political representation.

One can hardly claim that the answer is legitimate if the electoral system is engineered in such a manner that my answer is never heard.

I don't dispute any of this, but you are missing the point, since the discussion is less about political matters of fact than about political theory. In the broader sense, by voting, you are saying that you agree to the terms of the debate, however flawed or unreasonable they might be. Even if you are voting to change the practices you mentioned above, you are still agreeing that the process that the government uses to pick the general will is one that can yield a result with which you can agree with. In short, by voting, you are actively agreeing that the results of that vote are binding upon you as a member of the social contract, even if you don't like what said binding contract eventually imposes upon you. If you cannot tolerate such conditions, then you can leave. If you cannot leave and cannot tolerate your conditions, then you live in a tyranny and have the right of revolt and return to the state of nature.

We can work off of that core then. If a government allows free transit of its people, can that government engage in implied contracts with the people, such as taxation, provided that the people have a say in the spending of such income? There is no force being applied here, so why wouldn't taxation count as a contract, with the people supplying the money and the government supplying services and infrastructure?

Taxation is always backed by force. It is never a free contract when there is threat of jail time. If a public transportation system cannot support itself then government must be taking from those who do not use it. Those who pay but do not use are being stolen from.

Taxation is always backed by force. It is never a free contract when there is threat of jail time. If a public transportation system cannot support itself then government must be taking from those who do not use it. Those who pay but do not use are being stolen from.
Notice the caveat "with freedom of movement". You are allowed to leave. You are consenting to taxation by staying.

I would reply that not all that the government does is lawful, since serving the general welfare is the only legitemate purpose of government. But that's a problem with the means with which government acts, not the prima facie rightness or wrongness of taxation itself, which was the subject in question. Vittos was in effect suggesting that taxation can never be moral, because it is equivocal with something we find immoral: theft. I was trying to point out that taxation can be different from theft if it is collected for the right reason. The fact that it isn't always collected for the right reason doesn't detract from that evaluation.

Fair enough. I can see we are in broad agreement here.

And I simply posit that this supposed source of my right to life has no interest in protecting it. As such, what meaning is there in pretending that nature is the source?

First off, when I say nature in this sense, I am not speaking of the jungle, I am speaking of all the natural world and the forces that govern it.

Now, with that said, I think you are ignoring the great lengths nature has gone to promote our existence and allow us our rights as well. Society could not grant you a right to speak if nature had not granted you a tongue.

And the universe was created by a magical fairy in the sky in 6 days. All things through Him.

Are you pointing out a fallacy or making an argument?

You state that animals have rights, yet they shouldn't recieve any. :confused:

I say they shouldn't receive any protection. Society cannot give rights, they can only protect them.

If "natural rights" exist, animals must have rights because they exist and are a part of nature. I don't see how you can escape that.

Exactly, and since their rights do not have the protection of society, I can eat steak five times a day.

If nature is the source of my rights, why would nature want to supercede them?

Nature has no interest in superceding your rights. Other creatures, as a product of their natural rights, want to supercede your rights.

Bullshit, democracy is not justified, it is only the form of government which placates the most people.

I didn't endorse democracy. I endorsed obedience to the social contract. In the social contract, you might conclude that the best way to serve the general welfare is to elect an absolute monarch: hardly the model of a modern democratic system. The point, however, is that by agreeing to the terms of what constitutes a vote in your society, whether it is agreeing once to install a life-long dictator or voting every two years for a member of the House of Representatives, you are in effect signing the social contract and agreeing to abide by the terms of the agreement even if the results are not always in your favor, because you agree that the process works. Just as you can't back out of a contract on a car after you sign knowing full well the agreement reached without violating the law on fraud, you cannot back out of your agreement to the state without violating the law on treason. It is only when the government violates its end of the agreement that you are entitled to renege the agreement.


She did not take possession of the coat, and it was impossible for Jimmy to convey permission either way. If she were to simply take the coat without giving Jimmy reasonable chance to give permission then she would be a thief. As it is she took it to the most convenient place for Jimmy to reestablish his property rights.

And by what possible standards did she not have possession of the coat? Materially, it was in her possession. It was hers to defend if she chose to, and to do with what she chose to. She picked it up and carried it around with her, meaning that she had expended labor (however much) to acquire it. How is it that she could do all that and still not have possession of the coat, or do you want to start getting metaphysical with me about the form of possession?[/rollseyes]


Why would you even try to make that point? Take a step back think it through and come back to me.

I would think I made it quite clear: every time you do something that permission would be denied for, it is denied or would be denied for the reason that you are using it for the wrong ends: your own mean self-interest rather than the interest of the owner that it belongs to. If so, then your distinction is without a difference because one always comes with the other, and for the reason that I specified. Maybe I'm being a little sloppy with my phrasing, but I thought it couldn't be clearer.


So a nanny state is what you are looking for?

And I answered the narrower question: Theft is defined by permission, not intent.

Familiar with the false-dichotomy fallacy?

And your narrower answer was wrong, because the clear indicator by the analysis I've used is that every time you are looking at permission, permission is based on the intent of the taker.


However the property is used after the change of possession is inconsequential because the theft occurs at the change of possession.

I never mentioned what was going to be done with the theft after acquisition. I mentioned what the intent of the person doing the theft was with the acquisition. Two different things entirely.

Notice the caveat "with freedom of movement". You are allowed to leave. You are consenting to taxation by staying.

Notice that freedom of movement is largely hindered when forced out of a country for disagreeing with their laws.

Notice that freedom of movement is largely hindered when forced out of a country for disagreeing with their laws.
Leaving the country before being forced out generally fixes that little problem.

Even if you are voting to change the practices you mentioned above, you are still agreeing that the process that the government uses to pick the general will is one that can yield a result with which you can agree with.


I am doing nothing more than trying to bring about change via channels available to me. Doing so does not require that I approve of those channels, and getting my desired result does not mean the system is legitimate. If I do necessarily consider the system legitimate, why bother trying to change it?


In short, by voting, you are actively agreeing that the results of that vote are binding upon you as a member of the social contract, even if you don't like what said binding contract eventually imposes upon you.


The contract is invalid because I was not a party to its creation. Also, it is enforced upon me whether I vote or not. As such, I'm failing to see how I have expressed any kind of actual consent.


If you cannot tolerate such conditions, then you can leave.


Or those trying to enforce the invalid contract can cease and desist.

Are you pointing out a fallacy or making an argument?


My argument is that "natural rights" amounts to nothing more than a religious argument. Those heathens on the other side of the river approach us and say, "you don't have a right to X." We answer, "yes we do." "why?" "Because <insert diety here> says so."

Whether that diety is "God" or "nature" does not matter. It is simply a scheme that makes it possible to make a claim ("I have a right to X") without having to provide a reason beyond the arbitrary will of a magical fairy who is conviently unable to respond or clarify.


I say they shouldn't receive any protection. Society cannot give rights, they can only protect them.


And you can deny another creature its "natural rights" because...?


Exactly, and since their rights do not have the protection of society, I can eat steak five times a day.


In other words, nature conveys rights, but I can still ignore them if I want. Again I ask: whats the point? If they have no meaning outside the protection of society, what is the point of pretending that rights come from nature?


Other creatures, as a product of their natural rights, want to supercede your rights.

So every creature has a natural right to violate the natural rights of other creatures. Do you advocate rights or the jungle? :confused:

I am doing nothing more than trying to bring about change via channels available to me. Doing so does not require that I approve of those channels, and getting my desired result does not mean the system it self legitimate. If I do necessarily consider the system legitimate, why bother trying to change it?

You can consider a nation legitimate and attempt to change it at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive, or there would be no point in democratic government.


The contract is invalid, because I was not a party to its creation. In fact, beyond an abstract notion, it doesn't exist. Also, it is enforced upon me whether I vote or not. As such, I'm failing to see how I have expressed any kind of actual consent.

Implied contracts are just as legally binding as non-implied ones. By remaining in the United States and choosing to the subject to its jurisdiction and laws, as well as partaking in the infrastructure and services of the state, you are agreeing to be bound by its rules and regulations.


Or those trying to enforce the invalid contract can cease and desist.
How is it invalid? All the components for an enforceable contract exist. There is no duress forcing you to remain in the United States (or country x).

Mutual agreement: Met. Implied agreement by remaining in the country, provided that free transit is allowed.
Consideration: Met.
Competent: Met for adults.
Proper Subject Matter: Met.
Mutual Right to Remedy: Met. Court system for the government, the ballot box for the people, or in the most extreme rebellion.
Mutual Obligation to Perform: Met.

Meets all obligations to be considered a contract...

I am doing nothing more than trying to bring about change via channels available to me. Doing so does not require that I approve of those channels, and getting my desired result does not mean the system it self legitimate. If I do necessarily consider the system legitimate, why bother trying to change it?

With respect to the first half of your point, yes, it does: as you yourself note, if you don't consider the system legitemate, then you wouldn't vote to change it, because you don't feel that voting matters one way or another, you don't agree with the concept of vote, or something like that. By voting, you are in effect agreeing that the system, even if it produces results you don't like, is nevertheless a legitemate and binding system of government. You have in effect signed the dotted line on the social contract. If you don't believe in contracts, or you don't believe in this particular contract, you don't vote, and you go elsewhere if the impositions that society makes upon you become intolerable.

With respect to the second half of the query, you might vote to get the best deal ouyt of the system or making the society into a better one. In effect, you change it because you believe 1) that it is changeable, and 2) that the system by which policies are changed is good.


The contract is invalid, because I was not a party to its creation. In fact, beyond an abstract notion, it doesn't exist. Also, it is enforced upon me whether I vote or not. As such, I'm failing to see how I have expressed any kind of actual consent.

By remaining in the country, you are at least tacitly consenting to the contract. By voting, you are actively endorsing the contract. The fact that you weren't there when the contract was originally form is beside the point, because you still signed the dotted line by voting when it came up to you for sign-in, or you agreed to live by its edicts when you still remained in the country even if you never voted.


Or those trying to enforce the invalid contract can cease and desist.

Assuming that a vote of one form or another was held, why should they cease and desist? They are merely carrying out what society has deemed in its best interest, and have an obligation to do so.

I didn't endorse democracy. I endorsed obedience to the social contract. In the social contract, you might conclude that the best way to serve the general welfare is to elect an absolute monarch: hardly the model of a modern democratic system. The point, however, is that by agreeing to the terms of what constitutes a vote in your society, whether it is agreeing once to install a life-long dictator or voting every two years for a member of the House of Representatives, you are in effect signing the social contract and agreeing to abide by the terms of the agreement even if the results are not always in your favor, because you agree that the process works. Just as you can't back out of a contract on a car after you sign knowing full well the agreement reached without violating the law on fraud, you cannot back out of your agreement to the state without violating the law on treason. It is only when the government violates its end of the agreement that you are entitled to renege the agreement.

You know how much I hate the "If you don't like it you can leave" argument?

You tacitly approve of any government action whatsoever, just as long as you are physically allowed to leave.

And by what possible standards did she not have possession of the coat? Materially, it was in her possession. It was hers to defend if she chose to, and to do with what she chose to. She picked it up and carried it around with her, meaning that she had expended labor (however much) to acquire it. How is it that she could do all that and still not have possession of the coat, or do you want to start getting metaphysical with me about the form of possession?

Alright, I should have said ownership not possession, but I have a feeling that you would be completely unable to find a difference between ownership and possession if it suits your argument.

The fact is that she makes no attempt to assume the coat as her property. Therefore there is not exchange of property, and therefore no theft.

I would think I made it quite clear: every time you do something that permission would be denied for, it is denied or would be denied for the reason that you are using it for the wrong ends: your own mean self-interest rather than the interest of the owner that it belongs to. If so, then your distinction is without a difference because one always comes with the other, and for the reason that I specified. Maybe I'm being a little sloppy with my phrasing, but I thought it couldn't be clearer.

I know what you are trying to say. You are saying that permission can be assumed by the person taking the property. You are saying that agreement only requires one person. It isn't that it is unclear, its just ridiculous.

Familiar with the false-dichotomy fallacy?

You are pretty much saying that the government is allowed to do anything as long as it is in the individual's best interest.

And your narrower answer was wrong, because the clear indicator by the analysis I've used is that every time you are looking at permission, permission is based on the intent of the taker.

Permission has absolutely nothing to do with the taker. Permission can only be granted by the owner.



I never mentioned what was going to be done with the theft after acquisition. I mentioned what the intent of the person doing the theft was with the acquisition. Two different things entirely.

No, you said that theft was dependent on what the taker intended to do with the property after he gained possession.


And what about charity? I give a begger 20 bucks, he spends it on booze. He didn't use it for either of our best interests, is it theft?

Leaving the country before being forced out generally fixes that little problem.

Do you and Xenophobialand have an agreement to irrationalize me to death?

Now see if you can keep up with me here:

I am in a bar, the bouncer comes up to me and says "You can either walk out of here, or I will throw you out of here." If I walk out, I am still being forced out.

Do you and Xenophobialand have an agreement to irrationalize me to death?

Now see if you can keep up with me here:

I am in a bar, the bouncer comes up to me and says "You can either walk out of here, or I will throw you out of here." If I walk out, I am still being forced out.
So? I fail to see your issue. I assume in your capitalistic wonderland institutions that have exclusive membership will be permitted? What you are describing is nothing less then a contract, something that would be allowed in even the most free states. If you do not wish to fulfill a contract, you are free to leave, if you violate the contract, be prepared to deal with the consequences.

...By remaining in the United States and choosing to the subject to its jurisdiction and laws, as well as partaking in the infrastructure and services of the state, you are agreeing to be bound by its rules and regulations.


And if I lack the resources necessary to move somewhere else? What if the cost (economic, emotional, etc) of doing so is too high? What if my chosen destination denies me access? Consuming the services of the state does not necessarily require any agreement. Some of those services are derived from certain inalienable human rights (right to life, etc). The state must provide me with those services or it is illegitimate. In such cases, the state is obligated to me, not the other way around. It is also arguable that state services not derived from those inalienable rights are illegitimate from the get go, and as such I am placed under no obligation by them. I may not have asked for a particular service, but it is forced upon me at birth (social security?). How can I be responsible for such services? Additionally, if the rules and regulations in question are illegitimate, violating my rights or otherwise causing harm, I am under no obligation to respect or obey them. The contract (if it even exists) is null and void. My decision to live peacefully nonetheless while working to change the system is not a result of respect or obligation to the rules and regulations, but are only the result of my own reason and morality. That my behavior may coincide with the requirements of the law is nothing more than a happy accident.

The "social contract" amounts to nothing more than an attempt to exploit my circumstances (I lack the resources to move, and I do not necessarily have anywhere to go) to force me to behave according to someone's arbitrary mandates. A euphemism at best.


How is it invalid? All the components for an enforceable contract exist. There is no duress forcing you to remain in the United States (or country x).

Mutual agreement: Met. Implied agreement by remaining in the country, provided that free transit is allowed.
Consideration: Met.
Competent: Met for adults.
Proper Subject Matter: Met.
Mutual Right to Remedy: Met. Court system for the government, the ballot box for the people, or in the most extreme rebellion.
Mutual Obligation to Perform: Met.

Meets all obligations to be considered a contract...

Measuring the legitimacy of a contract that requires my loyalty to the society/state according to the legal definitions prescribed by the very same society/state. How convenient.

One of the parties to the contract is also the enforcer of all contracts. Seems kind of one sided.

My argument is that "natural rights" amounts to nothing more than a religious argument. Those heathens on the other side of the river approach us and say, "you don't have a right to X." We answer, "yes we do." "why?" "Because <insert diety here> says so."

Whether that diety is "God" or "nature" does not matter. It is simply a scheme that makes it possible to make a claim ("I have a right to X") without having to provide a reason beyond the arbitrary will of a magical fairy who is conviently unable to respond or clarify.

So you are saying that nature doesn't exist? That we aren't created and confined by the laws of nature?

And let me point out that you do have the right to attempt anything not limited by biology or physics. Society will do its best to stop you, however, because society decides what rights you are free to use.

And you can deny another creature its "natural rights" because...?

This is another debate altogether, but because that creature cannot comprehend neither its own rights nor mine. Society must be entirely rational in its handling of rights, and other creatures don't apply.

In other words, nature conveys rights, but I can still ignore them if I want.

Yes, rights are dependent on interaction, and outside of society there is no regulation on interaction. Of course there is self-regulation in the form of morals, but that is yet another discussion.

Again I ask: whats the point? If they have no meaning outside the protection of society, what is the point of pretending that rights come from nature?

Because you need benchmarks when making judgements. We say life, or existence in its purest natural form, is complete freedom with no safety, and death, or the absence of existence, is a complete lack of freedom with complete safety. When you have these two points of reference, you can begin creating a society that most beneficially weighs freedom against safety.

So every creature has a natural right to violate the natural rights of other creatures. Do you advocate rights or the jungle? :confused:

I am only explaining why natural rights exist, I am not saying that natural rights shouldn't be regulated by society.

And if I lack the resources necessary to move somewhere else?

That would be your problem, and not the government. It is rather funny that people always find a way to move when conditions warrant, and I find your statement that you would be "unable" to move due to a lack of resources quite funny.

What if the cost (economic, emotional, etc) of doing so is too high?

Then you are weighing the benefits of remaining with the costs of staying. You are making a conscious choice to stay, and thus agreeing to the terms of the contract.
What if my chosen destination denies me access?

Find another. That isn't the problem of the government. They are merely concerned about the contract between you and them, not the contract between you and the people's republic of timbucktu, or somesuch. Nothing less then for any other good.

Consuming the services of the state does not necessarily require any agreement.
It doesn't? Next you'll say that using the services of any other body (say, McDonald's or Ahmed's Housekeeping) doesn't require a contract. Hogwash, and you know it.
Some of those services are derived from certain inalienable human rights (right to life, etc). The state must provide me with those services or it is illegitimate.
Incorrect. A state must provide you with those services because you demand it. The state would not exist if it did not provide those services, just as a company that produces goods would not exist if people did not buy those goods.

In such cases, the state is obligated to me, not the other way around.
The state has no such obligations besides those negotiated. You know how a contract works.
It is also arguable that state services no predicated on those inalienable rights are illegitimate from the get go,
You can argue it all you like, you won't get very far.
and as such I am placed under to obligation by them. I many not have asked for a particular service, but it is forced upon me at birth (social security?).

Your guardians have taken upon themselves to act as a ward for you, as in any other contract.

How can I be responsible for such services? Additionally, if the rules and regulations in question are illegitimate, violating my rights or otherwise causing harm, I am under no obligation to respect or obey them.
You're right, you aren't. You're free to leave the nation
The contract (if it even exists) is null and void.
Absolutely not. You're agreeing to steps above and beyond the normal steps needed to preserve life by being in that country. The contract is not voided merely because you disagree with the terms, nor should the state void the contract with everyone because you disagree. You are free to leave.
My decision to live peacefully nonetheless while working to change the system is not a result of respect or obligation to the rules and regulations, but are only the result of my own reason and morality. That my behavior may coincide with the requirements of the law is nothing more than a happy accident.

Good for you.

The "social contract" amounts to nothing more than an attempt to exploit my circumstances (I lack the resources to move, and I do not necessarily have anywhere to go) to force me to behave according to someone's arbitrary mandates. A euphemism at best.

You never lack the resources to move as long as you can walk. A willingness to move is another matter entirely.


Measuring the legitimacy of a contract that requires my loyalty to the society/state according to the legal definitions prescribed by the very same society/state. How convenient.

One of the parties to the contract is also the enforcer of all contracts. Seems kind of one sided.
Nope. The government does not control your ability to leave the country, nor does it control the ability of the people to control it through the ballot box. A legitimate contract.

That said, I have work to do, night everyone, pick you up on the other side.

So? I fail to see your issue. I assume in your capitalistic wonderland institutions that have exclusive membership will be permitted? What you are describing is nothing less then a contract, something that would be allowed in even the most free states. If you do not wish to fulfill a contract, you are free to leave, if you violate the contract, be prepared to deal with the consequences.

First, taxation is a necessary evil. It is not an optimal solution, but it is a prudent one.

But this argument of agree or get out is ludicrous. I was born and raised in the US, everything I know and love is here. So you cannot say that my decision to stay in this country is due to agreement with the government.

I would rather take up arms in rebellion than be forced out of this nation by unjust laws.

So you are saying that nature doesn't exist? That we aren't created and confined by the laws of nature?


No. I'm claiming that some unseen entity with the foresight to convey upon me rights, called "nature," does not exist. Of course, I am confined by the "laws" of the universe. Rights exist because of human intellect, not natural forces. (Yes, I know, brains operate according to physical processes. So does the brain of an newt. There is a bit of a difference between the intellect of a newt and the intellect of a human :) )


And let me point out that you do have the right to attempt anything not limited by biology or physics. Society will do its best to stop you, however, because society decides what rights you are free to use.


I've always understood "rights" to be inviolable. After all, if they are not, the next random dictator can violate them all he or she wants. "Rights" become meaningless and our relationship reverts to the state of the jungle. As such, I do not have the "right" to do whatever I want. Society defines my rights (otherwise I'm still in the jungle), and then punishes me when I do otherwise.


This is another debate altogether, but because that creature cannot comprehend neither its own rights nor mine.


Some human beings suffer the same problem. The very young, the very old, the mentally handicapped, the sick or injured (Edit: the comatose, for example), etc. Do they have no recognized rights?


Society must be entirely rational in its handling of rights, and other creatures don't apply.


For reasons described above, certain implications of this position should make us very uncomfortable.


Because you need benchmarks when making judgements. We say life, or existence in its purest natural form, is complete freedom with no safety, and death, or the absence of existence, is a complete lack of freedom with complete safety. When you have these two points of reference, you can begin creating a society that most beneficially weighs freedom against safety.


Then nature is, at most, a factor in our reasoning that leads to the concept of rights. But the actual creation still occurs in society, not nature.

It's a means to production, not the means [since the machines can't operate unless a human mind activates it];

That's all I've been saying. Thank you.

Again, part of my problem with the economic theory that supposes that factories are the means of production aren't giving its creators the credit they deserve.

Quite the contrary, Marxists are among the few people who explicitly recognize, every time they talk about capital machinery, that it is the product of "dead" labor--the labor, mental and physical, that went into producing it.

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Thoughts are not physical products, like L'Hospital's rule and the Phythagorean theorem. They're intellectual products; i.e. Ideas.

Yep. Still products. Still means.

Apparently, in making my distinction between the validity of sharing material products and that of sharing intellecual ones, you came to the conclusion that I was suggesting that L'Hospital's rule was "not the product of his thought."

No, I came to that conclusion because you explicitly said so. How is anyone supposed to carry on a conversation with you if you don't even intend to stand by what you said? At least admit that you misspoke.

Yeah, that's fine but that doesn't imply that it's okay to share material goods in the same way.

No, in itself it certainly does not. But we hadn't even gotten there yet. At least now we're making progress... you have ceased to pretend that people do not only "solve problems" with their minds, they also "produce things."

Gee, I can feel your humanitarian side just seeping through after suggsting that any distinction between my brain and an automated machine is useless when it comes to production.

You aren't very good at reading what people write, are you? The distinction that I am making is very precise: it is with regard to particular products. Like you, I would rather have my mind and all its faculties rather than any given machine... because I can do a lot more with my mind than with a machine whose purpose is very specific. If, however, I want to make the one thing that machine produces, I may very well need it to do so. You can't get around this simple fact of the real world with language games.

Mmmmm, I love the smell of ad hominem in the morning. By resulting to such attacks, you're not exactly doing a very good job of establishing your philosophical credibility here. I think I'll just grin and bear it: I think your resorting to such tactics speaks more strongly to the weakness of your position than you'd ever suspect.

Would you care to play a game of "who started it?"

Seriously, however, it is not an ad hominem. I am not rejecting your arguments because you do not know how to have a civil conversation--I reject them because they are lousy arguments. I am, however, planning to reject your conversation because you do not know how to have a civil one. There's nothing in it for me--for once, the RCTer's may be right!

Wait, so what, I'm only mature if I change my mind when you tell me to? What the hell kind of bullshit is that?

No, you refused to change your mind for a long, long time before I realized how immature you are. I only came to understand that you are immature when you told me, explicitly, that you have no intention of considering other people's arguments, because you already know you are right.

It actually explains your inability to respond meaningfully to the actual things people say--not just to me, but to virtually everyone I've ever seen you challenge--because you have some serious ideological blinders on, and no comprehension of the fact that it gives you a very limited view of the world.

Immature.

I respect others... if I have a reason to. I don't dole out "unearned" respect like some people do.

Immature... and arrogant.

People do not have to "prove" that they are "worthy of you." Civil life, like civil conversation, presumes that we can respect one another enough to consider one's thoughts and demands. If these are unreasonable, then someone may "earn" your contempt... but it has to be on a more or less "innocent until proven guilty" basis. If you don't give people that much, the only people that will ever get past your defenses and befriend you will be ones who are just as immature and arrogant as you are... and who happen to already agree with you. That doesn't exactly give you much possibility for growth.

Ah, but I forgot. Unlike everyone else in the world, you don't need to grow. You already have all the answers.

Likewise, I have no reason for humility unless I've earned it. I'll be plenty humble if I make the necessary mistakes, but suggesting that I live my life in a perpetual state of humility is ridiculous.

Humility is not about mistakes. Humility is not the same as shame.

Humility is the understanding one can be proud of one's accomplishments and one's talents without developing hubris. It relies on the understanding that however smart or talented or strong or attractive you are, part of that was luck of the draw. It relies on the understanding that whatever you achieve, there were people along the way helping you--probably in ways you do not even realize.

Humility is also this: no matter how sure you are that you are right, you always hold out some doubt, some willingness to listen--because so far, in the history of human thought, few if any ideas have survived which have not been superceded by something else later. The chances that you already have "all the answers" is so remote as to be virtually impossible.

I have a little more confidence in myself thankyoudrivethrough.

If I were my father, the psychologist, I would contradict you: you are so defensive an arrogant precisely because you lack genuine confidence.

But I'm not him, so I won't.

I'm having a hard time exactly figuring out where I'm ... "rag in denial."

Print this conversation and read it in five years. Maybe you'll see it then. Everyone else does.

A [i]philosophically aggressive attitude and a rational discussion aren't mutually exclusive.

"Philosophical" aggression means attacking an argument on every legitimate weakness it has. That is NOT, in fact, exclusive to a rational discussion. Philosophical discussion, however, assumes certain "rules of the game," such as the fact that we avoid using obvious logical fallacies to attack or defend.

What you engage in is more like "ideological" aggression. Where your opponent's argument does not present an opening, you mangle words and build straw men to make one.

That kind of aggression belongs on Crossfire--not a philosophical discussion.

Yes, and those ideas that you liked in the past have been replaced with new ones..... that you like.

Again, you completely failed to read what I wrote. This is really becoming ridiculous. I explicitly told you that I believe the truth of ideas that I do not like, but which I find convincing.

Perhaps this example will help you out: Imagine an intellectually honest youth who was raised by Creationist parents. He believes that God made the world, and God made human beings all at once, as a caring craftsman... and he likes that idea. It's comforting. Then he goes to college, and as his education commences he comes to doubt these ideas. Being intellectually honest, he admits that science casts doubts on his former beliefs... it makes him uncomfortable--not a feeling he likes--but it appears to be true. Eventually, he is convinced that the best scientific truth is probably that humans developed by evolution, that the world is older than he thought, and that there is no scientific reason to assume that "God made it." He would still like to believe otherwise--all of this, after all, makes his faith much more difficult. It makes him uncomfortable, because he is no longer so confident that "God is there for him"... but he has to believe it, because the evidence is there.

He, unlike so many other Creationists is being mature. Many others, faced with the same evidence, mangle the terms of scientific evidence and twist its arguments into "Intelligent Design"... because they'd rather ignore compelling arguments than give up on ideas they "like."

Liking ideas is not an automatic indicator for intellectual childishness or what-have you.

No, but defending ideas you "like" with the certainty that no one can prove you wrong... is. You may be lucky enough to "like" every idea you find convincing... which is fine. But if you start defending ideas because you "like" them, and not because they are the most convincing ideas you can find, then you are not a philosopher: you are an ideologue.

Right back atcha. Obviously neither of us will ever be convinced that the other is responding for his ideas, which is why I avoid the headache of writing for my opponent's benefit.

Have you ever considered the possibility that if you have problems convincing people, maybe the problem is not theirs... but yours? (Of course you haven't.)

It happens, from time to time. I've even seen it happen on this forum... I have learned from others, and others have professedly learned from me. Rarely, if ever, has this meant that someone completely abandoned a previously held view. More often, one of us was able to point out a weakness in the other's position, to obtain the response: "You're right, that is a difficulty." The result is either that one of us moderates or otherwise alters our position, or we have to go back to the drawing board to figure out what's wrong with it.

As for the "headache"... I am willing to risk it, because the opportunity to learn something new is well worth it. I have not been able to learn anything from you, however, not so much because your arguments are utterly lacking in substance--they are not--but because you are completely evasive and will not stick to one line of defense long enough for us to play it out in full. As soon as we start to make any progress, you switch the definitions of your terms (or, more commonly, switch the definitions of mine)... so that one part of the argument does not even make sense in terms of the others.

I'll allow the reader to come to his own conclusions about who has or has not answered who.

I guess that's that, then.

No, I came to that conclusion because you explicitly said so. How is anyone supposed to carry on a conversation with you if you don't even intend to stand by what you said? At least admit that you misspoke.
I didn't "explicitly" convey any such idea and I would be very amused if you could point me to whatever [probably purposefully] misconstrued statement from which you extracted that utterly ridiculous suggestion.

No, in itself it certainly does not. But we hadn't even gotten there yet. At least now we're making progress... you have ceased to pretend that people do not only "solve problems" with their minds, they also "produce things."
For all the accusation you're levelling at me about "failing" to understand your arguments, it's curious to see this manner of turnabout. When I said, earlier, that "You're confusing problem-solving with product-making," the implication that I've already identified that distinction is a pretty strong one. The distinction appears again when I claim that "You're attempting to draw parallels between two distinctly different [albeit frequently connected] modes of thought."

You aren't very good at reading what people write, are you?
Only as good as you decide, apparently.

The distinction that I am making is very precise: it is with regard to particular products. Like you, I would rather have my mind and all its faculties rather than any given machine... because I can do a lot more with my mind than with a machine whose purpose is very specific. If, however, I want to make the one thing that machine produces, I may very well need it to do so. You can't get around this simple fact of the real world with language games.

Minds, hands, and machinery are all means of production. For the purposes of determining what I need to produce item X, there is no meaningful distinction between them.
Does that sound like a distinction to you?

Anyway, it turns out "means" and "aid" are synonyms [since, despite your fervent beliefs to the contrary, I do check myself from time to time], so it would seem I'd made something of an erroneous claim last night, which I am now forced to amend given my poor choice of phrasing: Cognition and action are the penultimate means of production; the physical and intellectual products of one's mind [e.g. the mass machinery we're hopefully still talking about before we got sidetracked with my character qualities] are also means.

However, being, ultimately, the products of one's thought and life work [like any of the other, more minor consumer goods] they are subject to the same concepts of "property" as anything else obtained through one's life work. Whether I choose to invest my money into millions of tiny possessions for myself, or massive factories is my concern and not the public's. If I choose to open a private institution [such as the factory], the onus is on me to run it responsibly. When and if it resorts to the use of force against any man, it becomes the responsibility of the Government [e.g. the public] to punish me accordingly.


Seriously, however, it is not an ad hominem. I am not rejecting your arguments because you do not know how to have a civil conversation--I reject them because they are lousy arguments. I am, however, planning to reject your conversation because you do not know how to have a civil one. There's nothing in it for me--for once, the RCTer's may be right!
Actually, saying one is "ignorant and pig-headed" is textbook ad hominem. We could probably actually warn you for it, if I had a thinner skin. Well, I couldn't do it peronally, but that kind of thing [albeit in more serious degrees] is something we hand out warnings for on a near-daily basis.

Still, for all the "lousy arguments" I've been making, I've noticed a curious amount of them have gone unanswered, not to mention this constant focus on my personal qualities [e.g. willingness to change my mind, or immaturity or what-have-you] rather than an equally invigorating discourse on the content of the arguments themselves.

No, you refused to change your mind for a long, long time before I realized how immature you are. I only came to understand that you are immature when you told me, explicitly, that you have no intention of considering other people's arguments, because you already know you are right.
I'll consider arguments or ideas that I haven't heard before, but There isn't much I've heard you say so far that I haven't already been confronted with. I knew things would turn sour pretty quick when you first mentioned Rosseau in the other thread.

It actually explains your inability to respond meaningfully to the actual things people say--not just to me, but to virtually everyone I've ever seen you challenge--because you have some serious ideological blinders on, and no comprehension of the fact that it gives you a very limited view of the world.
I've clarified myself at every challenge and I've even amended myself--twice. You have done nothing of the sort, even when confronted with volumes of evidence pointing to "private" and "personal" as synonyms.

Ever hear of a practice called "projection?" If you get to play armchair psychologist, so do I.

Immature.
Perhaps by your standards. Doesn't bother me much.

Immature... and arrogant.
Arrogant? You bet your ass. What reason did you have to expect anything else?

People do not have to "prove" that they are "worthy of you."
Yes they do.

Civil life, like civil conversation, presumes that we can respect one another enough to consider one's thoughts and demands.
Thoughts I can can consider--although my experience here and elsewhere has jaded me towrads many of yours, unfortunately. "Demands," unfortunately, I cannot, except under certain situations .

Perhaps I should clarify my earlier response as well, since it comes in to play here. When I say people actually have to "prove" that they're "worthy of me," I understand it to mean that one must earn my affections beyond the basic respect we should afford to people [more on that below]. A lot of people like to paint the egoist as a barbarian with no concern for others at all; a man who will trample over a pile of skulls in order to acheive his goals. Your wording here suggests by way of indirect accusation that I don't "respect [others] enough to consider one's thoughts and demands," which strikes me as an attempt to categorize myself into the aforementioned band of barbarians.

This is not the case for two main reasons and probably a bunch of smaller ones:

If I have no previous experience with someone, I have no reason to [i]assume that they will embody or fail to embody my values and earn my trust and respect. Again, they ought to have a clean slate--not one that is tilted towards hatred or love.

Irrational egoism [let's call it, say, Nietzscheism] suggests that people should fabricate reality for their own benefit; they deny others the very terms they demand for themselves. I think everyone ought to be free to be as big of an asshole as I am, and that's what's so cool about it. I'll respect random folks in the same manner which I would hope they'd respect me, but with the knowledge that neither him nor I should appropriate a physical or intellectual handout from the other on any terms other than the giver's.

If these are unreasonable, then someone may "earn" your contempt... but it has to be on a more or less "innocent until proven guilty" basis. If you don't give people that much, the only people that will ever get past your defenses and befriend you will be ones who are just as immature and arrogant as you are... and who happen to already agree with you. That doesn't exactly give you much possibility for growth.
In fairness to me, internet message boards are often something of an inaccurate indicator of personal character, and you really haven't got any idea how I treat random strangers in person. I do operate on an "innocent until proven guilty" basis [as I've described above--why you'd miss that after my constant reference to clean slates is beyond me], but all too frequently people will remove any possibility for innocence shortly after opening their mouth and drawing breath. Yes, I've got what one might consider to be some pretty stringent standards.

You have no idea who my friends are or what their policital/ethical inclinations are [in fact, in many cases even I don't even know--we seldom discuss politics], so I would be very happy if you could dispense with this ridiculous and childish notion that you can predict my social habits from what may very well be hundreds [or thousands] of miles away.

At any rate, I was not the one who shifted the focus of this discussion away from my ideas and towards my personal traits ad hominem], and I would just like to point out again that that probably says a lot more than you had intended.

Ah, but I forgot. Unlike everyone else in the world, you don't need to grow. You already have all the answers.
At last, we've stumbled across what may well be one of the fundamental roots of our decidedly explosive epistemological quarrel: I beleive that knowledge is possible, and moreover I beleive that I have acheived it in many capacities. While I realise that I'm not omnipotent, I also realise that I can master the knowledge I do have. My philosophy was not stumbled upon blindly on a library shelf; it was not spawned instantly upon the completion of a certain book or essay or passage, it is a compilation of my life and my experiences, with no small amount of my measurements and opinions of said experiences. Incidentally, I came to many of the same conclusions that Ayn Rand did, for which I am at times chagrined.

Humility is not about mistakes. Humility is not the same as shame.
Didn't say it was. I was suggesting that I will be humbled at the appropriate time: if I mis-speak [as I have done admittedly once or twice in this thread] or perform an undesired action at an undesired time. However, I refuse to be shamed, since shame implies guilt, which I will not incur--not because I'm immune to it but because I choose not to harm other men.

Humility is the understanding one can be proud of one's accomplishments and one's talents without developing hubris. It relies on the understanding that however smart or talented or strong or attractive you are, part of that was luck of the draw. It relies on the understanding that whatever you achieve, there were people along the way helping you--probably in ways you do not even realize.
I'm sure you'll disagree violently, but I consider myself an extremely literal person, which means I don't conflate the term "humility" quite to this degree. I don't think people should be apologetic about who they are [or, indeed, the very fact that they exist at all], rather I maintain that its healthier and more practical to be proud of one's identity as a normal state of being: humility and modesty should be the exceptions, when one errs, not the rule. Realizing that one's own traits are the "luck of the draw," as you put it, I would consider more closely realted to the term "perceiving reality" than to the term "humility."

Humility is also this: no matter how sure you are that you are right, you always hold out some doubt, some willingness to listen--because so far, in the history of human thought, few if any ideas have survived which have not been superceded by something else later. The chances that you already have "all the answers" is so remote as to be virtually impossible.
I don't maintain that myself or anyone else has "all the answers," I maintain that all the answers can be found if one thinks about it long enough, hard enough. Being as there are undoubtedly questions with which I have not yet been confronted, the proposition that one can have "all the answers" is a difficult one to maintain.

Yes, I believe I have a specific set of ethical answers, and yes I beleive that they are objective knowledge and that they are correct. You quite clearly disagree vehemently, which is your freedom.

If I were my father, the psychologist, I would contradict you: you are so defensive an arrogant precisely because you lack genuine confidence.

But I'm not him, so I won't.
Obviously not.

Print this conversation and read it in five years. Maybe you'll see it then. Everyone else does.
Did you transmogrify yourself into a large crowd while I wasn't looking, or have dozens of people made posts that I can't see? You seem to be the only one maintaining this. If "everyone else" sees this, I'm curious as to where you gathered this data. Who is "everyone else?"

"Philosophical" aggression means attacking an argument on every legitimate weakness it has. That is NOT, in fact, exclusive to a rational discussion. Philosophical discussion, however, assumes certain "rules of the game," such as the fact that we avoid using obvious logical fallacies to attack or defend.
Again, I've only heard vague asserations that I'm employing fallacies, rather than detailed explanations of how they're fallacies. When I find logical fallicies, or when people explain [satisfactorily] how something is a fallacy, and more specifically what kind of fallacy it is, I'll think it over again. But I'm not just going to take your word on "obvious logical fallacies" if you don't have the intellectual fortitude to identify them and explain accordingly. You've made a few admirable attempts, but they're almost invariably the same challenges that come up whenever these issues are discussed. You're sharper than I'd initially given you credit for, but I'm still not satisfied with these ethereal "fallacies," which may or may not exist in my previous discourse. I can't find any, but it doesn't look like I'm getting much help, just rampant character assasinations.

What you engage in is more like "ideological" aggression. Where your opponent's argument does not present an opening, you mangle words and build straw men to make one.

That kind of aggression belongs on Crossfire--not a philosophical discussion.
Is this the part where I'm supposed to run crying to my mother?

When someone makes a straw man, the least you can do is point it out at the time instead of waiting until pages later, referring to them nonchalantly as if even I ought to know they're all over the place.

Again, you completely failed to read what I wrote. This is really becoming ridiculous. I explicitly told you that I believe the truth of ideas that I [B]do not like, but which I find convincing.
You may not like them on an aesthetic level, but you obviously like them from a philosophical standpoint. If you had any significant intellectual aversion to them you would have rejected them. I don't ascribe to the idea that we should be made to endorse ideas that exist in contradiction to our rational intellectual desires.

No, but defending ideas you "like" with the certainty that no one can prove you wrong... is. You may be lucky enough to "like" every idea you find convincing... which is fine. But if you start defending ideas [I]because you "like" them, and not because they are the most convincing ideas you can find, then you are not a philosopher: you are an ideologue.
How, exactly, did you discern my motives for defending my ideas? What if they are both the ideas that I like, and the most convincing ones I have found? Seems to me like you're preaching the exact same intellectual dogmatism you're accusing me of practicing. You're demanding that I acknowledge the possibility that I may be wrong, under pain of being labelled "childish" or "immature." I'm suggesting the possibility that I'm right, which is precisely what you're doing too. If I regard it as a certainty and you don't, that doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg: you're free to ignore me [as I should hope you would] or continue the debate not for my benefit, but for an unseen [and hopefully intellectually curious] third party, which is what I have been doing.

I think you're getting a little too caught up in trying to change my mind, which is why you're so beside yourself whenever you post. If I'm a lost cause, treat me accordingly. I'm sure to do the same to you.

Have you ever considered the possibility that if you have problems convincing people, maybe the problem is not theirs... but yours? (Of course you haven't.)
Again, as I've already said several times, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm expressing my opinions: there's a bit of a difference. If you don't like them you're free to challenge them to the extent which your patience allows . I don't go around proselytizing Objectivism in coffee bars, so I can't really tell you how good I am at "convincing" people to change their politics or ideas. Maybe I've just been lucky this way, but I've never really been put into a situation where I had to.

It happens, from time to time. I've even seen it happen on this forum... I have learned from others, and others have professedly learned from me. Rarely, if ever, has this meant that someone completely abandoned a previously held view. More often, one of us was able to point out a weakness in the other's position, to obtain the response: "You're right, that is a difficulty." The result is either that one of us moderates or otherwise alters our position, or we have to go back to the drawing board to figure out what's wrong with it.
I've already done that ["I'll admit, land is something of a tricky issue..."] and you have not. Projection, anyone?

As for the "headache"... I am willing to risk it, because the opportunity to learn something new is well worth it. I have not been able to learn anything from you, however, not so much because your arguments are utterly lacking in substance--they are not--but because you are completely evasive and will not stick to one line of defense long enough for us to play it out in full. As soon as we start to make any progress, you switch the definitions of your terms (or, more commonly, switch the definitions of [I]mine)... so that one part of the argument does not even make sense in terms of the others.
Give me three examples, if you'd be so kind. Actually, one will do.

I guess that's that, then.
I'm not terribly opposed to the idea.

Why does everyone always assume that one needs material rewards to be motivated ? Did all those doctors really choose the medical profession just because they wanted 5 gold creditcards ? Are all those scientists working in researchlabs simply not smart enough to be hired by a company that offers 10 times as much money ?

Allright, you are probably right for the bulk of the population. But I see no reason why one could not deny the use of shared resources to those who do not contribute to society.
Pay doctors 40k a year, and see what happens. ;)

I didn't "explicitly" convey any such idea and I would be very amused if you could point me to whatever statement from which you extracted that utterly ridiculous suggestion.

I said that L'Hospital's rule, like every other mathematical rule, is a "product." You insisted that I was confusing "problem-solving" with "product-making."

Here is the exact exchange:

By your argument, I should not be allowed to call L'Hospital's rule a "means" of solving a certain kind of limit... because some other rule was used to produce it... and some other rule was used to produce it...
You're confusing problem-solving with product-making.

Anyway, it turns out "means" and "aid" are synonyms [since, despite your fervent beliefs to the contrary, I do check myself from time to time], so it would seem I'd made something of an erroneous claim last night,

Ironically, the one time you decide to admit that you are "wrong"... you weren't. Not about that, anyway. "Means" and "aid" do not mean the same thing. The fact that they refer to one another in a thesaurus does not imply that they do. Ever read the introduction to a thesaurus? The editors will be more than happy to tell you that they are not implying precise synonymy, i.e. "wordX = wordY." Rather, they give a list of words with similar meanings so that you can decide if one of the others can be substituted for the one you had been using.

This is the reason that in order to use a thesaurus properly, one needs to already know the words. The thesaurus generally serves as more of a reminder that something else "may do," not that it is "precisely the same."

Here's an exercise: Some day take a paragraph of text--a post, something posted online, whatever--and then try to replace every word other than conjunctions and prepositions with the first word listed as its "synonym" in a thesaurus.

See how much sense it actually makes when you're done.

You cannot get an education from a dictionary or a thesaurus... unless you're trying to win a spelling bee.

Cognition and action are the penultimate means of production; the physical and intellectual products of one's mind [e.g. the mass machinery we're hopefully still talking about before we got sidetracked with my character qualities] are also means.

Yes, that is what the rest of us have been saying for the last several pages.

However, being, ultimately, the products of one's thought and life work [like any of the other, more minor consumer goods] they are subject to the same concepts of "property" as anything else obtained through one's life work.

Sure. Anything you made yourself is yours.

Whether I choose to invest my money into millions of tiny possessions for myself, or massive factories is my concern and not the public's.

Whoa!! Now you're no longer dealing with things you made yourself. Where did you get the money? Who made it? At whose cost? How does a money economy manage to function, anyway?

I think you will find the word "public" in every one of those answers. At least Locke was intellectually honest enough to understand that he could not get from "I own what I produce" to "I own property and land that I may never have seen" without somehow dealing with money and exchange-relations as a social product.

Actually, saying one is "ignorant and pig-headed" is textbook ad hominem.

You need a new textbook. "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

It doesn't matter what text I am citing, since any other you find will say the same thing.

I rejected your arguments long before I realized that you are ignorant and pig-headed.

We could probably actually warn you for it, if I had a thinner skin. Well, I couldn't do it peronally, but that kind of thing [albeit in more serious degrees] is something we hand out warnings for on a near-daily basis.

If someone warned me for that being an ad hominem, I'd call her/him "ignorant" as well. He/she would be warning me for a "flame." There is a difference. But, you haven't shown yourself to be much for actual definitions.

Still, for all the "lousy arguments" I've been making, I've noticed a curious amount of them have gone unanswered,

Which ones? For the most part, you repeat the same one over and over.

not to mention this constant focus on my personal qualities [e.g. willingness to change my mind, or immaturity or what-have-you]

"Constant"? It only came up after you explicitly told me that you have no interest in my arguments.

rather than an equally invigorating discourse on the content of the arguments themselves.

Why bother, if you're not interested?

I knew things would turn sour pretty quick when you first mentioned Rosseau in the other thread.

Since we're clearly pretty well done with our existing argument, if you care to entice me into another debate... why don't you tell me exactly what it is you don't like about Rousseau?

I've clarified myself at every challenge and I've even amended myself--twice. You have done nothing of the sort, even when confronted with volumes of evidence pointing to "private" and "personal" as synonyms.

Since you love dictionaries so much, how about this definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Entry: Synonym.

Strictly, a word having the same sense as another (in the same language); but more usually, either or any of two or more words (in the same language) having the same general sense, but possessing each of them meanings which are not shared by the other or others, or having different shades of meaning or implications appropriate to different contexts.

... which is, as it happens, precisely what I said of "private" and "personal."

Ever hear of a practice called "projection?"

Yes. I doubt you know what it means, beyond its corrupted use in popular culture.

Arrogant? You bet your ass. What reason did you have to expect anything else?

At least you can admit it. Though arrogance is not something about which to have pride. And again, it's usually defensive.

Perhaps I should clarify my earlier response as well, since it comes in to play here. When I say people actually have to "prove" that they're "worthy of me," I understand it to mean that one must earn my affections beyond the basic respect we should afford to people [more on that below].

I have not seen any evidence that you accord "basic respect" to anyone or their ideas.

If I have no previous experience with someone, I have no reason to assume that they will embody or fail to embody my values and earn my trust and respect.

Ah, but that's the problem. People need not "embody your values" in order to deserve respect and to be treated with dignity.

I think everyone ought to be free to be as big of an asshole as I am, and that's what's so cool about it.

In other words, "It's okay for me to treat you like shit, as long as you can, too."

This contradicts the whole basis for civilization, in which the rest of us say, "I won't treat you like shit, as long as you don't treat me like shit, either."

In fairness to me, internet message boards are often something of an inaccurate indicator of personal character, and you really haven't got any idea how I treat random strangers in person.

So, in one of the few places in which people actually have the opportunity to engage in extensive discussion an debate with people from around the world... that is the place you think we should give up on ideals of mutual respect?

but all too frequently people will remove any possibility for innocence shortly after opening their mouth and drawing breath. Yes, I've got what one might consider to be some pretty stringent standards.

People should be judged, not on their ideas, but on their willingness to consider others'. If "shortly after opening their mouth" people indicate to you that they have no intention of listening to you, then I'll concede the point. But if you are judging them based on your opinion of their existing conclusions, then you have merely decided to shelter yourself from anyone who disagrees with you... not a very rational position.

I somehow doubt people indicate, early on, that they will not listen. It even took you several days of debate.

At any rate, I was not the one who shifted the focus of this discussion away from my ideas and towards my personal traits

Yes you did. You told me you won't listen to my ideas, so why should we discuss yours?

However, I refuse to be shamed, since shame implies guilt,

Actually, if you knew anything about psychology at all, you would know that shame is the precise opposite of guilt. But I agree that you should not be shamed... what shame does imply is that there is "something wrong with you." [As opposed to guilt, which goes one of two ways: either "there is something wrong with the world (and I feel bad about it)" or "I did something wrong."]

Shame and pride go together, turning inward toward the self.
Guilt and (for lack of a better word) "justification" turn outward.

Shame-prone individuals tend to defend against their shame with prideful and arrogant exteriors. It's called "narcissism".

Who is "everyone else?"

Mostly the posters who try to have a conversation with you, but won't take the bait when you twist their words around. You can count them in this thread, the last one in which we engaged, and several others.

Again, I've only heard vague asserations that I'm employing fallacies, rather than detailed explanations of how they're fallacies.

Equivocation. Complex question. False dilemma.

I have named every one of them, when you made them, in this thread and the last. You probably just missed it, like you "miss" everything else I post.

When someone makes a straw man, the least you can do is point it out at the time instead of waiting until pages later, referring to them nonchalantly as if even I ought to know they're all over the place.

I can be general, and you should still get it: Regardless of what I say about my positions regarding property, you continually either paint me as a "communist," or direct your attacks against communist ideology. Communists (most of them, anyway) happen to agree with me on property as a positive right... but attacking them is attacking the argument in its weakest form.

Specific enough for you?

You may not like them on an aesthetic level, but you obviously like them from a philosophical standpoint.

Either you're equivocating, or I misread your original position on the topic. When you said you have ideas you "like" it read to me as if they make you happy, not as if you find them philosophically satisfying.

If you want to stretch the word "like" farther than it likes to go, make that clear. I, however, hold ideas that are convincing (i.e. true, probably true, or the best I can find) and yet which do not make me happy. Sometimes they make me sad, sometimes uncomfortable, sometimes disappointed. Sometimes, yes, I like them.

What if they are both the ideas that I like, and the most convincing ones I have found?

See, now you're making the distinction again... in the previous paragraph, you wanted to say that you necessarily "like" the ones you find convincing.

It is the fluid way in which you shift definitions that makes rational discussion impossible. Maybe you should study a dictionary after all.

I'm suggesting the possibility that I'm right, which is precisely what you're doing too.

Oh, "suggesting the possibility" now, are we? Have you backed down from your earlier assertion that it is impossible to convince you otherwise? Or are you, once again, just saying whatever seems to fit the moment?

you're free to ignore me [as I should hope you would]

I shall. I have no interest in debating those who are not interested in debate, but in argument.

or continue the debate not for my benefit, but for an unseen [and hopefully intellectually curious] third party, which is what I have been doing.

After all this, do you really expect me to believe that you're so "noble"?

(I know I haven't replied to every little line you wrote. I found much of it redundant, and I also need to get back to my own work.)

Family members and friends yes I would share my PC but not joe bloggs off the street

[QUOTE=AnarchyeL]
I can be general, and you should still get it: Regardless of what I say about my positions regarding property, you continually either paint me as a "communist," or direct your attacks against communist ideology. Communists (most of them, anyway) happen to agree with me on property as a positive right... but attacking them is attacking the argument in its weakest form.

Specific enough for you?
[QUOTE]


I think that gets to the gist of the matter...It is in fact obvious you're not a communist, so it would be ad hominem to paint you as such.

But, this thread is now dead by the way. It seems no one is actually able to debate the history of property.

An interesting side note if anyone wants to continue the discussion: Monetary taxation developed out of les corvee, which in turn developed as a form of festive labor. Even in the most basic subsistance economies there is a notion of public good (often roads, irrigation systems, etc), which are provided for collectively. These developed into primitive states because of monetarization and specialization. It became easier to provision public works (which you yourself likely very well needed, but could not afford nor had the time to do on your own) via monetary tax rather than community labor.

No it is not theft, even in the moral sense, because there is an intentionality to theft that you are not considering.

Suppose for instance that little Suzy were to find Jimmy's coat on the playground. Not knowing who Jimmy is or that it is his coat, she takes it to the lost-and-found and drops it in. Is this theft? It is the taking of someone else's property without their permission. The obvious answer, however, is no: Suzy intends only the best in her actions to the owner of the coat, even if she doesn't know who he is.

By contrast, suppose that Suzy knew that Jimmy had a nice watch, and because Jimmy had taunted her at recess the prior day, she thought it would be nice to have it for herself in payment of sorts. So one day, when he sets it aside, she tries to grab it off his desk, and he stops her. Is this theft? In this case, no property has changed hands. Even so, however, pretty clearly Suzy is a thief, because even though she didn't actually succeed in theft, she clearly intended first to take someone else's property without permission, and secondly to do so for a reason other than Jimmy's best interests.

So what do we get out of these thought experiments? A more clear definition of theft. Theft is the taking of someone else's property without their consent with the intent of using such property for your own gain or advantage. If so, then what is taxation? Taxation is the taking of the property of citizens within a society in order to provide for the general welfare of society. Taxation in the general sense does not entail the using of public funds for any one person's private mean interest. If so, then taxation cannot be theft, because it does not fit the clear definition of theft.

This argument is too simplistic, and is refuted a such:

Suppose Suzy wanted to take the watch to give to another student, for said student's benifit. She merely "taxed" the watch from Jimmy. Was this theft? YES!

Are taxes always theft? No.

By agreeing to live in a (free) society, we also agree to be subject to the laws of the society. The laws of our (free) society allow the governing body to take taxes. Logicaly, we must conclude that we agree to the government taking taxes.

Theft is the taking of personal and/or private property by force or coersion. By living in the (free) society, we have agreed to allow the government to take taxes. This is done without force or coersion, it is part of our agreement to live in a (free) society. Because the taxes are not taken with force or coersion, they are not theft.

I said that L'Hospital's rule, like every other mathematical rule, is a "product." You insisted that I was confusing "problem-solving" with "product-making."

Here is the exact exchange:
Here is the comment That initiated this exchange:

Obviously, a kitchen knife is not my mind and a soup spoon is not my hands, but the means by which these tools were produced is invariably the same.
You accuse me of building distortions, while somehow coming to the conclusion that ideas are not cognitive products. Cat-Tribe asks, pages before you do, that "you must concede, one can distinguish the tools from the hands and mind," and I answer in the affirmative. Later, somehow, I've been maintaining that this is not the case, at least according to you.

Ironically, the one time you decide to admit that you are "wrong"... you weren't. Not about that, anyway. "Means" and "aid" do not mean the same thing. The fact that they refer to one another in a thesaurus does not imply that they do. Ever read the introduction to a thesaurus? The editors will be more than happy to tell you that they are not implying precise synonymy, i.e. "wordX = wordY." Rather, they give a list of words with similar meanings so that you can decide if one of the others can be substituted for the one you had been using.
Yes, and in every observable context that I have seen the words "private" and "personal" property, I've seen no reason why the words cannot be used interchagably. One could probably get away with using "aid" in the definition for "means" and vice-versa--but I'll avoid the dictionary this time since it's apparently useless now [since it's proven you wrong nearly every time its been used].

This is the reason that in order to use a thesaurus properly, one needs to already know the words. The thesaurus generally serves as more of a reminder that something else "may do," not that it is "precisely the same."
So it serves as a reminder that certain words can be used interchangably? My whole argument hinges on the fact that "personal" and "private" can be used interchangably in this context. If you are concedng by virtue of their presence in a Thesaurus that while they may not be exact synonyms, but are "interchangable," you've lost the entire argument.

Yes, that is what the rest of us have been saying for the last several pages.
Again, I apologise for the misunderstanding. For all the spite you're huring at me for refusing to yield on any points, you're sure not giving me much credit when I do.

Whoa!! Now you're no longer dealing with things you made yourself. Where did you get the money? Who made it? At whose cost? How does a money economy manage to function, anyway?

I think you will find the word "public" in every one of those answers. At least Locke was intellectually honest enough to understand that he could not get from "I own what I produce" to "I own property and land that I may never have seen" without somehow dealing with money and exchange-relations as a social product.
Wait a second, what? If I build a product and exchange it on the market with someone, his money becomes mine [regardless of its ultimate source] and the product becomes his. The idea that the public at large should be allowed to spend their money on computers, cars, widgets or anything else, and then turn around and demand that the company president do certain things with his money or factory is tantamount to the idea that the public should be allowed to spend its money twice.

If, for example, people swarm into Wal-Mart and then demand that the government do something to make Wal-Mart buy meals for poor people, they're basically trying to have their cake and eat it too; since they don't want to spend their money on feeding poor folks while its in their pocket, but if they exchange it for something, it's somehow legitimate to decide to what use that money should be put once its gone.

In any significant sense, I am still dealing with things I made myself, since those things were what made my fortune possible in the first place. True, I need a public to do it, but I've already rendered my service to them by providing them with a product they obviously have some desire for. Just because I got rich off of them doesn't mean I'm somehow obligated to solve their problems.

You need a new textbook. "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

It doesn't matter what text I am citing, since any other you find will say the same thing.

I rejected your arguments long before I realized that you are ignorant and pig-headed.
Actually, ad hominem has a looser use of referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument. It was in that manner which I deployed it earlier.

If someone warned me for that being an ad hominem, I'd call her/him "ignorant" as well. He/she would be warning me for a "flame." There is a difference. But, you haven't shown yourself to be much for actual definitions.
Not much for actual definitions? Who, of the two of us, intentionally ignored every dictionary entry that used the words "personal" and "private" in their definitions of each other? Who, of the two of us, is the one running around claiming that dictionary definitions can't be used to describe philosophical distinctions?

Also, it would be nice if you would not tell me how to do my job. I've been moderating this site for close to three years now and I do, actually, happen to know precisely what a "flame" is. All flames are ad hominems [at least in the looser use which I employed above] but not all ad hominems are flames.

Which ones? For the most part, you repeat the same one over and over.
This:

You're evading my accusation. Clearly, despite your own denial, you're advocating the distribution of more widespread rights to a group [since the government can do this pretty much no matter what, and your exception on an individual level requires a very specific set of circumstances] than exist in our private lives. Your example above doesn't demonstrate how this is not the case. You can't just replace an individual with a mass of individuals in terms of moral questioning.

You respond to the closing sentance but nothing else. Your response apparently indicates that I'm attempting to "replace" the individual with the state in ascribing a certain set of rights to either, while forgetting that I am, in fact, making a distinction between the legitimate moral function of the two, which is rather obviously not the same thing as replacing one with the other.

When I post this:

We're talking past each other then, as I never implied that it was morally appropriate to 'stake a claim' on something beyond your life and its product. my point is that, ultimately, the "means of production" can't be said to be a social possession because the factories, mills, and assembly machines and such aren't any less the product of someone's life work just because they can build things really fast or employ thousands of people.

You reply with the vague query "If you and I build a bridge together, which one of us owns it?" I, being the glutton for punishment that I am, decide to humor you anyway, but your question was exasperatingly inadequate for use in that particular excersize.

When I say "Again, here is the source of our disagreement made manifest. I maintain that all private property is a personal possession, regardless of how badly you wish that weren't the case," you answer that I haven't "written one word to support that" while ignoring the fact that I've constantly been pointing out [then and since] that factories and such [as long as the funds were attained via a legitimate exchange] are still the product of its investor's life work and that whether I should choose to invest my money into small possessions or factories is my business. If I'm repeating myself, it's usually either because my opponent is too or he's ignoring my arguments altogether. You claimit's the "first time I've been bold enough to assert it," even though such an assertion is pretty damn obvious when I maintain that personal and private property are the same thing in the first place.

When you say that "Even if that's so, you've given no reason why the distinction between the "ultimate" means of production and the immediate means of production is a significant one," and I reply that I'm trying to " force some consistency from people philosophically," you ignore that sentence entirely and go on to describe the importance of the distinction between mammals and humans.

Should I go on?

"Constant"? It only came up after you explicitly told me that you have no interest in my arguments.
And what, exactly, obligates me to have interest in your arguments if I've found nothing contained in them to convince me of their legitimacy? Similarly, what obligates you to do the same with my arguments, if you think they're su useless? I think it's been fairly well established that we've each got an unusual amount of contempt for the other's ideas. Why am I supposed to have interest in them?

Why bother, if you're not interested?
To make people think. Hopefully, someone out there has.

Since we're clearly pretty well done with our existing argument, if you care to entice me into another debate... why don't you tell me exactly what it is you don't like about Rousseau?
Well, bear in mind that I haven't read him yet, so my opinions about his subject matter aren't yet definitive ones; I'm operating on what may well be flawed third party definitions of his ideas.

For one thing, he subtly suggests that the practice of comparing ourselves to others is "not natural," which is a bit hard for me to believe. In my opinion, he gets a bit too carried away when it comes to pride and hubris; whether he intended this or not he seems to be implying that a reasonable amount of pride in one's own identity is not natural.

He also argues, in Discourse on the Arts and Sciences that the arts and sciences are not beneficial to us, because they are a result of man's vanity [which I find amusing, since he was himself a composer]. Now, they may well be the product of our vanity, but that does nothing to negate the material rewards brought to us by said arts and sciences. Our "vanity" has cured diseases, discovered planets and mathematical concepts: it has created breathtakingly beautiful works of art and it has, ultimately, transformed humanity from a race of savages into what it is today. Here, he seems to be arguing that the further we are from nature, the less free we are.

Discourse on Inequality is even worse, where he suggests that mankind has been "degenerating" since its infancy. I've also seen much of that sentiment echoed on these forums, since a lot of people like to talk about the cave-man era as if it was some glorious pinnacle of ethics, citing the presence of early communal societies as some sort of primitave utopia.

In The Social Contract [which is clearly a precursor to both Socialism and Authoritarianism], Rousseau suggests that one can somehow preserve themselves and "remian free" by way of submitting to the general will of the surrounding public. He suggests that submitting oneself to the general will, one prevents against being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves. Saying "by submitting the the public as a whole you prevent yourself from being subordinate to the wills of others" is such a gross contradiction I don't even know where to begin. He maintains that we are "collectively" the authors of laws, but if this were actually the case, laws would probably be a self-contradicting litany of ridiculous statutes. He's basically suggesting that it's possible to have everyone's desires manifest in any one particular code of laws, which is a ridiculous proposition.

Again, please remember that I've never read Rousseau and I'm not even sure that any of this is even correct, even though I trust my source.

Since you love dictionaries so much, how about this definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:...

... which is, as it happens, precisely what I said of "private" and "personal."
I'm going off the strict interpretation here, thanks. I'll concede that the latter half of the definition is often the case, but when I maintain that the two terms can be used interchangably, I'd figure it would have been obvious that I'm more interested in the stricter sense of the defenition.

If $OBJECT is the subject of the sentence, and "personal" is the adjective, "private" can be used interchangably in any context I can think of. The English language is something of a mess, so there's probably a few exceptions here and there, but I'm talking about the normal use of the terms rather than their exceptions.

It's sort of funny because you seem to be implying that the difference is so marked that even an idiot could perceive it, yet you've failed to provide me with a single example of how and why these terms don't mean the same thing. Care to give it a shot now, or did you actually try already?

If I have personal feelings for someone, they are also private. I would not want someone shouting them into a loudspeaker downtown.

If I have personal possessions, their relation to my being can be said to be a private one, since it's no one else's business what I own or what I do with my possessions, provided they don't bring harm to others.

If I have personal political and ethical affilitations, they are private in the sense that they're not neccesarily the opinions of my neighbor or you or Kobe Bryant.

If I have a personal distate for a certain item of, say, food or clothing, it is a private preference, since it may not neccessarily be shared by everyone else. Now, my opinions about sauerkraut, black olives, or bermuda shorts may or may not be common ones, but it's still a private preference on virtue of the fact that it's a product of how my mind [or my tastebuds] reacts to the constant stimulus of reality.

I have not seen any evidence that you accord "basic respect" to anyone or their ideas.
To people? Yes. To their ideas? Usually not. Depends on the content of said ideas. You'll notice, I haven't actually come out and levelled any character accusations against you as you have done to me, rather I've had some choice words for the philosophy you've descibed over the course of our discussion. To you, I have accorded precisely as much respect as you deserve; to your ideas I have expressed nothing more than contempt.

Again, you're taking this entire discussion to personally.


Ah, but that's the problem. People need not "embody your values" in order to deserve respect and to be treated with dignity.
Dignity is one thing, respect is a different concept. I'll treat people with dignity until they breach my desire to be treated in the same fashion [as you have done with me in your previous post, what with all the "ignorant and pig-headed" garbage, not to mention the armchair psychologizing you've chosen to engage in on behalf of a person whom you've never met and likely never will]. I'll respect people when they deserve it. What reason do I have to respect someone on the street who may be just as likely to stick a gun in my face as he is to offer his services as, say, a janitor [which my room really could use]?

Unearned respect is not respect at all, and it contradicts the idea of interacting with others under the auspices of the proverbial "clean slate." As I said before, I don't think we should interact with people with the scales tipped towards hatred or love.

In other words, "It's okay for me to treat you like shit, as long as you can, too."

This contradicts the whole basis for civilization, in which the rest of us say, "I won't treat you like shit, as long as you don't treat me like shit, either."
Looks like someone has never been confronted with the term rational egoism before and if he has [like most of its opponents] he has chosen to ignore the first word as having no power over the second.

I've got no patience for distortions. I haven't treated you like shit, just your ideas. You, on the other hand, have been quick to call me "immature" and "pig-headed" and various other things.

So, in one of the few places in which people actually have the opportunity to engage in extensive discussion an debate with people from around the world... [I]that is the place you think we should give up on ideals of mutual respect?
Do you? I don't remember hurling insults at my opponent. You have done so several times.

People should be judged, not on their ideas, but on their willingness to consider others'. If "shortly after opening their mouth" people indicate to you that they have no intention of listening to you, then I'll concede the point. But if you are judging them based on your opinion of their existing conclusions, then you have merely decided to shelter yourself from anyone who disagrees with you... not a very rational position.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. People should be judged by their actions and how those actions affect both themselves and others around them. By your logic, an open-minded serial murder might very well be a virtuous man to be judged accordingly. I can only breathe a sigh of relief that our justice system does not operate in the manner which you have just proposed.

Besides, if one holds the idea that one should be open-minded about things, aren't we actually judging them based on their ideas?

Yes you did. You told me you won't listen to my ideas, so why should we discuss yours?
Wrong. I mentioned that it's pointless to try and change the other's mind [given that our ideas seem to be more or less antipodal] and you went on with your next post with the immaturity nonsense. I did nothing of the sort; and in fact I resent and will not accept the implication that I did. Go back and read our posts back and forth again [as I have already done several times] and then try to tell me with a straight face that I was the one who voluntarily indicated my personality traits as a legitimate avenue of discussion here.

You attempt to suggest, in post #77, that my arguments are invalid because I've "failed to convince anyone" which opened the door for me to point out that I'm not neccesarily trying to. You were the one who took it from there in the latter half of post #83.

Actually, if you knew anything about psychology at all, you would know that shame is the precise opposite of guilt. But I agree that you should not be shamed... what shame does imply is that there is "something wrong with you." [As opposed to guilt, which goes one of two ways: either "there is something wrong with the world (and I feel bad about it)" or "I did something wrong."]
What the hell kind of bullshit is that? How is it possible to have shame without guilt? Why would one feel "shame" for an act they didn't commit, or have anything to do with?

Since you're only using the dictionary when it suits your purposes [and ignoring it when it doesn't], I suppose I've got little recourse but to result to turnabout:

shame P Pronunciation Key (shm)
n.
a. A painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness, or disgrace.
b. Capacity for such a feeling: Have you no shame?
1. One that brings dishonor, disgrace, or condemnation.
2. A condition of disgrace or dishonor; ignominy.
3. A great disappointment.

Guilt is not the only prerequisite for shame, I'll admit: but it's an integral one in most cases. For the purposes of the distinction I was trying to make, I was referring to the shame incurred by guilt. They're certainly not "opposites" in any event.

Shame and pride go together, turning inward toward the self.
Guilt and (for lack of a better word) "justification" turn outward.
Errrr..... yyyyeaaaah.... Last I checked, shame and pride were actually opposites. What do you mean they "go together?" If you mean that they're similar because they're both inward emotions, you'd be correct, but suggesting the go hand in hand [as is the implication in saying that they "go together] is something of a peculiar assertation.

Shame-prone individuals tend to defend against their shame with prideful and arrogant exteriors. It's called "narcissism".
Here we go with this armchair psychologising again. Please, you're really not convincing me with this shit. It may often be the case, but why are you so interested in refusing the possibility that a proud person might actually have a legitimate basis for his pride?

Mostly the posters who try to have a conversation with you, but won't take the bait when you twist their words around. You can count them in this thread, the last one in which we engaged, and several others.
So two or three people is "everyone" now? I've seldom been impressed by people like yourself and Cat-Tribe [at least philosophically, intellectually you're both pretty on the ball], and the opinions of those around me has seldom, if ever, had any significant bearing on my ethics. Suggesting that I'm wrong or "raging" [despite the fact that I'm not the one hurling insults at my opponent] because "everyone sees it" is a bit of a childish argument.

Equivocation. Complex question. False dilemma.

I have named every one of them, when you made them, in this thread and the last. You probably just missed it, like you "miss" everything else I post.
I don't buy the "complex question" fallacy in the first place, so that one's out the window. The dismissal of "complex questions" as fallacies is an excuse on the part of the person being challenged to evade a particularly difficult or unpleasant question. It's more or less a blank check for people to dismiss questions that they can't or won't answer as a "complex question" fallacy, since whether or not one can actually answer is dependent on his own character traits.

I haven't employed any false dilemmas, because to do so assumes that not only is my position wrong, but that I'm not defending it [which I have done at every turn]; it would only be a false dilemma if I were assuming the alternative were correct without any explanation; as if it were right simply on virtue of the fact that its alternative isn't. When I say something is wrong, I say "x is wrong, and here's why; y is right and here's why," I don't merely take it for granted that you will understand my defense for y without stating it; indeed you seem to have had a hard enough time actually answering my points when I do.

"Equivocation" hasn't occured here since I haven't seperated my argument [private property and personal property should be treated the same...] and its premise [...because they both have the same ultimate source], which is neccessary for the committal of an equivocation fallacy. A lot of people just assume that any presence of ambiguity indicates the presence of equivocation as a fallacy.

I can be general, and you should still get it: Regardless of what I say about my positions regarding property, you continually either paint me as a "communist," or direct your attacks against communist ideology. Communists (most of them, anyway) happen to agree with me on property as a positive right... but attacking them is attacking the argument in its weakest form.

Specific enough for you?

Ummmm... I'm having no small amount of difficulty finding where I called you a Communist in this thread [although I may have taken you for one initially in our first encounter]. In fact, I can't see where Communism even has anything to do with our discussion.

Either you're equivocating, or I misread your original position on the topic. When you said you have ideas you "like" it read to me as if they make you happy, not as if you find them philosophically satisfying.

If you want to stretch the word "like" farther than it likes to go, make that clear. I, however, hold ideas that are convincing (i.e. true, probably true, or the best I can find) and yet which do not make me happy. Sometimes they make me sad, sometimes uncomfortable, sometimes disappointed. Sometimes, yes, I like them.

See, now you're making the distinction again... in the previous paragraph, you wanted to say that you necessarily "like" the ones you find convincing.

It's a bit of both. An understandable miscommunication, but I meant to imply that I "like" them because I find them philosophically satisfying.

It is the fluid way in which you shift definitions that makes rational discussion impossible. Maybe you should study a dictionary after all.
Examples? They seem to be abundant, according to you, so perhaps you could help us all out and quote a few? Bear in mind I've already discovered a few of my own mistakes, so instances for which I have already apologised and clarified don't count anymore. It's curious that you should accuse me of "shifting" definitions, when it was you who said "As a general rule, common usage dictionaries are not good sources for philosophical or other technical distinctions."

I haven't shifted a thing; in fact I've been so literal as to amend my own arguments when I discover a discrepancy in my wording [such as my earlier comments on "aids" and "means"]. You have done no such thing, even when confronted with volumes of information that suggest you [and the philosophers on which you based your concept of property rights] were mistaken. You use the Dictionary and the Thesaurus when it suits you, throwing its definitions out the window on the grounds that its "not [a] good [source] for philosophical or other technical distinctions" when it doesn't. Methinks its you who's avoiding definitions and shifting them to suit your ends.

Oh, "suggesting the possibility" now, are we? Have you backed down from your earlier assertion that it is impossible to convince you otherwise? Or are you, once again, just saying whatever seems to fit the moment?
Well I could have said "suggesting the certainty" that I'm right, but that would have probably provoked a more violent response. Since you've chosen to force the issue, I'll go ahead and suggest it: I'm suggesting the certaintly that I know I'm right.

I shall. I have no interest in debating those who are not interested in debate, but in argument.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

After all this, do you really expect me to believe that you're so "noble"?

(I know I haven't replied to every little line you wrote. I found much of it redundant, and I also need to get back to my own work.)
I don't particularly care what you believe [on either account]. I've left what I view to be the intellectually bankrupt parts of your posts out as well, since apparently we're just ignoring the parts that we don't like now [nevermind that you've never answered any of these "redundancies" in the first place, which is likely why you perceive such redundancy as being the case]. Still, it's amusing to me because in scrolling up a random amount and looking at a random passage I have in fact discovered, by chance, two passages that were left untouched, anbd were, in fact, new material. When I respond to your statement that "you have ceased to pretend that people do not only "solve problems" with their minds, they also "produce things," you don't even bother to dignify it with a response, because a quick look at the posts here show that I'm correct in pointing out that I had identified the distinction some time ago, and you were incorrect in maintaining that I hadn't. It's got nothing to do with redundancy [since you were the one who brought it up, and that was the only real chance I'd been afforded to answer your allegations in the first place] and everything to do with a reluctance to admit your own mistakes.

No. I'm claiming that some unseen entity with the foresight to convey upon me rights, called "nature," does not exist. Of course, I am confined by the "laws" of the universe. Rights exist because of human intellect, not natural forces. (Yes, I know, brains operate according to physical processes. So does the brain of an newt. There is a bit of a difference between the intellect of a newt and the intellect of a human :) )

It is by your reason that you identify and value your rights. It is by your reason that you respect other's rights in order to protect your own.

I've always understood "rights" to be inviolable. After all, if they are not, the next random dictator can violate them all he or she wants. "Rights" become meaningless and our relationship reverts to the state of the jungle. As such, I do not have the "right" to do whatever I want. Society defines my rights (otherwise I'm still in the jungle), and then punishes me when I do otherwise.

This is pointless. We are using separate definitions for rights and then trying to argue about them.

Some human beings suffer the same problem. The very young, the very old, the mentally handicapped, the sick or injured (Edit: the comatose, for example), etc. Do they have no recognized rights?

Society does recognize limited rights for those groups. Children do not have the right to drive, the mentally handicapped cannot make important financial decisions.

They were born with rights that were only limited by the forces of nature, and society took some of those rights away for the protection of society.

For reasons described above, certain implications of this position should make us very uncomfortable.

Yep, it can be troublesome.

Excuse me Mr.
do you have the time
or are you so important
that it stands still for you

excuse me Mr.
lend me your ear
or are you not only blind
but do you not hear

excuse me Mr.
isn't that your oil in the sea
and the pollution in the air Mr.
whose could that be

excuse me Mr.
but I'm a mister too
and you're givin' Mr. a bad name
Mr. like you

so I'm taking the Mr.
from out in front of your name
cause it's a Mr. like you
that puts the rest of us to shame
it's a Mr. like you
that puts the rest of us to shame

and I've seen enough to know
that I've seen too much

excuse me Mr.
can't you see the children dying
you say that you can't help them
Mr. you're not even trying

so Mr. when you're rattling
on heaven's gate
let me tell you Mr.
by then it is too late

cause Mr. when you get there
they don't ask how much you saved
all the'll want to know, Mr.
Is what you gave

Wow, so much political opinionation...

well, heres mine :D

If I were to share my computer with you, you would have to be a moral human being, in the understanding of socialism, and understand that AS A NATION together, we share my computer, I let you use my computer because I respect you a fellow citizen of our Socialist nation, you agree to share the computer with me for the same reasons.

I hate peo....well..I hate WHEN people say like "Well, then people could use your toothbrush!" Well, if I was the leader of a Socialist nation, and someone wanted to use someone else's toothbrush, id probably lock them away in an asylum if they are that stupid to push the moral limits of society... For socialism to work anywhere flawlessly in this world, people HAVE TO STOP BEING SO DAMN STUPID!!!!

I admit, I'm not responding to everything, as I desperately need to extricate myself from this discussion so as to prepare a real-life class discussion for tomorrow. There are a few points, however, that demand a response.

[QUOTE]You accuse me of building distortions, while somehow coming to the conclusion that ideas are not cognitive products.

That was your position, not mine. I insisted that they are products, you said they are not. If this has been a simple matter of misunderstanding, I apologize for making so much of it.

Yes, and in every observable context that I have seen the words "private" and "personal" property, I've seen no reason why the words cannot be used interchagably.

"That parking lot is private property belonging to the Wal-Mart corporation."
"That parking lot is personal property belonging to the Wal-Mart corporation."

I think everyone should agree that this is not an appropriate use of the word "person". Everyone except for you, because you do not understand the difference.

One could probably get away with using "aid" in the definition for "means" and vice-versa

Using a word in the definition of another does not make them synonyms. It means they are related, and understanding one helps to give the meaning of another. To be synonyms, they have to mean the same thing.

So it serves as a reminder that certain words can be used interchangably?

That is not what I said. I did not say that a thesaurus determines "interchangeability" but that it gives suggestions about words that "may" do. Perhaps you should check the meaning of "may"? It means, "possibly", "might"... indeed, these are precise synonyms for the word (except in its use to name a month or a person) because they can be used interchangeably with it. But what they mean in the context of the thesaurus is that finding words in the same entry does not make them "interchangeable." In fact, often when a writer refers to a thesaurus, they are hoping to find a word that works better... something they could never find if every entry meant the same thing.

My thesaurus lists "firmness" as a synonym of "decision." Surely the two are not fungible terms?

I am not responding to the longer argument on money and property... We have tried continuously to reach agreement... er, well, I have tried to reach agreement and you have tried to showboat for some invisible "audience"... at any rate, we're just going in circles.

I maintain that your theory stumbles at precisely the point as good old Locke's... You can justify personal possession, and property rights in things you produce yourself, but you require sleight of hand to make the same justification apply to private property more generally... Private property, by its very nature, is that which has been deprived of its public nature, its public nature being primary.

Actually, ad hominem has a looser use of referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument.

Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary. If you want to check a dictionary, there is none more authoritative than this.

"Ad hominem" refers to a fallacy of argumentation. If an insulting or personally hurtful comment does not refer to the argument, indeed, explicitly separates itself from the argument, then it is not an "ad hominem" fallacy. Fallacies cannot exist separately from arguments.

Who, of the two of us, is the one running around claiming that dictionary definitions can't be used to describe philosophical distinctions?

If they could, there wouldn't be much use in studying philosophy. Philosophers, like any other specialists, have developed a technical language distinct from ordinary usage.

This is not to say that one should not use dictionaries, period. They are useful tools. In some circumstances, when the usage of a philosophical term is fairly narrow and undisputed, the dictionary may even get it right.

But one can hardly claim that "personal", "private" and "property" are undisputed philosophical terms. To understand them in a philosophical sense, one has to turn to the history of philosophy, not a collection of phrases in Webster's.

All flames are ad hominems [at least in the looser use which I employed above]

Well, I'm sorry to have to tell you to do your job, but that looser sense does not exist... or, if it does, it is a corruption of the term by people who do not understand its strict significance in argumentation.

You will not find that definition in a reputable dictionary. (Maybe some "open" internet dictionary, I can't speak to that.)

but not all ad hominems are flames.

That, at least, is true.

When you say that "Even if that's so, you've given no reason why the distinction between the "ultimate" means of production and the immediate means of production is a significant one," and I reply that I'm trying to " force some consistency from people philosophically," you ignore that sentence entirely and go on to describe the importance of the distinction between mammals and humans.

I'm sorry I ignored that sentence. What I should have said was, "It is disingenuous to claim to force some "consistency from people philosophically" when your own definitions change according to circumstance.

More to the point, I asked for a significant distinction. Obviously, one can distinguish between the "ultimate" means of production, and the immediate one. One can also, if one wishes, distinguish each of the intermediary means of production in the chain from "ultimate" to "immediate"... but I fail to see why one would bother.

Saying you want to "force some consistency from people philosophically" does not answer the question. You may as well have said, "I just want to force people to accept the distinctions I think are significant." You have never told us why they are significant.

And what, exactly, obligates me to have interest in your arguments if I've found nothing contained in them to convince me of their legitimacy?

For the last time, you literally told me that you would not have changed your mind regardless of what I said. Your assertion was not contingent on the content of my arguments... it precluded them.

Well, bear in mind that I haven't read him yet, so my opinions about his subject matter aren't yet definitive ones; I'm operating on what may well be flawed third party definitions of his ideas.

Probably. It's almost inevitable, until you read the source. And even then, you may need to read it more than once before you manage to break through the nonsense other people have tried to inject into it.

It happened to me with Hobbes. When I was made to read him, I had been so influenced by what other people have said that I could not see what he was really after. Within the last year or so, however, on further readings... I now see the really interesting, thoughtful, and caring side of Hobbes that most people pretend does not exist. Usually, these people have not read him either... it becomes a vicious cycle.

For one thing, he subtly suggests that the practice of comparing ourselves to others is "not natural," which is a bit hard for me to believe.

Actually, he thinks comparing ourselves to others is completely natural. It's just that he thinks we should be comparing actual attributes of our selves, like our strength, our intelligence, and our virtue. What he objected to was the courtiers prancing about wearing make-up and kissing each other's asses. He saw it as fake, and as engendering a false sense of self... and with it, a false "love of self" (amour-propre) or "vanity" that is a corruption of the real self-preservative instinct and healthy "pride."

In my opinion, he gets a bit too carried away when it comes to pride and hubris; whether he intended this or not he seems to be implying that a reasonable amount of pride in one's own identity is not natural.

Quite the contrary!! He thinks natural pride is normal... and beneficial to the individual and the species. It is vanity that he abhors.

He also argues, in Discourse on the Arts and Sciences that the arts and sciences are not beneficial to us, because they are a result of man's vanity [which I find amusing, since he was himself a composer].

There is a great deal of irony in Rousseau. Indeed, he does not think that the Arts and Sciences are "not beneficial to us." To the contrary, he thinks that human beings have accomplished much (and there is no turning back), but he thinks that society would be better if we could rid it of the fake posturing that accompanies interest in the "arts."

Here, he seems to be arguing that the further we are from nature, the less free we are.

Well, that's partially true. He thought we had enslaved our true selves to the falseness demanded by "civilized" society. Nietzche, whom you have favorably mentioned, looks back approvingly on certain aspects of Rousseau.

Discourse on Inequality is even worse, where he suggests that mankind has been "degenerating" since its infancy.

Again, he is more subtle than that, and employs irony to wonderful effect. Also, it's important to read the footnotes... he purposely put things in there for the most interested audiences. (He was almost always writing with two audiences in mind... the one in front of him, and the generations of the future that he thought would understand him better.)

In The Social Contract [which is clearly a precursor to both Socialism and Authoritarianism],

You really have gotten skewed third-party information. As Asher Horowitz correctly notes in his classic text on Rousseau, Rousseau is the first major theorist to draw a "necessarily democratic conclusion" from "liberal assumptions." [He also considers Rousseau a proto-Marxist, but primarily due to Rousseau's concept of "perfectibility" which is comparable to Marx's of "species-being." Rousseau explicitly rejected the notion of a centralized or collectivized economy, although he argued that relative equality in wealth tends to stabilize society and protect individual liberty.... so he was for a regulated market.

Rousseau suggests that one can somehow preserve themselves and "remian free" by way of submitting to the general will of the surrounding public.

The general will is really just a way of explaining why democracy is the only sensible way to run a society... and why it makes some sense for the individual to actually obey the law.

Saying "by submitting the the public as a whole you prevent yourself from being subordinate to the wills of others" is such a gross contradiction I don't even know where to begin.

He means what every democratic theorist means: If you let one person rule, you are subject to his will. If you let a small number of people rule, you are subject to their will. The general will, however, does not serve any narrow private interest... Instead, by including as many people as possible in decision-making, it seeks to cancel out competing private interests to find something that "everyone" can agree on.

Obviously it is impractical that "everyone" should really agree... so most democratic theorists, like Rousseau, settle on majoritarianism as the "best we can do." It's better than having less-than-a-majority rule, anyway.

He's basically suggesting that it's possible to have everyone's desires manifest in any one particular code of laws, which is a ridiculous proposition.

No, he says that our private interests conflict... so no code of laws will every be what "everyone" wants. What it is meant to be is a code that "everyone" can agree on because it does not privilege one person or group over another.

Again, please remember that I've never read Rousseau and I'm not even sure that any of this is even correct, even though I trust my source.

I am sure your source is trustworthy and honest... but it also takes years of study to really get what Rousseau is after. Even so, most of us are probably getting aspects of it wrong in one way or another.

Still, I can say with great confidence, as something of an "expert" on Rousseau (I am publishing a paper comparing him to Jefferson and Rousseau), that he is neither an authoritarian nor a socialist. I encourage you to read him yourself... and you need not be overly influenced by my opinion or your friends. I encourage everyone to read philosophy with an open mind, as I have had the experience of being duped by my preconceptions.

I'll concede that the latter half of the definition is often the case, but when I maintain that the two terms can be used interchangably, I'd figure it would have been obvious that I'm more interested in the stricter sense of the defenition.

Yet the only justification for that assertion that you have given is that the "thesaurus says so." I have submitted evidence to the effect that "synonymy" in a thesaurus need not be strict synonymy in the philosophical sense... and, moreover, I refer you to a history of philosophy that has distinguished the two. Yet you persist.

If $OBJECT is the subject of the sentence, and "personal" is the adjective, "private" can be used interchangably in any context I can think of.

500 people own a movie theatre, to the exclusion of others. It is their private property, not their personal property... as in the sentence, "That theatre is privately owned." Correct... But "That theatre is personally owned" does not make sense, because it does not belong to a person.


*snip*

Every one of your examples has the form, "X is personal, and it is also private."

I have already admitted as much. All personal possessions are also private. Indeed, you need not have provided so many examples, because I have already told you that the general form

If X is personal, then X is private.

... is true, because the private contains the personal. The problem is that not every statement of the form, "X is private, so it is also personal" is true.

I've got no patience for distortions.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but I really did just have a good laugh there. Thanks for that. ;)

Clearly you have no patience for distortions, unless they happen to be your own. I guess it's like scratching fingernails on a blackboard.

[Omitting portions re:dignity, which are clearly going to continue going in circles.]

What the hell kind of bullshit is that? How is it possible to have shame without guilt?

Example 1: People are made to feel ashamed of being black (because other people are assholes). Generally they don't also feel guilty about it.

Example 2: Someone may feel ashamed of masturbating too much, because he thinks "what is wrong with me?" He does not feel guilty, because he has not hurt anyone, nor contemplated hurting anyone, because or during his masturbation.

Why would one feel "shame" for an act they didn't commit, or have anything to do with?

Shame doesn't necessarily have anything to do with acts. (It may, but not necessarily.) Shame is a reflection on the self. It is the low end of self-esteem.

Guilt is not the only prerequisite for shame, I'll admit: but it's an integral one in most cases.

How do you get from a dictionary definition that does not distinguish guilt as "an integral" one or involved in "most cases"... to assert exactly that?

For the purposes of the distinction I was trying to make, I was referring to the shame incurred by guilt. They're certainly not "opposites" in any event.

They are, and they produce opposite reactions. "Guilt" wants to be found out--that's why a "guilty" person "returns to the scene of the crime." It results in neurotic symptoms, because it resists repression. When you feel guilty, you want to confess... even if only to a priest or someone who won't rat you out.

"Shame" does exactly the opposite. When you feel ashamed, you shrink into yourself... The last thing you want to do is let people know what you are ashamed of.

Shame hides. Guilt does not.

Last I checked, shame and pride were actually opposites. What do you mean they "go together?"

I was not clear. I apologize.

Shame and pride are on opposing ends of the same spectrum of emotion. (As opposed to guilt, which is on a completely different spectrum altogether.) As such, the only way to repress strong feelings of shame is to defend against them by a false sense of pride. Thus, when one encounters a person who is especially arrogant and puffed up about her/himself, one has reason to suspect that he/she is covering feelings of shame... of which he/she may not be consciously aware.

This is to be clearly distinguished from "healthy pride", which in a technical sense should be described as a "positive sense of self-esteem."

It may often be the case, but why are you so interested in refusing the possibility that a proud person might actually have a legitimate basis for his pride?

I'm not. But, generally speaking, people who have legitimate bases for their pride don't need to put on a big show to prove to anyone how great they are. Ironically, people who have a legitimate basis for pride, and who are not troubled by some hidden shame... are humble when it comes to dealing with others. They don't need any reminders that they can be proud of themselves. They just are.

I've seldom been impressed by people like yourself and Cat-Tribe [at least philosophically, intellectually you're both pretty on the ball],

Thanks for that. I also regard you as an exceptionally intelligent individual... albeit one who is confused philosophically and unnecessarily tied down to a very narrow range of ideas.

Indeed, I suspect you may be too intelligent for your own good. Intelligent people are exceptionally good at arguing around ideas (and feelings) that they would rather not deal with.

I don't buy the "complex question" fallacy in the first place, so that one's out the window.

Once again, you are smarter than every other philosopher of logic. Sorry, I forgot.

The dismissal of "complex questions" as fallacies is an excuse on the part of the person being challenged to evade a particularly difficult or unpleasant question.

No, the complex question is used either to introduce a concept as an assumption without anyone noticing (by focusing attention on the immediate question) or to compel someone to admit a difficult point due to the construction of the question (rather than a positive argument).

It is a fallacy.

I haven't employed any false dilemmas,

First of all, most of the "either/or" distinctions you try to make are false dilemmas. More generally, underscoring your entire argument is the notion that if you give up on natural rights to property, you give up on all rights to property. Either natural private possession... or communism.

Clearly this is a false dilemma. (And while you may object now that you do not actually believe this, you tend to slide back into that position whenever it is convenient.)

it would only be a false dilemma if I were assuming the alternative were correct without any explanation; as if it were right simply on virtue of the fact that its alternative isn't.

This does not make any sense in terms of the definition of a "false dilemma." Do you know what that is?

A false dilemma occurs when you suggest two possible positions, when in fact these are not the only possible options. You may also assume that your preferred alternative is correct, but that has nothing to do with the fallacy. You have, in fact, made positive arguments in favor of natural rights to property... but you fallaciously pretend that the only other option is to have no right to property.

"Equivocation" hasn't occured here since I haven't seperated my argument [private property and personal property should be treated the same...] and its premise [...because they both have the same ultimate source], which is neccessary for the committal of an equivocation fallacy.

Hmm... not sure what you're getting at here, since equivocation occurs when you use the same word with different meanings, as if it were the same.

You are really demonstrating a poor understanding of logical fallacies.

[Also, I notice that in the formulation above you have retreated to the position that private property and personal property should be "treated" the same. May I infer that you admit that they do not, in fact, refer to the same thing... however they may be "treated"?]

Ummmm... I'm having no small amount of difficulty finding where I called you a Communist in this thread [although I may have taken you for one initially in our first encounter]. In fact, I can't see where Communism even has anything to do with our discussion.

You have, in fact, called me a communist (though perhaps not in this thread, and it's not important enough to check). More to the point, you consistently misconstrue my argument as suggesting that society can "just take" your property for the benefit of all... or that I am suggesting you should not be allowed to have property in the means of production. You persistently misconstrue my points as inherently communist, which they are not.

You use the Dictionary and the Thesaurus when it suits you,

No, I condescend to the dictionary and thesaurus to satisfy you. If it were up to me, they would be all but banned in philosophical discussions.

I'm done now. This post is already too long, and I really do have to get to work. In particular, I am not responding to demands to go back and check the rest of our posts to each other, to determine "who did what." I will admit that I may have missed something of substance here or there... and that it is possible that much of what I perceive to be your shiftyness is due at least in part to miscommunication. These posts have become too long for me to keep track, with any certainty, of what definition we actually were using five posts ago.