The Decline of Violence

[moda0306]

I don't know if I could ever be 100% sure it's correct.

The older I get, the more I like the pragmatic approach: we don't need 100% certainty in all things. The idea that we can achieve 100% probably stems from science, but has little application in our daily experiences.
Things like ownership are not an end in itself, but are means to an end. As long as we can achieve the end goal, it is imo useless to try an make a 100% determination of the means.
.

+1
arguments about 100% moral certainty is a distraction that allows people with views that result in questionable or awful ends, to inject "moral relativism" into the conversation and relive themselves of facing the burden of the results their ideas lead to...  "sure government is violent but you cant prove the origin of property isn't violent so"... "what difference does it make"

It's not a distraction if you're basing your argument on the premise that "government shouldn't provide a safety net because this is force, and force is inherantly evil." 

If we can realize that force is an inherant part of our society, even within claims we enjoy making on the world around us, as well as inherant to your preferance that government tax me to defend your cliaims, then we can put that baby to bed and quit acting like a social safety net is some special kind of evil, unless we want to argue that point from an actual valid premise.

[Mountaineer]

Oh, would not the world be a better place if we humans just agreed there was the triune God and the 10 Commandments and the two Jesus gave, and they were the way to live our lives.  But, I guess that would make for rather dull discussions about moralism or the rights of the grasshoppers, let alone there would be no reason to be discussing violence since there would not be any.  This whole discussion is a remarkable reminder that "original sin" is alive and well.  The Christian worldview really does explain quite a lot about the causes of almost all issues (I don't want to go down a rabbit hole by claiming 100% and thus initiating a feeding frenzy) and the way we treat one another.  Anyone want to kiss and make up?

[moda0306]

Perhaps someone can let me know if I'm not being clear with my questions about establishment of property.  I've tried asking in many ways and to me all I see are circular answers or misunderstandings of what I think are clear questions.

Incidently, this notion that property is somehow confusing is missplaced in my opinion. When you go to work, are you confused about who owns the computer in your office? How about the microwave in the break room? Were you confused about who owns the car you drove to work, or the clothes that you put on? Do you wander into your neighbors house, open his fridge and grab a beer and say "ohhhh I didn't realize you thought that was your property. I think it's mine now we have to fight over it". Do you know which house is yours? If someone wanders in and goes in your fridge, or starts unpacking their clothes and tells you it's their house...are you going to abide by the "property is theft" theory?

99.9% of people know 99.9% of the time what they own and what they don't own. They don't even have to know who owns the other stuff. They just need to know what they own and if they don't own something then assume it belongs to someone else. This stuff is not confusing, we learn it in elementary school.

I think the attempt to portray it as confusing is just to try and support the idea that: if there is some question at some point whether or not someone owns something that is evidence that property rights don't exist, property is theft from the collective, everything is owned collectively and we should have rulers decide who gets what based on the decisions of the rulers. That mindset convienently ignores that this just means the rulers are the defacto owners of everything since they now control and are responsible for all resources.

I have no doubt that within our current system and social norms, I own my clothes, and my boss owns the microwave, and I'm not about to question either one.  However, for any of this to matter, we have to make vast claims against natural resources around us.  If everyone assumed that "if I don't own this, someone else must," then no land would ever be "owned."  However, people didn't assume that, and our economy is ENTIRELY BUILT on the idea that our Western socety has legitimate claim to the lands we "own."  (sorry... not western "society"... societies don't exist... how about individual settlers)

If it were simple, people wouldn't look at land disputes and scratch their heads.  There would be clear, difinitive lines where one person's property existed, and another person's property was stopped.

And thinking that all property is collective (which I don't really... I just think it presents an insolvable moral conundrum in front of us), and the idea that this must be ENFORCED by a government, are two different ideas.  What is morally correct, and the opinions about the nature of the entity to enforce those moral assertions are two different discussions.  That is, of course, unless you think any form of organized enforcement is immoral to begin with, which you do... but I'm not suggesting that community property and the enforcement of such is the same thing.  Perhaps living within an ecological balance with the world around us is the only true moral way to interact with it... but I wouldn't necessarily say that what logically follows is that "we need a government to enforce that."  Enforcement is another topic altogether, with its own complications and moral assertions.

+1
arguments about 100% moral certainty is a distraction that allows people with views that result in questionable or awful ends, to inject "moral relativism" into the conversation and relive themselves of facing the burden of the results their ideas lead to...  "sure government is violent but you cant prove the origin of property isn't violent so"... "what difference does it make"

It's not a distraction if you're basing your argument on the premise that "government shouldn't provide a safety net because this is force, and force is inherantly evil." 

If we can realize that force is an inherant part of our society, even within claims we enjoy making on the world around us, as well as inherant to your preferance that government tax me to defend your cliaims, then we can put that baby to bed and quit acting like a social safety net is some special kind of evil, unless we want to argue that point from an actual valid premise.

  force that steals from one to provide a safety net which hasn't done anything to end poverty and has quite likely increased it (seen the "i get to smoke dope and sit on my ass" video yet? there is your questionable results) is OK because you don't like the ruff and tumble origins of property, is not sound reasoning. I hate to say it over and over but force is not inherently evil, force that steals is evil, force in defense of life liberty and property is justified... if you cant sort out the difference between the two then you really do seem to be saying that force is an inherent part of society "what difference does it make" the results don't matter  its all a grey area...

"Theft" implies prior-ownership.

"Prior Ownership" implies a moral link between you and some physical aspect of the world around you.

If you try to establish links to valuable naturally-occuring assets all over the place that you have no moral connection to, and this is resulting in others not being able to make similar claims, you are EXERTING FORCE against others.

And by making me pay taxes to defend your property, whether your property is legitimately yours or not, is exerting force on me so you don't have to work harder to defend your own property.

Look, if you think something outside your own body is yours in a world where we all are naturally going to interact with things outside our body, the burden of proof, naturally, lies on you.  If I'm going to go hunt on land, and you deem it to be "yours," you need to establish some basis for the idea that it is yours.  What if I disagree with that basis?  You've been hunting on it for a week, so you think you have a moral claim to all that's on it?  How far does your claim go?  1 acre?  40 acres?  As far as the eye can see?  Who is right? 

We need to establish all this BEFORE we ever decide whether defense of said property is morally valid.  Of course, if you can establish a morally valid claim, defense of that clam should very well be considered moral, but there are HUGE disagreements, even within our own society, as to how far our claims on the world around us should be able to be taken... hell Kshartle wouldn't even answer my question about torturing puppies in my front lawn, because he thought I was trying to trap him with it.  If animals don't have rights, is there anything that we can do to them that is inherantly immoral?

These aren't just minute details.  These are the things we build our entire productive society on.  If animals actually have certain rights that we should respect, then that has HUGE ramifications towards how we treat our claims on the world around us, does it not?  How can we be so sure animals have NO moral rights?  Because nature ignores them?  Well nature ignores our rights too. Kshartle says it's because they can't consciously control their behavior.  I'd argue that conscious control of behavior is a matter of degree, but even if he's right, if the implication is that animals have NO rights, then there is NO moral weight to me killing puppies.

Lastly, your comments on poverty could be valid.  Between SS, Medicare, and medicaid, we've significantly cut down rates of poverty among seniors in this country.  If you want to complain about welfare moms, I've got a lot of dead people at the hands of the police/courts/military that you ask government to tax ME to fund for YOU, and we can play this moralizing game all day long.

[Kshartle]

Anyone want to kiss and make up?

With a handle like Mountaineer I picture an awful lot of scraggly beard, coffee breath, possibly bourbon, and chili eating. 

Might have better luck if you call yourself Jessica Rabbit or something.

[Kshartle]

If it were simple, people wouldn't look at land disputes and scratch their heads.  There would be clear, difinitive lines where one person's property existed, and another person's property was stopped.

What land disputes are people scratching their heads over? I mean.....besides governments when they invade areas to take control of the people and the resources?

I am sure there are some but I'd like to hear them.

[moda0306]

K,

Our viewpoint around the inevitability of force comes from the fact that we are physical beings competing for limited resources.  Defending those resources as my own means that I'm forcing you to stay off my land or not use them.  This pits us against each Other inevitably.  Imagine putting 10 people on a deserted island with very limited resources and watching the natural progression of things. Claims of property on that island to the detriment of others are de facto uses of force.

Nevermind the fact that you haven't proven that it's really morally incorrect to begin with, but simply claimed it's self-evident to not use force because we can choose our actions.

The reason you don't believe it's morally wrong to inititate force against another person is because you don't believe in self-ownership. You don't believe in this despite that fact that you clearly control your own body and are responsible for yourself and your actions and the effects of those actions. Just like you use your body to type your arguments and you own the argument, no one else is responsible for it. You are denying the reality of what you are doing over there.

If everyone owns themselves then no one can own anyone else. Therefore no one controls anyone else. Attempts at forcing others to do what they don't want to (redundant) are attempts to control others. They are violations of the rights of others.

If you disagree please don't just repeat that I didn't prove this. That's argument by repetition. Please poke holes at what I wrote and the logic. Am I contradicting myself? Did I say something that's not true?

Well you haven't proved anything moral simply by stating it to be true, but to move on and clarify:

- I have explicitly said that my moral code starts with the idea of individual sovereignty (you call it self-ownership).  Stop telling me (and more importantly, posing to others) that I don't believe this.  I've said it a few times now.  I can't "prove" this to be morally valid, though neither have you.  I can only tell you what I feel, internally.

- I feel that animals have some rights that should be respected by humans.  I can't prove this. 

- Our predicament on earth here presents us with a moral dilemma, where we can't just "float and exist," but actually have to make claims on the world around us.  Nature itself is attempting to assault our individual sovereignty, so we have to fight back by trying to survive.  This means seeking shelter, and the more strong the shelter, the better the survival rate.  This means hunting and growing food (which means killing animals). 

These are not feelings, but FACTS, and if we can agree on the premise of self-ownership, what follows is a necessary moral dilemma, as we all must start to make claims on this earth merely to survive, and more to prosper, and that any claim I make is a claim that may starve you and your family.

So property is not just a product of our efforts, but of the natural resources around us.  These exist independent of our efforts, so our ability to claim them as morally connected to us is questionable, but necessary to survive, and even more to prosper.

So you see, property is not just a moral connection to some amazing thing you created from nothingness, it's an imperfect solution to a moral/ethical dilemma.  See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma

So to respect your individual sovereignty, I have to let you hunt on land that I was hunting on, unless I have some basis to claim that land as my own, and up to this point, I haven't seen you give me a very good layout for what constitutes a valid claim to property.  You can't just say "you know you own your clothes."  What about land?  What about things that existed before we came into being?

So either our moral code is invalid, or we simply have to make the best of these dilemmas that we face because nature put us all on a deserted island together, made it necessary that we eat and take shelter, and said "to hell with your moral code."

[Kshartle]

Between SS, Medicare, and medicaid, we've significantly cut down rates of poverty among seniors in this country.  If you want to complain about welfare moms, I've got a lot of dead people at the hands of the police/courts/military that you ask government to tax ME to fund for YOU, and we can play this moralizing game all day long.

How do you know that SS, Medicare and medicaid have cut down rates of poverty among seniors? All those things have to be paid for through taxes, borrowing, or printing. Since the debt has to be serviced it's all ultimately paid for through taxes and printing. Printing makes prices go up and distorts spending causing the economy to be less efficient, i.e. produce less. the effect of raised prices is much more dramatic on the poor and those on fixed incomes or who can't bear the risk of inflation-beating assets.

Taxes lower production because it's a disicentive to produce more since a greater percentage is stolen. It also lowers investment returns, further encouraging overconsumption instead of capital investment. This lowers productivity further and increases poverty. The taxes that young people face in order to pay for the older generation is a direct disencentive to working since they don't get to keep everything they earn. They don't get the full benefit of their productive value, others that they have not chosen get it.

Let's not forget that an entire lifetime of work for a senior has subjected them to the theft of SS, Medicare etc. taxes and inflation putting millions of them in a dependancy situation that wouldn't otherwise have been in.

Please let's not even get into the notion that it's eternally sustainable. Even with the government's insane lies about future budgets and tax receipts that never turn out to be true this will all prove to be completely unsustainable at some point. After the boomers all retire what happens when the ponzi scheme is up? Tens of millions are wards of the state now. At some point it will be 100 million or so. 50 million are on food stamps now. What happens when the state can't keep it's promises to them?

Ohhh right, they'll just print slips of paper or mint trillion dollar coins. - I don't mean that in a jerky sense but this is seriously what some people believe is a solution. They believe printing money can actually increase wealth.

[moda0306]

If it were simple, people wouldn't look at land disputes and scratch their heads.  There would be clear, difinitive lines where one person's property existed, and another person's property was stopped.

What land disputes are people scratching their heads over? I mean.....besides governments when they invade areas to take control of the people and the resources?

I am sure there are some but I'd like to hear them.

There aren't that many active disputes being had anymore, because the winners of the disputes either were government, or voted in a government that would defend their claim, legitimate or not, with violence.

By active, I mean where fighting and debating is actually ensuing.  Eventually people give up if they think they've lost.

Israelis and Palestinians are one conflict that comes to mind.  For one, the government is leading the charge more than the other, but this is due to a vast majority of each population thinking that they have claims to the land.

Pretty much anywhere an aboriginal or nomadic population is simply ignored, and more permanent societies move in, and the idividuals in those societies, usually with the help of some level of government, make claims on land.

Also, this isn't as tangible, but a lot of seniors think they own a right to SS benefits.  This is a contract with the government, which I realize you don't think even exists, so I'm not sure whether you feel this is even a valid claim, but if what matters is the existence of conflict, look no further than if you tried to tell seniors that they have no right to SS benefits.

But then I also have to include you... you seem to believe the government is not real, so who do you think "owns" all "government-owned" land? This might put you in staunch disagreement with a lot of other people who see themselves as "shareholders" (voters) within the government, with exactly 1 illiquid voting share.  Now I can assume you're not making an active assault on this claim, but it represents a philisophical conflict, at least. 

[moda0306]

Between SS, Medicare, and medicaid, we've significantly cut down rates of poverty among seniors in this country.  If you want to complain about welfare moms, I've got a lot of dead people at the hands of the police/courts/military that you ask government to tax ME to fund for YOU, and we can play this moralizing game all day long.

How do you know that SS, Medicare and medicaid have cut down rates of poverty among seniors? All those things have to be paid for through taxes, borrowing, or printing. Since the debt has to be serviced it's all ultimately paid for through taxes and printing. Printing makes prices go up and distorts spending causing the economy to be less efficient, i.e. produce less. the effect of raised prices is much more dramatic on the poor and those on fixed incomes or who can't bear the risk of inflation-beating assets.

Taxes lower production because it's a disicentive to produce more since a greater percentage is stolen. It also lowers investment returns, further encouraging overconsumption instead of capital investment. This lowers productivity further and increases poverty. The taxes that young people face in order to pay for the older generation is a direct disencentive to working since they don't get to keep everything they earn. They don't get the full benefit of their productive value, others that they have not chosen get it.

Let's not forget that an entire lifetime of work for a senior has subjected them to the theft of SS, Medicare etc. taxes and inflation putting millions of them in a dependancy situation that wouldn't otherwise have been in.

Please let's not even get into the notion that it's eternally sustainable. Even with the government's insane lies about future budgets and tax receipts that never turn out to be true this will all prove to be completely unsustainable at some point. After the boomers all retire what happens when the ponzi scheme is up? Tens of millions are wards of the state now. At some point it will be 100 million or so. 50 million are on food stamps now. What happens when the state can't keep it's promises to them?

Ohhh right, they'll just print slips of paper or mint trillion dollar coins. - I don't mean that in a jerky sense but this is seriously what some people believe is a solution. They believe printing money can actually increase wealth.

Let's save all this dooms-day debating for another thread.  Besides, whether "theft at gunpoint" "works" or not is irrelevant right?  Shouldn't it be immoral regardless based on our rights?  Not on the utilitarianism it presents to "our society," which doesn't even exist anyway?

[Kshartle]

- I have explicitly said that my moral code starts with the idea of individual sovereignty (you call it self-ownership).  Stop telling me (and more importantly, posing to others) that I don't believe this.  I've said it a few times now.  I can't "prove" this to be morally valid, though neither have you.  I can only tell you what I feel, internally.

Ok then if people own themselves then is it possible to own others? If you can't own another person then how can you or anyone else claim the right to take what's theirs? We can pretned we're talking about income. If you agree to pay me $100 dollars for a day's work and I agree to the work, why does PS as a government agent have a right to take $30, leaving only $70 for me, driving up the wage you have to pay and getting some of the value of my work? If you believe that individulas own themselves then how do you square this circle and call PS' actions acceptable? Is it based on the outcome? Do you think he will put the money to better use than you or I would if we got to keep it?

If the reason that you think it's acceptable is because the ultimate outcome that you prefer is more likely that way....I would say that is not based on principles or morality based because it's outcome-based, not principle based. That's why the claim of belief in individucal sovereignty or self-ownership seems false to me because the other stuff contradicts it.

"Theft" implies prior-ownership.

"Prior Ownership" implies a moral link between you and some physical aspect of the world around you.

If you try to establish links to valuable naturally-occuring assets all over the place that you have no moral connection to, and this is resulting in others not being able to make similar claims, you are EXERTING FORCE against others.

this is just round and round most of us realize there is no absolute moral certainty, we understand there are different perspectives and want to move beyond it, to the results this sort of thinking gets, if you accept the premise that property is questionable so theft is OK, how much theft? how do you determine who it is "fair" to steal from and who isn't? if your safety nets and other government violence solutions fail, do you agree with most supporters of statisem that the answer is more theft and more violence?

And by making me pay taxes to defend your property, whether your property is legitimately yours or not, is exerting force on me so you don't have to work harder to defend your own property.

again if you accept property, the force becomes defensive VS theft, and most limited government supporters have no problem with supporting a government that exists to defend life, liberty, and property, maybe the anarchists disagree and think money given to defend their freedom is "taken" by theft, but it is the type of government we are supposed to have (in the us) and a realistic way to deal with a potentially dangerous world with dangorus people

Look, if you think something outside your own body is yours in a world where we all are naturally going to interact with things outside our body, the burden of proof, naturally, lies on you. If I'm going to go hunt on land, and you deem it to be "yours," you need to establish some basis for the idea that it is yours. What if I disagree with that basis? You've been hunting on it for a week, so you think you have a moral claim to all that's on it? How far does your claim go? 1 acre? 40 acres? As far as the eye can see? Who is right?

We need to establish all this BEFORE we ever decide whether defense of said property is morally valid. Of course, if you can establish a morally valid claim, defense of that clam should very well be considered moral, but there are HUGE disagreements, even within our own society, as to how far our claims on the world around us should be able to be taken... hell Kshartle wouldn't even answer my question about torturing puppies in my front lawn, because he thought I was trying to trap him with it. If animals don't have rights, is there anything that we can do to them that is inherantly immoral?

These aren't just minute details. These are the things we build our entire productive society on. If animals actually have certain rights that we should respect, then that has HUGE ramifications towards how we treat our claims on the world around us, does it not? How can we be so sure animals have NO moral rights? Because nature ignores them? Well nature ignores our rights too. Kshartle says it's because they can't consciously control their behavior. I'd argue that conscious control of behavior is a matter of degree, but even if he's right, if the implication is that animals have NO rights, then there is NO moral weight to me killing puppies.

Lastly, your comments on poverty could be valid. Between SS, Medicare, and medicaid, we've significantly cut down rates of poverty among seniors in this country. If you want to complain about welfare moms, I've got a lot of dead people at the hands of the police/courts/military that you ask government to tax ME to fund for YOU, and we can play this moralizing game all day long.

in this bit you are going round and round again with the same arguments to make the claim property needs a 100% moral foundation,[[most of us realize there is no absolute moral certainty, we understand there are different perspectives and want to move beyond it, to the results this sort of thinking gets]] to us (me) you have the cart out in front of the horse...
The burden of proof actually lies with you to say how all the conflicts contradictions and violence your questioning property raises are going to be solved... supporters of a property based understanding admit it is imperfect, and that takes time to correct problems but overall it works.. how does a system of no property work to solve problems ? more theft and violence? i just can't see this way of thinking resulting in anything else....

[Kshartle]

Let's save all this dooms-day debating for another thread.  Besides, whether "theft at gunpoint" "works" or not is irrelevant right?  Shouldn't it be immoral regardless based on our rights?  Not on the utilitarianism it presents to "our society," which doesn't even exist anyway?

Yes that's why I try to avoid the "argument from effects" at all costs. I think it's a very weak argument, it's been made here for years to no effect and out in the political landscape of America to zero effect for decades. I've been chided for basing arguments on logic and principles and for a lack of practical application. I've argued against the usefulness of such an argument because it legitimizes the violation of people's rights based on the perceived outcome. 

I just want to point out that the argument for theft based on the outcome....is possibly working against that outcome, let alone a false one based on principles (Stealing is good when the stealing results in a certain outcome).  If someone clings to the idea that the taxes are good because of the outcome....they should at least be able to deflect these arguments against taxes resulting in less poverty.

[Kshartle]

So property is not just a product of our efforts, but of the natural resources around us.  These exist independent of our efforts, so our ability to claim them as morally connected to us is questionable, but necessary to survive, and even more to prosper.

So you see, property is not just a moral connection to some amazing thing you created from nothingness, it's an imperfect solution to a moral/ethical dilemma.  See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma

So to respect your individual sovereignty, I have to let you hunt on land that I was hunting on, unless I have some basis to claim that land as my own, and up to this point, I haven't seen you give me a very good layout for what constitutes a valid claim to property.  You can't just say "you know you own your clothes."  What about land?  What about things that existed before we came into being?

So either our moral code is invalid, or we simply have to make the best of these dilemmas that we face because nature put us all on a deserted island together, made it necessary that we eat and take shelter, and said "to hell with your moral code."

Haven't we beat the land thing to death over a dozen pages already? I know we talked about lakes, cabins, farmland etc. in a previous thread. I know you were involved and the answer was not "put a fence around it".

I will look at that thread and see if the entire argument is sufficiently laid out there as it's complex and tiresome.

[Libertarian666]

I've argued that the state is like a dragon or unicorn and doesn't exist, because it really doesn't. It's like claiming a forest exists because you see a bunch of trees. The forest doesn't really exist, only the trees exist, it's just easy and conveinent to call it a forest.

The government doesn't really exist, people who initiate the use of force exist and a majority of the population provides moral support for that use (democracy). Government is a just a word used for expediency.

I'm trying to get my head around this.  Would you also say that a family does not exist, only the mother, father, brothers and sisters, etc.?  It seems to me that although technically, for example a forest is only a grouping of trees, if the purpose of language and words is to communicate, then the words forrest, family, government etc. are helpful, just as the word love is well understood even if it is an abstract concept that is hard to physically see.  However, I feel I'm missing something here, help me understand.

... Mountaineer

A family is an abstraction that describes a set of relationships, just like a forest is an abstraction that describes a set of trees. Neither of these is a real entity like a person. The way you can determine this is to ask whether there would be a family without the people who are its members, or a forest without trees. The answer is clearly "no". The properties of a set are derivative of the properties of the individuals who are considered to belong to that set, rather than inherent to the set itself.

[Libertarian666]

Oh, would not the world be a better place if we humans just agreed there was the triune God and the 10 Commandments and the two Jesus gave, and they were the way to live our lives.  But, I guess that would make for rather dull discussions about moralism or the rights of the grasshoppers, let alone there would be no reason to be discussing violence since there would not be any.  This whole discussion is a remarkable reminder that "original sin" is alive and well.  The Christian worldview really does explain quite a lot about the causes of almost all issues (I don't want to go down a rabbit hole by claiming 100% and thus initiating a feeding frenzy) and the way we treat one another.  Anyone want to kiss and make up?

The world would be a lot better place if everyone followed the golden rule.

[Kshartle]

Oh, would not the world be a better place if we humans just agreed there was the triune God and the 10 Commandments and the two Jesus gave, and they were the way to live our lives.  But, I guess that would make for rather dull discussions about moralism or the rights of the grasshoppers, let alone there would be no reason to be discussing violence since there would not be any.  This whole discussion is a remarkable reminder that "original sin" is alive and well.  The Christian worldview really does explain quite a lot about the causes of almost all issues (I don't want to go down a rabbit hole by claiming 100% and thus initiating a feeding frenzy) and the way we treat one another.  Anyone want to kiss and make up?

The world would be a lot better place if everyone followed the golden rule.

What if I am a masochist?  J/K

[doodle]

So property is not just a product of our efforts, but of the natural resources around us.  These exist independent of our efforts, so our ability to claim them as morally connected to us is questionable, but necessary to survive, and even more to prosper.

So you see, property is not just a moral connection to some amazing thing you created from nothingness, it's an imperfect solution to a moral/ethical dilemma.  See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma

So to respect your individual sovereignty, I have to let you hunt on land that I was hunting on, unless I have some basis to claim that land as my own, and up to this point, I haven't seen you give me a very good layout for what constitutes a valid claim to property.  You can't just say "you know you own your clothes."  What about land?  What about things that existed before we came into being?

So either our moral code is invalid, or we simply have to make the best of these dilemmas that we face because nature put us all on a deserted island together, made it necessary that we eat and take shelter, and said "to hell with your moral code."

Haven't we beat the land thing to death over a dozen pages already? I know we talked about lakes, cabins, farmland etc. in a previous thread. I know you were involved and the answer was not "put a fence around it".

I will look at that thread and see if the entire argument is sufficiently laid out there as it's complex and tiresome.

Moda's point seems to be the crux of the issue.

Kshartle seems to adhere strongly to deontological ethics. He thinks he has locked down an airtight case, but the fact is that his deontological system of morals and ethics receives heavy fire in philosophical circles.

A deontologist is someone who believes that there are certain types of acts that are wrong in themselves and that we have a duty not to do those types of acts. Someone who follows either Kantian ethics or Natural Moral law would be a deontologist. The word ‘deontology’ comes from the Greek deon, meaning duty. Deontologists contrast with teleologists, or consequentialists, who judge the goodness of an action by looking at the consequences that the action brings about. Utilitarians and situation ethicists are teleologists.

A common criticism of deontological moral systems is that they provide no clear way to resolve conflicts between moral duties. a deontological moral system should include both a moral duty not to lie and one to keep others from harm, for example, but in the above situation how is a person to choose between those two moral duties? A popular response to this is to simply choose the "lesser of two evils," but that means relying on which of the two has the least evil consequences and, therefore, the moral choice is being made on a consequentialist rather than a deontological basis.

Some critics argue that deontological moral systems are, in fact, consequentialist moral systems in disguise. According to this argument, duties and obligations which set forth in deontological systems are actually those actions which have been demonstrated over long periods of time to have the best consequences. Eventually, they become enshrined in custom and law and people stop giving them or their consequences much thought — they are simply assumed to be correct. Deontological ethics are thus ethics where the reasons for particular duties have been forgotten, even if things have completely changed.

A second criticism is that deontological moral systems do not readily allow for grey areas where the morality of an action is questionable. They are, rather, systems which are based upon absolutes — absolute principles and absolute conclusions. In real life, however, moral questions more often involve grey areas than absolute black & white choices. We typically have conflicting duties, interests, and issues that make things difficult.

Another common criticism of deontological ethical theories is the question of just which duties qualify as those which we should all follow, regardless of the consequences. Duties which might have been valid in the 18th century are not necessarily valid now, but who is to say which ones should be abandoned and which are still valid? And if any are to be abandoned, how can we say that they really were moral duties back in the 18th century?

If these were duties created by God, how can they possibly stop being duties today? Many attempts to develop deontological systems focus on explaining how and why certain duties are valid at any time or at all times and how we can know that. Religious believers are often in the difficult position of trying to explain what believers of the past treated certain duties as objective, absolute ethical requirements created by God but today they aren't — today we have different absolute, objective ethical requirements created by God. These are all reasons why irreligious atheists rarely subscribe to deontological ethical systems, though it can't be denied that they can at times have ethical insights to offer.

[doodle]

i was going to ask what kind of pod did you fall a sleep next to, and what happened to the confusing all over the place posts we are accustom to doodle making.....

[url=http://Deontology%20notes.doc%20-%20intranet]Deontology notes.doc - intranet[/url] interesting post with or without attributions, i will give it a thumbs up....

Yeah, I like to throw my punches from confusing and unexpectedly random angles to keep my opponents guessing :-)

Anyways, I stole that...I don't even remember from where. Anyways, all of these debates that we are having are nothing new. The examples might be different, but essentially we are rehashing thousand year old philosophical debates here.

[moda0306]

So property is not just a product of our efforts, but of the natural resources around us.  These exist independent of our efforts, so our ability to claim them as morally connected to us is questionable, but necessary to survive, and even more to prosper.

So you see, property is not just a moral connection to some amazing thing you created from nothingness, it's an imperfect solution to a moral/ethical dilemma.  See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma

So to respect your individual sovereignty, I have to let you hunt on land that I was hunting on, unless I have some basis to claim that land as my own, and up to this point, I haven't seen you give me a very good layout for what constitutes a valid claim to property.  You can't just say "you know you own your clothes."  What about land?  What about things that existed before we came into being?

So either our moral code is invalid, or we simply have to make the best of these dilemmas that we face because nature put us all on a deserted island together, made it necessary that we eat and take shelter, and said "to hell with your moral code."

Haven't we beat the land thing to death over a dozen pages already? I know we talked about lakes, cabins, farmland etc. in a previous thread. I know you were involved and the answer was not "put a fence around it".

I will look at that thread and see if the entire argument is sufficiently laid out there as it's complex and tiresome.

Have we?

I guess I'll ask it this way...

What makes land go from just a chunk of land to being "someone's property?"

Or, asked another way:

What do I have to do to an unclaimed plot of land to make it "my property," instead of just a bunch of land?

[Kshartle]

Have we?

I guess I'll ask it this way...

What makes land go from just a chunk of land to being "someone's property?"

Or, asked another way:

What do I have to do to an unclaimed plot of land to make it "my property," instead of just a bunch of land?

Live on it, use it, or in some way exercise property rights over it and be able defend/support those rights. The more you do or the longer you do it for, or the more people benefit from your ownership the more likely everyone is to respect those rights and support them, until the idea that the property is anyone's but yours fades away.

Do you think this is really a real world problem?

As I've said in previous posts, it's not a one-way street. It's not just "might makes right" but also "right make might". That is, other people want your property rights respected, and so they will help you with yours. If you have valid claim over something you don't have to just rely on yourself to enforce it. The vast majority of people understand these concepts and want the problem of theft solved. They foolishly leave this important task to the government and it's a miserable failure. Theft is rampant, not just overt theft, but inflation and all kinds of bailouts etc.

[Libertarian666]

Oh, would not the world be a better place if we humans just agreed there was the triune God and the 10 Commandments and the two Jesus gave, and they were the way to live our lives.  But, I guess that would make for rather dull discussions about moralism or the rights of the grasshoppers, let alone there would be no reason to be discussing violence since there would not be any.  This whole discussion is a remarkable reminder that "original sin" is alive and well.  The Christian worldview really does explain quite a lot about the causes of almost all issues (I don't want to go down a rabbit hole by claiming 100% and thus initiating a feeding frenzy) and the way we treat one another.  Anyone want to kiss and make up?

The world would be a lot better place if everyone followed the golden rule.

What if I am a masochist?  J/K

In that case you would want people to respect your preferences, so you would respect theirs.
(The golden rule can and should be applied recursively...)

[Kshartle]

Have we?

I guess I'll ask it this way...

What makes land go from just a chunk of land to being "someone's property?"

Or, asked another way:

What do I have to do to an unclaimed plot of land to make it "my property," instead of just a bunch of land?

Live on it, use it, or in some way exercise property rights over it and be able defend/support those rights. The more you do or the longer you do it for, or the more people benefit from your ownership the more likely everyone is to respect those rights and support them, until the idea that the property is anyone's but yours fades away.

Do you think this is really a real world problem?

As I've said in previous posts, it's not a one-way street. It's not just "might makes right" but also "right make might". That is, other people want your property rights respected, and so they will help you with yours. If you have valid claim over something you don't have to just rely on yourself to enforce it. The vast majority of people understand these concepts and want the problem of theft solved. They foolishly leave this important task to the government and it's a miserable failure. Theft is rampant, not just overt theft, but inflation and all kinds of bailouts etc.

I can't find the thread where we went through all of this unclaimed land stuff ad nauseum. I'll keep looking.

[moda0306]

Have we?

I guess I'll ask it this way...

What makes land go from just a chunk of land to being "someone's property?"

Or, asked another way:

What do I have to do to an unclaimed plot of land to make it "my property," instead of just a bunch of land?

Live on it, use it,

What does "use it" consist of?  Does periodically hunting count?

or in some way exercise property rights over it

What does that mean?  Build stuff on it?  How much stuff does it take?

and be able defend/support those rights.

Really?  So if I can't defend my right, I never had it to begin with?  What about a little old lady in her house w/o a gun?  She can't defend that rigt against intruders.

What if I think simply hunting on land makes it "my land," but you think that's not a legitimate claim, so you build a farm on it.  Who's right?

The more you do or the longer you do it for, or the more people benefit from your ownership the more likely everyone is to respect those rights and support them,

"People" don't exist.  Only individuals exist.  Remember?

"Everyone" doesn't exist.  Only individuals exist.  Remember?

Whether someone else supporst my rights is irrelevent.  Did the Polish neighbors of Jewish families "support" their rights?  No.  Does it mean they didn't have any?  I would hope they still had rights.

This is an odd statement in a world where the majority of people vote over and over again, in your own analysis, to "steal from you and force you."  In a world where so many people disagree with you as to the nature of our property rights, and what is a violation of those rights, I'm surprised you bring what anyone else thinks into the equation.  Why does it matter if they're statist thieves?  I'm surprised you are so quick to say that "people" will respect property rights, but then acknowledge that the vast majority of people aren't anarcho-capitalists, disagree with you about the role of government, and therefore play a role in "taking your property from you."

Further, if you have a moral code built on individual rights, it shouldn't matter what people around you think.  You have INHERANT RIGHTS, whether people around you recognize them or not.  Why depend on such a social definition of "property rights."  And since this is a moral argument (not a functional one) whether you can defend rights seems a little irrelevent to me.  I think my Grandma has a right to her life, whether she can defend it or not.

Do you think this is really a real world problem?

Absolutely.  Trillions of wealth in the form of land that was originally occupied by some people was potentially stolen from them (depending on your definition of property rights) for the gain of others.  It's extremely important that we acknowledge if property has been stolen, because that makes any subsequent ownership illegitimate... at least in some peoples' estimations... but of course you live in a world where everyone seems to agree on property rights, even though a very tiny percentage seem to actually agree with you.

As I've said in previous posts, it's not a one-way street. It's not just "might makes right" but also "right make might". That is, other people want your property rights respected, and so they will help you with yours. If you have valid claim over something you don't have to just rely on yourself to enforce it. The vast majority of people understand these concepts and want the problem of theft solved. They foolishly leave this important task to the government and it's a miserable failure. Theft is rampant, not just overt theft, but inflation and all kinds of bailouts etc.

Apparently they DON'T want my property rights respected, because 99% of people are NOT anarcho-capitalists, and anyone short of your opinion, that advocates ANY role of the state at all, is essentially ADVOCATING stealing from you (aka, not respecting your property rights).

[Kshartle]

There is a type of fallacious argument that I've seen on here often enough that it might bear mentioning. It's called "Failure To State". It is a cousin of "Argument by question".

The point is if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic.

If you disagree that people have a right to own property then say so. If you think there should be a group of humans, that are the final arbiters of who owns what or who is allowed to own what, and they should exercise this power through the threat of overwhelming violence then say so.

Continuing an argument without ever stating your position, in an endless stream of questions, all of which have been answered over and over, and claiming that there are still some gray areas.....this is not an argument.

We are talking about humans having disputes over who owns what. The nature of a dispute is that certain people don't agree. It's possible that it's very difficult to determine who has valid claim on the property. It's even possible that they will not find a way to peacefully resolve it and will fight over it. None of that is an argument against the right to own property nor is it an argument for a centralized agengy of violence which has the right and obligation to violate property rights.

Please state your position on these matters if you have one. Please. 

[Mountaineer]

There is a type of fallacious argument that I've seen on here often enough that it might bear mentioning. It's called "Failure To State". It is a cousin of "Argument by question".

The point is if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic.

If you disagree that people have a right to own property then say so. If you think there should be a group of humans, that are the final arbiters of who owns what or who is allowed to own what, and they should exercise this power through the threat of overwhelming violence then say so.

Continuing an argument without ever stating your position, in an endless stream of questions, all of which have been answered over and over, and claiming that there are still some gray areas.....this is not an argument.

We are talking about humans having disputes over who owns what. The nature of a dispute is that certain people don't agree. It's possible that it's very difficult to determine who has valid claim on the property. It's even possible that they will not find a way to peacefully resolve it and will fight over it. None of that is an argument against the right to own property nor is it an argument for a centralized agengy of violence which has the right and obligation to violate property rights.

Please state your position on these matters if you have one. Please. 

See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

K.

My thoughts:  Rights depend on where and when one lives and where and when the one doing the judging is and what the beliefs about God are by both. 

Thus, to answer the question "Do I have a right to own property?" is like trying to answer the question "What is the meaning of life?"  or like the famous middle-age question about "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?"  I suppose I fall into the "Failure to State" category since my answer is not absolute (e.g. black or white) ... there is a whole lot of gray area that you are trying to put into a neat little package; I do not believe that is possible.

[Gumby]

Geolibertarianism anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

Geolibertarianism is a political movement and ideology that synthesizes libertarianism and geoism (or Georgism).

Geolibertarians are advocates of geoism, which is the position that all natural resources – most importantly land – are common assets to which all individuals have an equal right to access; therefore, individuals must pay rent to the community if they claim land as their private property. Rent need not be paid for the mere use of land, but only for the right to exclude others from that land, and for the protection of one's title by government. They simultaneously agree with the libertarian position that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor as their private property, as opposed to this product being owned collectively by society or the community, and that "one's labor, wages, and the products of labor" should not be taxed. Also, with traditional libertarians they advocate "full civil liberties, with no crimes unless there are victims who have been invaded." Geolibertarians generally advocate distributing the land rent to the community via a land value tax, as proposed by Henry George and others before him. For this reason, they are often called "single taxers". Fred E. Foldvary coined the word "geo-libertarianism" in an article so titled in Land and Liberty. In the case of geoanarchism, the voluntary form of geolibertarianism as described by Foldvary, rent would be collected by private associations with the opportunity to secede from a geocommunity (and not receive the geocommunity's services) if desired.

Geolibertarians are generally influenced by Georgism, but the ideas behind it pre-date Henry George, and can be found in different forms in the writings of John Locke, the French Physiocrats, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, James Mill (John Stuart Mill's father), David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer and Thomas Spence. Perhaps the best summary of geolibertarianism is Thomas Paine's assertion that "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." On the other hand, Locke wrote that private land ownership should be praised, as long as its product was not left to spoil and there was "enough, and as good left in common for others"; when this Lockean proviso is violated, the land earns rental value. Some would argue that "as good" is unlikely to be achieved in an urban setting because location is paramount, and that therefore Locke's proviso in an urban setting requires the collection and equal distribution of ground rent.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism