The Decline of Violence

[moda0306]

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

Gumby,

Quit trying to poison this discussion with intellectual curiosity.

[Gumby]

Quit trying to poison this discussion with intellectual curiosity.

Sorry guys!

[Pointedstick]

Really interesting stuff, by the way. Especially geo-anarchism.

[moda0306]

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

I'm changing my quote to:

"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."

Boom!

Oh, and even Locke seemed to think that land should be returned to common ownership afterward.

I think I heard somewhere, too, that Jefferson or Washington favored outlawing the practic of giving all your wealth to your first-born because it concentrated too much wealth in the hands of the few.

F'king Commies .

[moda0306]

Another good addition to this debate can be found in this article, and maybe even moreso in all the comments below it:

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2012/01/i ... about.html

TennPaGa sent me this a few weeks ago.

[moda0306]

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. 

I have stated my positions several times.  I've stated why I think claiming resources/land as property is a messy solution to the moral dilemma of us all being trapped on the same island.

And to your problem of answering questions, I refer you to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

[Rien]

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.

Sidetrack: What I see as one of the big problems of our day and age is that we try to achieve 100% clarity on social memes. But 100% is only possible in mathematical ideas. Politicians behave as we can achieve this elusive 100% and in doing so try to flatten the complexity of life. That will never work. We should enhance diversity, not try to do away with it.

But getting this correct has HUGE implications for society.  Whether we have the right to claim trillions of dollars worth of resources from the earth while others starve to death is of pretty huge importance to those without the property. 

I disagree with that. The implicit assumption that you seem to make is that once we get this 100% right there will be some kind of external "justified and righteous" force that will correct the situation. That of course won't happen. In order to create that force, millions of people would need to agree. Well, millions of people already agree, and have created a force that could correct the situation. However this has not happened. Quite the contrary, the stronger this force has become the worse the result has been.

I have come to the conclusion that the existence of the initiation of force is the cause of the effects you describe, not its solution.

[Rien]

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?

Basically what you are saying here, if you all agree that I am right, then we can all get along.
I am sure that would work, but I am also sure that there are a couple of billion other people with the exact same idea....

[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. 

I have stated my positions several times.  I've stated why I think claiming resources/land as property is a messy solution to the moral dilemma of us all being trapped on the same island.

And to your problem of answering questions, I refer you to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

Calling something a messy situation is an excuse for not taking a position. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend it’s an actual position. After 21 pages on this thread discussing the topic, probably two years of discussing it off and on in other threads, hundreds of answered questions and dozens of people weighing in you’re still saying you don’t have a concrete opinion either way. Ok. It’s frustrating though. ? It’s like trying to debate a vapor.

The Socratic method is a method of teaching. It would involve you asking questions of me and getting me to agree to certain to certain premises that you then demonstrate/explain/prove are contraditicting or the acceptance of which contradict my original thesis.

This is not what is happening here.

You're still asking if little old ladys who can't defend their purses still own them. We have been over this stuff dozens of times. You asked how unclaimed land can become your property. I said you would probably have to live on it, use it, demonstrate property rights over it and be prepared to defend it until it was recognized as your property. You have to do this because it's currently not anyone else's property. If it was someone else's established property then you could buy it from them or they could give it to you. What does that have to do with a little old lady's purse? Nothing.

Polish families didn't fight the Germans to protect the property of Jews and you claim that is a refution that other people want your property rights protected? My God man. That is proof that the NAZIs were theives and using overwhelming violence to steal. Incidently, it was overwhelming because it was organized by that wonderful defender of rights...the state.

The act of theft doesn't not invalidate the right of property ownership.

None of this is the Socratic method, nor is it even close. It is just the same questions over and over without ever stating anything other than personsal confusion over these issues; and trying to claim that since you don't have an answer then it must be impossible to answer them so anyone saying they do have a position must be wrong. 

It's perfectly fine to say that you still don't know whether or not it's ok for some people to steal other people's property or whether or not people have a right to own property. Plenty of arguments have been made on both sides. Maybe take a cruise through the entire thread again as well as some others from the past and see if any of the arguments stick. Or not, whatever floats your boat. 

[Kshartle]

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.

Does someone have the right to murder you? Is it even possible for someone to have the right to murder you?

[Kshartle]

I have come to the conclusion that the existence of the initiation of force is the cause of the effects you describe, not its solution.

+1

The initiation of force can at best solve the problems of the initiator if they are successful, but they create problems for the one aggressed against and for society. If it's true that peaceful negotiation and voluntary consent is always a superior method of conflict resolution then humans will get there eventually, a very long time from now. Consistent principles are better than inconsistent ones and humans are lurching towards the application of consistant principles in morality, science etc. Unfortunately it seems like it's two steps forward and one step back at times.

Child sacrifice, overt human ownership, leeching, the Earth revolving around the Sun....these were all beliefs or practices that existed that no longer exist and I would dare to say will never exist again. The argument that through all of history there have been humans who initiated force therefore this will always be the case is just a false argument. It might be that humans never embrace total non-violence (obviously people with mental problems excluded since they aren't able to fully choose), but it won't be because "it's always been that way". That is not a valid argument.

The agrument that "Violence or the initiation of force must be used to solve the problem of violence or initiation of force".....is such an obvious self-contradiction I would invite anyone making that argument to really break down the statement.

[moda0306]

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.

Sidetrack: What I see as one of the big problems of our day and age is that we try to achieve 100% clarity on social memes. But 100% is only possible in mathematical ideas. Politicians behave as we can achieve this elusive 100% and in doing so try to flatten the complexity of life. That will never work. We should enhance diversity, not try to do away with it.

But getting this correct has HUGE implications for society.  Whether we have the right to claim trillions of dollars worth of resources from the earth while others starve to death is of pretty huge importance to those without the property. 

I disagree with that. The implicit assumption that you seem to make is that once we get this 100% right there will be some kind of external "justified and righteous" force that will correct the situation. That of course won't happen. In order to create that force, millions of people would need to agree. Well, millions of people already agree, and have created a force that could correct the situation. However this has not happened. Quite the contrary, the stronger this force has become the worse the result has been.

I have come to the conclusion that the existence of the initiation of force is the cause of the effects you describe, not its solution.

I didn't say there had to be an outside force. Simply that even with a lack of one we DO have force present if we're claiming vast sums of resources that aren't ours.

[Rien]

But getting this correct has HUGE implications for society.  Whether we have the right to claim trillions of dollars worth of resources from the earth while others starve to death is of pretty huge importance to those without the property. 

I disagree with that. The implicit assumption that you seem to make is that once we get this 100% right there will be some kind of external "justified and righteous" force that will correct the situation. That of course won't happen. In order to create that force, millions of people would need to agree. Well, millions of people already agree, and have created a force that could correct the situation. However this has not happened. Quite the contrary, the stronger this force has become the worse the result has been.

I have come to the conclusion that the existence of the initiation of force is the cause of the effects you describe, not its solution.

I didn't say there had to be an outside force. Simply that even with a lack of one we DO have force present if we're claiming vast sums of resources that aren't ours.

No, but it is implicit. Just a because you found a 100% satisfactory answer, nothing will happen until people act on it. Given that not everybody will subject to reason and evidence, there will be a significant portion of the population who will disagree with you on principle. Hence some kind of force must be brought into existence to solve the problem along the lines of the solution.

[Kshartle]

But getting this correct has HUGE implications for society.  Whether we have the right to claim trillions of dollars worth of resources from the earth while others starve to death is of pretty huge importance to those without the property. 

I disagree with that. The implicit assumption that you seem to make is that once we get this 100% right there will be some kind of external "justified and righteous" force that will correct the situation. That of course won't happen. In order to create that force, millions of people would need to agree. Well, millions of people already agree, and have created a force that could correct the situation. However this has not happened. Quite the contrary, the stronger this force has become the worse the result has been.

I have come to the conclusion that the existence of the initiation of force is the cause of the effects you describe, not its solution.

I didn't say there had to be an outside force. Simply that even with a lack of one we DO have force present if we're claiming vast sums of resources that aren't ours.

What does the presence of force in nature or whatever imply about the choices we should make? You said "getting this correct has HUGE implictions......" Getting what correct and what do you think is correct?

Yes I will keep trying to get your opinion.

[moda0306]

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. 

I have stated my positions several times.  I've stated why I think claiming resources/land as property is a messy solution to the moral dilemma of us all being trapped on the same island.

And to your problem of answering questions, I refer you to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

Calling something a messy situation is an excuse for not taking a position. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend it’s an actual position. After 21 pages on this thread discussing the topic, probably two years of discussing it off and on in other threads, hundreds of answered questions and dozens of people weighing in you’re still saying you don’t have a concrete opinion either way. Ok. It’s frustrating though. ? It’s like trying to debate a vapor.

The Socratic method is a method of teaching. It would involve you asking questions of me and getting me to agree to certain to certain premises that you then demonstrate/explain/prove are contraditicting or the acceptance of which contradict my original thesis.

This is not what is happening here.

You're still asking if little old ladys who can't defend their purses still own them. We have been over this stuff dozens of times. You asked how unclaimed land can become your property. I said you would probably have to live on it, use it, demonstrate property rights over it and be prepared to defend it until it was recognized as your property. You have to do this because it's currently not anyone else's property. If it was someone else's established property then you could buy it from them or they could give it to you. What does that have to do with a little old lady's purse? Nothing.

Polish families didn't fight the Germans to protect the property of Jews and you claim that is a refution that other people want your property rights protected? My God man. That is proof that the NAZIs were theives and using overwhelming violence to steal. Incidently, it was overwhelming because it was organized by that wonderful defender of rights...the state.

The act of theft doesn't not invalidate the right of property ownership.

None of this is the Socratic method, nor is it even close. It is just the same questions over and over without ever stating anything other than personsal confusion over these issues; and trying to claim that since you don't have an answer then it must be impossible to answer them so anyone saying they do have a position must be wrong. 

It's perfectly fine to say that you still don't know whether or not it's ok for some people to steal other people's property or whether or not people have a right to own property. Plenty of arguments have been made on both sides. Maybe take a cruise through the entire thread again as well as some others from the past and see if any of the arguments stick. Or not, whatever floats your boat. 

I keep asking the same questions because you seem to want to not answer them, or to answer them with vague terms or circular logic. You are the one who said people have to be able to defend their claim for it to be a right. This implies certain things.

Your argumenta are too vague for anything to stick. You talk about "stealing property" without being able to come up with a clear definition of it.  When I try to dig into you quasi-definition with questions, instead of acknowledging it's inadequacy or trying to dig deeper, you then accuse me of a logical fallacy, because I'm asking too many questions and not stating my position (which I have several times).  Then you move on from that, stating my position boils down to "it's complex."  Any moral dilemma is complex if we're trying to find a solition!!  That's why philosophers actually debate this stuff.

You just keep moving from non-point to non-point, trying to avoid having to challenge any of these ridiculous statements or assumptions you make, or any of the contradictions in your logic.

I do believe theft is wrong, because the word implies that a legitimate connection between a sovereign being and the world around him has been severed against his will.  However, we first have to establish what constitutes those legitimate connections before we can call something "theft."  You seem to have problems establishing a meaningful conversation on this.  In a world where land disputes have driven massive conflicts, I'm surprised you think this is settled business.  This 99% of people you speak of mostly disagree with you on whether "you should be forced by government," (they aren't anarcho-libertarians or anywhere close), but somehow this observation seems to fall on deaf ears. You've got people that WANT to agree with you saying that you're being quite unreasonable in your arguments, yet you always have a response that completely puts everything back on someone else. 

Plus, I HAVE said that I'm not sure what our true property rights consist of.  Whether given to us by god or by some other source, the ability of our individual sovereignty to extend outside our bodies starts to carry a lot of assumptions, contradictions, and moral dilemmas.

See gumby's post on geolibertarianism for more of a taste of my logic.

You seem to think there's only one definable set of rules for property (though the way you lay them out is arbitrary and full of logical holes), and somehow completely ignore that there could be some alternatives that vastly disagree with yours (the idea of paying "rents" to "the community" being necessary for valid sole use of real property).  This makes you a violent force to others who believe your land to be common while you think it's yours.  If you're wrong about the nature of our property rights, this makes you no better than the government agents.

[Kshartle]

You are the one who said people have to be able to defend their claim for it to be a right. This implies certain things.

When did I say that? To my knowledge I've said over and over that just because someone can violate your rights doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means someone has violated them.

You asked about unclaimed land and how it becomes your property. I said just because you live on it and are using it doesn't mean someone isn't going to come along and try to take it from. It doesn't mean you don't have to defend it.

Do you see how you are taking that and making a leap to "you only have a right if you can defend it"? Others have taken that position here and I think that's ridiculous. It's like saying if someone is capable of murdering you then clearly you didn't have a right to your life. You are deliberatley misstating me.

[Kshartle]

However, we first have to establish what constitutes those legitimate connections before we can call something "theft."  You seem to have problems establishing a meaningful conversation on this.  In a world where land disputes have driven massive conflicts, I'm surprised you think this is settled business. 

Again, the existance of theft or attempted theft is not evidence that people don't have valid claims on property.

Can you agree that because two people fight over something doesn't mean that they both have a vaild claim over it? Just because the theif grabs the old lady's purse doesn't mean they both have a right to it.

[moda0306]

I disagree with that. The implicit assumption that you seem to make is that once we get this 100% right there will be some kind of external "justified and righteous" force that will correct the situation. That of course won't happen. In order to create that force, millions of people would need to agree. Well, millions of people already agree, and have created a force that could correct the situation. However this has not happened. Quite the contrary, the stronger this force has become the worse the result has been.

I have come to the conclusion that the existence of the initiation of force is the cause of the effects you describe, not its solution.

I didn't say there had to be an outside force. Simply that even with a lack of one we DO have force present if we're claiming vast sums of resources that aren't ours.

What does the presence of force in nature or whatever imply about the choices we should make? You said "getting this correct has HUGE implictions......" Getting what correct and what do you think is correct?

Yes I will keep trying to get your opinion.

Now you're asking questions, K. Careful with that. It's a logical fallacy!!

But I'm not afraid of being trapped so I'll answer them.

Getting correct the valid moral link between our sovereignty and world around us.

If the link is as you say, then we can defend land and resources as our own as we deem our claims to exist today. We can morally vastly modify the world around us to the long-term detriment of the ecosystem, we can have exclusive land ownership rights, and we can continue to subject animals to torture because we will eat them someday and it's "more efficient" (or just torture animals for fun because they don't have rights and can exist as our property). It means we don't have to recognize ANY validity to potential prior claims to our land from Indians.

If this isn't the proper allocation of property or model of property ownership, then to live a moral life we have to rethink how we behave and make claims. If it is, then that comes with a host of other decisions to make.  I think it would serve everyone well to know "how to live a moral life," and if property is a piece of that, we best know how it works so we aren't pointing guns atother people when we have no right to.

You should agree with me on this... How we look at property should guide a whole host of our moral decisions. Should it not?  You just seem to think there's no conciecable way there could be disagreement on this.  This is why most of who would normally be your allies are disagreeing with you on this.

I still don't know if torturing those puppies is wrong in your mind, and if it is, why, if they have no rights. . Sorry for the morbidity, but I think this is an important point that everyone should ask themselves, as it seems like a bit of a moral dilemma once again.

What I think is correct for me is to live my life in a way where I am honest and respectful to others, but try to get the most out of my life for myself.  An understanding of property is pretty integral to knowing when you have a higher duty of respect to others.

[Pointedstick]

You are the one who said people have to be able to defend their claim for it to be a right. This implies certain things.

When did I say that? To my knowledge I've said over and over that just because someone can violate your rights doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means someone has violated them.

Moda is probably confused by this:

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.

...Because that is a functional claim, not a moral one. Saying that people will support your exercise of property rights that they deem legitimate deviates from the moral case you're making. If your moral argument is valid, then one should be able to morally claim something as one's personal property irrespective of what anyone else says (similarly, a majority of men cannot morally vote to legalize rape). So far you have still not managed to make a sound case for the morality of property ownership in the case where 100% of the community is against you or when you cannot defend your claim, which you really need to be able to do if you insist on making a moral case, because you also say that morality trumps an immoral majority.

[moda0306]

However, we first have to establish what constitutes those legitimate connections before we can call something "theft."  You seem to have problems establishing a meaningful conversation on this.  In a world where land disputes have driven massive conflicts, I'm surprised you think this is settled business. 

Again, the existance of theft or attempted theft is not evidence that people don't have valid claims on property.

Can you agree that because two people fight over something doesn't mean that they both have a vaild claim over it? Just because the theif grabs the old lady's purse doesn't mean they both have a right to it.

I totally agree. This is why talking about "theft" is irrelevant until we can establish that someone had a property right to begin with.


There was a post where you focused on ability to defend a property claim.  I thought you were once again contradicting yourself and saying that you have to be able to defend a claim for it to be yours. My bad.  It's good to know that your ability to defend a right is irrelevant to the right existing.

[Kshartle]

Your argumenta are too vague for anything to stick. You talk about "stealing property" without being able to come up with a clear definition of it.  When I try to dig into you quasi-definition with questions, instead of acknowledging it's inadequacy or trying to dig deeper, you then accuse me of a logical fallacy, because I'm asking too many questions and not stating my position (which I have several times).  Then you move on from that, stating my position boils down to "it's complex."  Any moral dilemma is complex if we're trying to find a solition!!  That's why philosophers actually debate this stuff.

If my arguments are bad then you should be able to point out contradictions or falsehoods. I've answered a billion questions and made a billion concrete statements. Maybe slightly less than a billion.

It's much easier to ask a question than answer it. It takes about 1/20th the effort to ask questions about this stuff than to actually answer one or state a position and support it. Then when someone does answer the answer is exposed to 20 more questions. This is argument by question and not the socratic method. There is no end because the questioner has no position or opinion beyond saying it's complex. It's exhausting.

You have not stated a position. You've said it's messy and you don't know. That's the opposite of a position.

Saying a moral dilemma is complex and that's why philosophers debate is just an appeal to complexity and stating something obvious that's unrelated.

If I agree that (which I have multiple times) that sometimes it's unclear who has ownership of something when two or more parties disagree.......can we please stop repeating it?

[Kshartle]

Now you're asking questions, K. Careful with that. It's a logical fallacy!!

But I'm not afraid of being trapped so I'll answer them.

What are you talking about "it's a logical fallacy"? Is that because I pointed out that you are just asking and re-asking questions that have already been answered and never stating a position? That's called a false argument. It's making the argument that someone else is wrong because you can ask them endless questions without ever pointing out where they are contradicting themselves or saying something you can prove is false. It doesn't have anything to do with a logical fallacy.

No one is trying to trap anyone I just want to you to support your statement that we need to get this correct. What needs to be correct and what do you think is correct. I'll read on with interest. 

[Kshartle]

If the link is as you say, then we can defend land and resources as our own as we deem our claims to exist today. We can morally vastly modify the world around us to the long-term detriment of the ecosystem, we can have exclusive land ownership rights, and we can continue to subject animals to torture because we will eat them someday and it's "more efficient" (or just torture animals for fun because they don't have rights and can exist as our property). It means we don't have to recognize ANY validity to potential prior claims to our land from Indians.

Wow this is a such a leap. You are saying that if I'm right that people own themselves and the effects their actions and are responsible for what they create and have the right to own things etc. that the ecoysystem will be ruined and animals can be tortured and the poor long dead indians and the theft of their land is now legitimized.

This is just an argument from adverse effects. It's like arguing that God can't exist because you don't believe in him and therefore you'll be dammed to Hell if he does exist.

I hope you can see you are still not posing a legitimate argument against anything I've said.

[Kshartle]

However, we first have to establish what constitutes those legitimate connections before we can call something "theft."  You seem to have problems establishing a meaningful conversation on this.  In a world where land disputes have driven massive conflicts, I'm surprised you think this is settled business. 

Again, the existance of theft or attempted theft is not evidence that people don't have valid claims on property.

Can you agree that because two people fight over something doesn't mean that they both have a vaild claim over it? Just because the theif grabs the old lady's purse doesn't mean they both have a right to it.

I totally agree. This is why talking about "theft" is irrelevant until we can establish that someone had a property right to begin with.


There was a post where you focused on ability to defend a property claim.  I thought you were once again contradicting yourself and saying that you have to be able to defend a claim for it to be yours. My bad.  It's good to know that your ability to defend a right is irrelevant to the right existing.

It's fine. Answering questions in posts make it nearly impossible to give the most airtight, unambigous, rock solid explanations because of time, exhaustion with the topic and the nature of these questions.

I have said over and over and over though that the ability to defend a right does not validate or invalidate it. Others have made this claim. I was talking about the completely hypothetical situation of someone trying to claim previously unclaimed territory as theirs. Obviously someone else might disagree.

[Libertarian666]

I have come to the conclusion that the existence of the initiation of force is the cause of the effects you describe, not its solution.

+1

The initiation of force can at best solve the problems of the initiator if they are successful, but they create problems for the one aggressed against and for society. If it's true that peaceful negotiation and voluntary consent is always a superior method of conflict resolution then humans will get there eventually, a very long time from now. Consistent principles are better than inconsistent ones and humans are lurching towards the application of consistant principles in morality, science etc. Unfortunately it seems like it's two steps forward and one step back at times.

Child sacrifice, overt human ownership, leeching, the Earth revolving around the Sun....these were all beliefs or practices that existed that no longer exist and I would dare to say will never exist again. The argument that through all of history there have been humans who initiated force therefore this will always be the case is just a false argument. It might be that humans never embrace total non-violence (obviously people with mental problems excluded since they aren't able to fully choose), but it won't be because "it's always been that way". That is not a valid argument.

The agrument that "Violence or the initiation of force must be used to solve the problem of violence or initiation of force".....is such an obvious self-contradiction I would invite anyone making that argument to really break down the statement.

Sounds good other than this part.