The problems with property rights/contract based solutions

[Wolf DeVoon]

a simple, autonomous person facing life in a complex interactive society without what we can call a "soul" or, secularly, at least moral equivalence.

Lost me again. I guess I'm a simple autonomous clod. Society has no soul? (no culture?)

[Brant Gaede]

a simple, autonomous person facing life in a complex interactive society without what we can call a "soul" or, secularly, at least moral equivalence.

Lost me again. I guess I'm a simple autonomous clod. Society has no soul? (no culture?)

I said nothing about society having or not having a "soul" or "culture."

--Brant

the purpose of "simple" by me here is merely a reductionism for the sake of lucidity

[Wolf DeVoon]

a simple, autonomous person facing life in a complex interactive society without what we can call a "soul" or, secularly, at least moral equivalence.

Lost me again. I guess I'm a simple autonomous clod. Society has no soul? (no culture?)

I said nothing about society having or not having a "soul" or "culture."

--Brant

the purpose of "simple" by me here is merely a reductionism for the sake of lucidity

Okay. I affirm that I'm simple. What does that have to do with liberty, property, anarchy, or the rule of law?

[Brant Gaede]

a simple, autonomous person facing life in a complex interactive society without what we can call a "soul" or, secularly, at least moral equivalence.

Lost me again. I guess I'm a simple autonomous clod. Society has no soul? (no culture?)

I said nothing about society having or not having a "soul" or "culture."

--Brant

the purpose of "simple" by me here is merely a reductionism for the sake of lucidity

Okay. I affirm that I'm simple. What does that have to do with liberty, property, anarchy, or the rule of law?

Your right to life as being primary to your right to property or some laissez-faire legal construct.

--Brant

(haven't yet read that book of yours)

[Francisco Ferrer]

I apologize if I'm not properly following these rights as property rights arguments, but FF your primary focus seems to be on property as opposed to any particular human being and the man qua man he or she is. Of course one can extrapolate from you to that, but that is what I don't see you explicitly doing. You seem to be describing how the machinery works, but not quite in the way an Adam Smith, much less an Isabel Paterson, would. Still, you and her and him and Wolf all seem to be avoiding for whatever reason consideration of a simple, autonomous person facing life in a complex interactive society without what we can call a "soul" or, secularly, at least moral equivalence.

--Brant

may be all wrong about Smith, at least

I don't know why you would say that, since I used myself as an example in the post directly above yours. I can assure you that among human beings I very much fall into the particular category. I cannot, however, admit to qualifying for "qua man" status. All of my actions in this humble life so far have been in my capacity as Francisco Ferrer and not "Man."

And if I fail to deliver the goods in exactly the same way that an Adam Smith or an Isabel Paterson would, I will simply say, I'm sorry. I will not, however, hold you responsible for failing to write like Mark Twain or Anthony Burgess.

[Brant Gaede]

I am only talking about the primary locus of political-philosophical reasoning. Whether we are actually having any argument is problematical for I certainly don't see you as less than human.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Like Locke, I start with the premise that every human is entitled to whatever goods in nature which he puts to use--that are not already rightfully claimed by another. First, there is the body, for that is the primary naturally given thing which each human occupies and puts to use and has a right to by original if implicit claim. Then there is land, for that is naturally the next resource which a human will occupy and transform for his own use. Then come the products of the land, free trade of such products with other humans, and the rights that logically follow, such as gifts, wills, and delegation of rights.

There is certainly no greater focus on property than human beings, for the very nature of property requires a human actor.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't see Locke as described as congruent with the Founding Fathers or Ayn Rand, but they are certainly in the Lockean tradition. For this, I'd need George's help*--if I'm wrong, that is. I admit, however, we have less to argue about than it might seem.

--Brant

*time to go read some George H. Smith links

[Francisco Ferrer]

In Two Treatises of Government Locke wrote that law existed to protect "property," which he took to mean an individual's "life, liberty, and estate." It is only a short step from there to Founder Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

[Brant Gaede]

In Two Treatises of Government Locke wrote that law existed to protect "property," which he took to mean an individual's "life, liberty, and estate." It is only a short step from there to Founder Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Take this take: Life, liberty and the pursuit of property. Just sounds too close to the wrong, narrow type of selfish. "Happiness" grabs the whole person, individual and social. The sexual divide seems to be the guy go gets the property and the wife makes it possible for him to achieve happiness--hers and his--and everybody eats. The woman, of course, is the more complete being. If she has to she can hunt and fight, but the man cannot bear children.

--Brant

it all revolves around Mommy--just ask a psycho-therapist (it's Mommy this and Mommy that!)

[Francisco Ferrer]

In Two Treatises of Government Locke wrote that law existed to protect "property," which he took to mean an individual's "life, liberty, and estate." It is only a short step from there to Founder Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Take this take: Life, liberty and the pursuit of property. Just sounds too close to the wrong, narrow type of selfish. "Happiness" grabs the whole person, individual and social. The sexual divide seems to be the guy go gets the property and the wife makes it possible for him to achieve happiness--hers and his--and everybody eats. The woman, of course, is the more complete being. If she has to she can hunt and fight, but the man cannot bear children.

--Brant

it all revolves around Mommy--just ask a psycho-therapist (it's Mommy this and Mommy that!)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "wrong, narrow type of selfish." Is this something Rand, Branden and Peikoff addressed in their works?

[Brant Gaede]

No. Or if they did I don't remember. It would have been slight.

I try not to represent what they said and concentrate on what I think. If I see something I take as wrong I say so. I do not teach a catechism of Objectivism to anybody. The Objectivist catechism is pure 1960s and generally out of date for it became obsolete when the Objectivist movement blew up in 1968. It took a long time to know this.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

So when it comes to defining just what is a "wrong, narrow type of selfish," we'll have to turn to some other great intellect.

[Brant Gaede]

So when it comes to defining just what is a "wrong, narrow type of selfish," we'll have to turn to some other great intellect.

You didn't ask me the question. It doesn't take any "great intellect." I'm not going to get into a tooth-pulling contest with you.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Somehow "life, liberty and property" is the wrong, narrow kind of selfish, while "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is the right kind of selfish. We know this because . . because . . . well, perhaps because concerning oneself with happiness feels right and being concerned with property feels wrong.