Original Property

[Brant Gaede]

That's just your idea you've stamped "right"--without any reasoning whatsoever.

--Brant

Rights are a convention, not a biological or physical fact. See if you can derive rights from physical laws. That should be an interesting experiment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rights are derived from the same thing your three sentences are, which you obviously think is truth. You deny and affirm cognition simultaneously and you do it all the time. Rights are a human cognitive invention. You can invent things that don't literally make wheels go round--like the laws of logic.

--Brant

A Human Invention, like buggy whips and hot air balloons. Like the rules to various card games. Etc. Etc. In the scheme of things why should human rights be regarded any more a part of reality than the rules of poker or bridge?

Ba'al Chatzaf

The card games would not exist if the rules didn't. These games are of reality. Rights are also rules--political rules. The game is freedom.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

The card games would not exist if the rules didn't. These games are of reality. Rights are also rules--political rules. The game is freedom.

--Brant

In short, a game. And it has not been well played either. Most people have been un-free for most of human history.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

The card games would not exist if the rules didn't. These games are of reality. Rights are also rules--political rules. The game is freedom.

--Brant

In short, a game. And it has not been well played either. Most people have been un-free for most of human history.

Ba'al Chatzaf

My "game" is metaphorical reference to your "card games," which is not. Metaphors are for illustration, not sequential reasoning. They tend to break down used that way. I should have put "game" in quotation marks. Sorry.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

My "game" is metaphorical reference to your "card games," which is not. Metaphors are for illustration, not sequential reasoning. They tend to break down used that way. I should have put "game" in quotation marks. Sorry.

--Brant

Teo absolvo.

[Derek McGowan]

I reply:

(5) P = dependence by nature on the creation of values through (some agents) exercise of reason for the survival of ones self and ones species.

(6) Since _no_ human being lacks P, including the marginal cases, (2) is false.

(7) Since _no_ beast has P, (3) is false.

(8) Therefore all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral (/legal) status, and the argument from marginal cases fails.

I would like to know what test would you devise to prove that either people can reason or that animals cannot

because right now your proof sounds a lot like the early reason why women weren't allowed to vote- to the effect of women do not think politically

edit: if you can't see who wrote the above quote (which for some reason I cannot when I post it) it was Peter Taylor #46

[Brant Gaede]

You cannot prove an animal cannot reason. (Prove a negative.) Some animals may reason--dolphins?--but it's too hard to know what may be going on.

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

You cannot prove an animal cannot reason. (Prove a negative.) Some animals may reason--dolphins?--but it's too hard to know what may be going on.

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

Apparently they can recognize themselves in a mirror and MAY have a sense of "I" identity.

[Gary Fisher]

It's better if you simply say from the beginning, this group is superior/has certain rights merely because we say they do AND the fact that you (the opposition) can't do anything about it

Ha! I like your style.

[Derek McGowan]

Above Brant #56 said

you cannot prove a negative

uhh.. I'm pretty sure I can prove (through direct experiment and by scientific examination of your muscle fibers) that you cannot bench press a ton

[Brant Gaede]

Above Brant #56 said

you cannot prove a negative

uhh.. I'm pretty sure I can prove (through direct experiment and by scientific examination of your muscle fibers) that you cannot bench press a ton

You now need to reconcile your statement with a basic principle of logic. Or, your one needs a two. Your first needs a second. Your thirst needs a sake. Your tomorrow needs today. My much needs not so much. You need to tell me to shut up already.

--Brant Kent (I can't help myself!)

aka Supperman (prove I'm not Supperman)

Edited November 19, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[Frediano]

Can, may, should. Three roaming concepts when it comes to rights. Not universally identical.

Can is what we are able to to. May is what we are permitted by a local tribal law to do. (Not 'the' law, but a law at a particular time and place; a law because is can be a law, and even, under a constitution, may be a law. Enforceable because it can be enforced, and may be enforced, and sometimes even should be enforced.) Should is what a particular ethical foundation(not 'the' ethical foundation) regards as a right and correct and proper and decent thing to do.

One human's take on rights: Labor leader A. Philip Randolph: "At the Banquet Table of Nature, there are no reserved seats; you get what you can take, you keep what you can hold." In terms of realizing rights, the rights that you can realize.

But there are all kinds of rights. There are the rights that Joan of Arc possessed even as she was burned alive at the the stake. Maybe she may have had those rights, and maybe she should have had those rights. And yet, they were worthless to her in terms of avoiding being burned at the stake and paying with her very life; whatever other rights she might have possessed were all, each of them, secondary to her loss of her right to even exist.

Can an animal possess property? Sure, until he cannot. You are naked and afraid on the plains of Africa. A lion possesses a den. You, as naked sweaty ape, serve your property rights via only one means; greater force. And then the battle of may and should erupts, also ultimately decided the exact same way.

Because ultlimately, the biggest slobbering beast in the Jungle is the Tribal Mob. And for instance, that is how mankind erupts in some tribal members rounding up others and selling them in trade to others from across the sea to be used as property; because of the difference between can and may and should.

Can is what it is; can is the world of A. Philip Randolph and the biggest beast in the jungle. Is that what drives the may and should in any attempt to construct a civil tribe?

In a civil tribe, the can is moderated by the may; the may is enforced by the biggest beast in the Jungle. On a good day, the may is moderated by a roaming sense of should, not a universal sense of should, even in areas and on issues where you would -think- there would be broad consensus.

Take slavery. Of course it is today, in civil nations, widely abhorred. But why? What is the nature of slavery that makes it abhorrent? As well, the concept of rape, and especially, gang rape, is also 'universally abhorred.' But why? What is the nature, the essense, of gang rape that makes it abhorrent?

I claim, it is exactly the same element, the same foundation for ethical relationships among peers in a civil nation. That element is, free vs forced association.

The only difference between '12 years a slave' and '3 yrs until my 15 yr pin' is the element of free vs. forced association.

The only difference between rape and and act of sex is exactly the element of free vs. forced association.

The only difference between gang rape and an orgy is exactly the element of free vs forced association even in the presence of pure democracy/majority rule. Gang rapists are fully adhering to the principles of pure democracy/majority rule unfettered by the principle of free vs. forced association. Although a gang -can- take what it wants after taking a vote, it -may- and -should- be restricted to -asking- for what it wants. That is the essence of free association.

The number one function of an outward facing federal/national government is national defense, and in our tribe, we staff that necessary function of government by way of an all volunteer army.

So, unless we align ourselves with the essence of slavery and rape and gang rape, what other functions of self government justify the projection of forced association?

Here is a concrete example of how grotesque the abuse of political language has become in a not only out of all control political process, but one that abuses language as if it was a switch blade meant only to take what we want from others: Obama, recently: "What is wrong with asking the wealthy for a little more for (whatever he claims he wants)?" The answer is, "There is nothing wrong with asking; ask. But that isn't what you are advocating. You are not advocating 'asking' anyone anything. The word 'ask' in your mouth in this political context is a slur, a lie, a deceit. Who is buying that you are advocating 'asking' anyone anything? You are making a case to take without asking because the biggest slobbering beast in the Jungle can project forced association. Before we agree that it may do that, the question is, should it do that which makes rape 'rape' and slavery 'slavery?'"

And so, when it comes to the can, political may, and religious should of enforceable property rights, the civil reason for maintaining them and enforcing them are based ultimately on our support of free vs forced association. We can take what we want, when we can. We can enslave and rape, too. Should we? The ethical reasons for not doing so are the same as the ethical reasons for abhorring slavery and rape.

Politics: the most used and least defined word in all of politics.

Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence and force. (Asking, persuasion, begging, deceit. Commerce is also a means -- the exchange of value for value.)

Mega-politics: the superset that includes violence and force.

Sometimes what we want from others is to ride them like a public 'property' pony, without the need to even politely ask for a ride. Other times, what we want from others is to be left alone to live in freedom. They are not symmetric wants.

Freedom ultimately means, 'from each other' -- except under rules of free association. Free of all forms of rape and slavery and so on. You know...forced association.

regards,

Fred

[Brant Gaede]

Can "can" can? You can't say it can't for the only thing can can do is can. It's non-falsifiable, like an axiom, so it's bogus (not an axiom), only canning in one's own mind. You can can vegetables. You can't can can, but nice try.

--Brant

I can't make much sense out of what I just wrote, but it was too juicy not to put up (can anyone help me?)

next up--"may"? (may "may" may?--can it?)

finally: should "should" should?

[Brant Gaede]

I forgot to quote:

Can, may, should. Three roaming concepts when it comes to rights. Not universally identical.

Can is what we are able to to. May is what we are permitted by a local tribal law to do. (Not 'the' law, but a law at a particular time and place; a law because is can be a law, and even, under a constitution, may be a law. Enforceable because it can be enforced, and may be enforced, and sometimes even should be enforced.) Should is what a particular ethical foundation(not 'the' ethical foundation) regards as a right and correct and proper and decent thing to do.

One human's take on rights: Labor leader A. Philip Randolph: "At the Banquet Table of Nature, there are no reserved seats; you get what you can take, you keep what you can hold." In terms of realizing rights, the rights that you can realize.

But there are all kinds of rights. There are the rights that Joan of Arc possessed even as she was burned alive at the the stake. Maybe she may have had those rights, and maybe she should have had those rights. And yet, they were worthless to her in terms of avoiding being burned at the stake and paying with her very life; whatever other rights she might have possessed were all, each of them, secondary to her loss of her right to even exist.

Can an animal possess property? Sure, until he cannot. You are naked and afraid on the plains of Africa. A lion possesses a den. You, as naked sweaty ape, serve your property rights via only one means; greater force. And then the battle of may and should erupts, also ultimately decided the exact same way.

Because ultlimately, the biggest slobbering beast in the Jungle is the Tribal Mob. And for instance, that is how mankind erupts in some tribal members rounding up others and selling them in trade to others from across the sea to be used as property; because of the difference between can and may and should.

Can is what it is; can is the world of A. Philip Randolph and the biggest beast in the jungle. Is that what drives the may and should in any attempt to construct a civil tribe?

In a civil tribe, the can is moderated by the may; the may is enforced by the biggest beast in the Jungle. On a good day, the may is moderated by a roaming sense of should, not a universal sense of should, even in areas and on issues where you would -think- there would be broad consensus.

Take slavery. Of course it is today, in civil nations, widely abhorred. But why? What is the nature of slavery that makes it abhorrent? As well, the concept of rape, and especially, gang rape, is also 'universally abhorred.' But why? What is the nature, the essense, of gang rape that makes it abhorrent?

I claim, it is exactly the same element, the same foundation for ethical relationships among peers in a civil nation. That element is, free vs forced association.

The only difference between '12 years a slave' and '3 yrs until my 15 yr pin' is the element of free vs. forced association.

The only difference between rape and and act of sex is exactly the element of free vs. forced association.

The only difference between gang rape and an orgy is exactly the element of free vs forced association even in the presence of pure democracy/majority rule. Gang rapists are fully adhering to the principles of pure democracy/majority rule unfettered by the principle of free vs. forced association. Although a gang -can- take what it wants after taking a vote, it -may- and -should- be restricted to -asking- for what it wants. That is the essence of free association.

The number one function of an outward facing federal/national government is national defense, and in our tribe, we staff that necessary function of government by way of an all volunteer army.

So, unless we align ourselves with the essence of slavery and rape and gang rape, what other functions of self government justify the projection of forced association?

Here is a concrete example of how grotesque the abuse of political language has become in a not only out of all control political process, but one that abuses language as if it was a switch blade meant only to take what we want from others: Obama, recently: "What is wrong with asking the wealthy for a little more for (whatever he claims he wants)?" The answer is, "There is nothing wrong with asking; ask. But that isn't what you are advocating. You are not advocating 'asking' anyone anything. The word 'ask' in your mouth in this political context is a slur, a lie, a deceit. Who is buying that you are advocating 'asking' anyone anything? You are making a case to take without asking because the biggest slobbering beast in the Jungle can project forced association. Before we agree that it may do that, the question is, should it do that which makes rape 'rape' and slavery 'slavery?'"

And so, when it comes to the can, political may, and religious should of enforceable property rights, the civil reason for maintaining them and enforcing them are based ultimately on our support of free vs forced association. We can take what we want, when we can. We can enslave and rape, too. Should we? The ethical reasons for not doing so are the same as the ethical reasons for abhorring slavery and rape.

Politics: the most used and least defined word in all of politics.

Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence and force. (Asking, persuasion, begging, deceit. Commerce is also a means -- the exchange of value for value.)

Mega-politics: the superset that includes violence and force.

Sometimes what we want from others is to ride them like a public 'property' pony, without the need to even politely ask for a ride. Other times, what we want from others is to be left alone to live in freedom. They are not symmetric wants.

Freedom ultimately means, 'from each other' -- except under rules of free association. Free of all forms of rape and slavery and so on. You know...forced association.

regards,

Fred

[Selene]

Sometimes what we want from others is to ride them like a public 'property' pony, without the need to even politely ask for a ride. Other times, what we want from others is to be left alone to live in freedom. They are not symmetric wants.

Freedom ultimately means, 'from each other' -- except under rules of free association. Free of all forms of rape and slavery and so on. You know...forced association.

regards,

Fred

Fred, thank you.

That is exceptionally well written.

A...

[Jules Troy]

Fred is awesome!

?

[Brant Gaede]

Understanding "politics" is very simple: understand force. That's all there is to it. No matter how small the politics is there still is a home for force there. Taking over politics means using force to displace force even if the end result is better protection--grossly better protection--of rights. Boil it all down and some force will be left at the bottom of the pan and not just public force against private rights' violating force, but force used to maintain and sustain the public force, aka government. (Good luck with "voluntary" taxation.) "Anarcho-capitalists" and anarcho-libertarians seek moral perfection in a perfect system and qua philosophy live in their own heads. Objectivists seem to default to a weird kind of atheistic conservatism with Rand touting Nixon twice and Ford once and Reagan not at all only because he was against abortion; apparently not for all the other stuff he was about. Perfection in a system is a waste of time for there is no perfection in human beings as such only in one conception of "man." Ironically "man" can be Soviet Man or Nazi Man not the "man" represented by my favorite statue "The David," which seems perfect but--wait!--there's that furrowed brow--so he's not good enough for Objectivist Man. This is the problem with perfection, either with abstract philosophy, or in practical politics: you can't get there from here because you just can't get there, period. "The David" is humanly accessible because of that furrowed brow. Go have sex with him, even a romantic relationship. Go to war with him. Just be friends. Make him "perfect" and he's just a mildly interesting hunk of rock that would make you wonder WTF went wrong? Bonding? Nope--or you are socially dangerous. You will insist everyone "bond" with that thing. Top down as opposed to bottom up. What went wrong is the lack of shared humanity that naturally goes back and forth because of how beautiful David is and how beautiful you are too for what you have in common and that in turn has a moral base. That's why the bad in you--insofar as it's there--will be rebuked so you in turn will be motivated to better yourself.

The upshot is how well government behaves is up to how well the citizens behave and how well tethered and controlled their government dog is by them. No constitution can make up for any such of a lack. Even the best governance will have a furrowed brow.

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

I really like what you wrote here Brant.

[Peter]

Frediano wrote:

Can an animal possess property? Sure, until he cannot. You are naked and afraid on the plains of Africa. A lion possesses a den. You, as naked sweaty ape, serve your property rights via only one means; greater force. And then the battle of may and should erupts, also ultimately decided the exact same way.

end quote

When you see a mother bird or a chimp feed and care for its young it is one clue indicating the concept of rights and survivability, greater reproduction, and a better life. The response is evolutionary but humans try to explain it and Rand does a fair job of it. And even in times past, when human populations reached a certain density without a concept of rights, tolerance, the golden rule, and a ruler's lack of WANTING despotic control allowed humans to have decent societies, as in King John's England.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If we accept the definition of man as "rational animal," if we accept that definition as a good shorthand way to describe human nature, and if we accept that individual rights emerge from human nature, this leads to a very interesting argument regarding property rights.

The non-rational animal simply takes possession of surroundings and the stuff in it (including other living beings) as needed and defends it with brute force. As for the animals that demarcate their territory (like with urine), the clear message to trespassers is they will get killed and eaten.

So if humans are animals in the definition's genus, if being an animal is part of human nature, and if property rights emerge from human nature, grabbing something and defending it by force is how property starts.

For the other part of human nature, differentia (rational), we institute a principle that the rights for one individual has to be the same as for all other individuals and introduce the idea of production (albeit some non-rational animals build nests and so on). But that is already at the level of abstraction.

At the non-rational animal level, individualism as a universal value is not how property works. And property does exist at that level. There are many easily observable cases of an animal staking a claim to property and defending it.

I think this might be the reason that all countries start with conquest and bloodshed.

That argument sure makes the idea of transcendence as a metaphysical value or nature or growth (or whatever) attractive.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Property starts and property is. Chicken and the egg--that is, egg and the chicken; which comes first? Nothing to do with "property rights" only with property per se. With property as a given force is removed from the private-public equation with the invention of property rights as part of the invention of human rights. Rights are secured then by public force leaving the private sector free to produce and create exponentially more wealth sans force.

Don't worry that great-great grandpa robbed a bank and gave your great grandpa the money used to start a multi-billion buck business you own and run (you wish). It's now all urine, by right rights.

--Brant

[anthony]

"PROPERTY IS THEFT!"

'Fine, and from whom was it stolen?'

"FROM THE PEOPLE, OF COURSE!!"

...

'Okay... and - who did they steal it from...?'

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

To be clear, I'm all for property rights. But I don't believe they mean anything without a social order to back them up and set the rules.

The way a person can own property is a direct extension of the kind of society he lives in.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Don't worry that great-great grandpa robbed a bank and gave your great grandpa the money used to start a multi-billion buck business you own and run (you wish). It's now all urine, by right rights.

Brant,

Heh.

There's a popular saying I have found true more often than not: All great fortunes started with a crime.

Michael

EDIT: Let me add to that. In modern times, the Internet has made more non-crime millionaires than any other resource in human history. Now is a great time to be alive if you want wealth, don't mind learning how to get it and actually do the donkey-work.

[anthony]

Tony,

To be clear, I'm all for property rights. But I don't believe they mean anything without a social order to back them up and set the rules.

The way a person can own property is a direct extension of the kind of society he lives in.

Michael

Absolutely. "There are no rights without property rights."

We have here a rising, even more radical Socialist political party who promises to nationalize gold and platinum mines, the banking groups and even the fishing industry, for er, "redistribution". Some who should know better, say it's not a bad idea - until I mention that private property includes THEIR private property, home and money, too.

Then you see them turning a little pale...

That was a classic example of the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept, I quoted.

Fitting, eh? ;)