Those Darned Politics Mods!!!!!

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. So all you have to do is show that you own what you want to take from me. The fact that I don't own it (which I haven't disputed) doesn't give you license to take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we just have to disagree about that one, if somebody promises me to pay me $10k and he denies it I go and get it, if he says you can't prove it I still force him to pay. I don't just accept "it is in my possession, so the burden on proof is on you".

[/ QUOTE ]

More changing parameters. There has been no promise by me to give anyone apples.
This sideshow is over. HAND.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, change it to he stealing 1k from me and never promising to give it back. I still don't accept "it is in my possession, so the burden on proof is on you".

[/ QUOTE ]

When did he steal it from you? You already admitted there's no evidence to support the case for entitlement, and now saying he stole your apple or $1K. This is make believe.

> You don't own the apple just because you possess it.

> Well I have it and you have no claim to ownership.

> Well what if you promised that you'd give it to me and I took it.

> I didn't promise to give it to you.

> Well what if you stole it from me and said you wouldn't give it back.

> When and how did I steal it from *you*?

> ((((what's your next play, Arnfinn?)))

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. So all you have to do is show that you own what you want to take from me. The fact that I don't own it (which I haven't disputed) doesn't give you license to take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we just have to disagree about that one, if somebody promises me to pay me $10k and he denies it I go and get it, if he says you can't prove it I still force him to pay. I don't just accept "it is in my possession, so the burden on proof is on you".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody made such a promise in this case. In this analogy, you're just showing up and taking $10k by saying you own it without any case for entitlement -- how would the world work like that? Seriously, Arnfinn, you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. You can accept this simple analogy without undercutting all socialist thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should I accept an invalid analogy, it is based on an unsupported condition as I have pointed out.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. So all you have to do is show that you own what you want to take from me. The fact that I don't own it (which I haven't disputed) doesn't give you license to take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we just have to disagree about that one, if somebody promises me to pay me $10k and he denies it I go and get it, if he says you can't prove it I still force him to pay. I don't just accept "it is in my possession, so the burden on proof is on you".

[/ QUOTE ]

More changing parameters. There has been no promise by me to give anyone apples.
This sideshow is over. HAND.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, change it to he stealing 1k from me and never promising to give it back. I still don't accept "it is in my possession, so the burden on proof is on you".

[/ QUOTE ]

When did he steal it from you? You already admitted there's no evidence to support the case for entitlement, and now saying he stole your apple or $1K. This is make believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I say let's change the analogy to him stealing $1k with no promise of paying back, since it was debunked with "containing a promise". Remove the promise, and my argument still stands.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
what's your next play, Arnfinn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not playing, I don't try to use manipulation techniques. If I would play hardball, I would have won long time ago, you haven't seen that side of me, since I don't use it on 2+2. I am trying in an honest way to debunk a dishonest way of arguing, which is a demanding task.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what's your next play, Arnfinn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not playing, I don't try to use manipulation techniques. If I would play hardball, I would have won long time ago, you haven't seen that side of me, since I don't use it on 2+2. I am trying in an honest way to debunk a dishonest way of arguing, which is a demanding task.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I empathize with your politics, but not your debating. You have been the one changing the premise every time it is debunked. I see no basis for your claim the other side is dishonest or manipulating. You seem to be the one manipulating the analogy to support your conclusion, rather than just admit that you need some basis to claim rightful ownership of somebody else's possessions (even a utilitarian argument is some argument, but you haven't given even that). You haven't yet attempted to do so other than claim they stole it from you or had promised to give it to you, neither of which were part of the analogy at hand.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I empathize with your politics, but not your debating. You have been the one changing the premise every time it is debunked. I see no basis for your claim the other side is dishonest or manipulating.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because everytime he "debunks" it with a claim wrapped in as a fact. I could also "debunk" every claim you or any other make doing the same. Notice how he has used the technique I called him out on several times already.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be the one manipulating the analogy to support your conclusion, rather than just admit that you need some basis to claim rightful ownership of somebody else's possessions (even a utilitarian argument is some argument, but you haven't given even that). You haven't yet attempted to do so other than claim they stole it from you or had promised to give it to you, neither of which were part of the analogy at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I need some basis to claim rightful ownership, I am not saying that i.e. the government has an evident right to decide that the apple belongs to them without justification, but neither does he. It may very well be that his possesion gives him the right to ownership, but it is not evident, in fact it is disputed. I.e. if he sits in a room with a starving child and the apple is in his possesion in my values the apple belongs to the child. A question of values, I put some values above property rights, values I find more evident than property rights.

[Kaj]

pvn never said that he had absolute ownership of the apple and specifically he said you could argue that semantic. What he did ask was what was YOUR cl;aim to it if he's not entitled to it? And you have not answered the question of where these other claims come from if his claim is invalid. He is right that the burden of proof is on YOU to take something from him. In the case of your starving child, if we accept your value system, then your argument is "others have needs, and we can force you to put their needs ahead of yours." If that's your proposed basis for human interaction, that is fine. And just as open to debate as any other form. But if you want to have that as your basis, be prepared for discussions on the negative consequences of such a basis (disincentive to produce or meet needs, necessity of concentrated state power, etc.). FWIW, I think a minarchist state which provides basic services for your starving child in question is a better system.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
arnfinn...any responses to this yet?

[ QUOTE ]
1) I have possession of the apple. You have agreed to this.

2) You haven't demonstrated any entitlement to it.

What do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of your starving child, if we accept your value system, then your argument is "others have needs, and we can force you to put their needs ahead of yours." If that's your proposed basis for human interaction, that is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that is my proposed basis for human interaction. "Every child has a right to food > he who possesses the apple has the right to it" in my value system. If the starving child is in the room he is entitled to it, I put the burden of claiming the apple on he who isn't hungry regardless of possession.


[ QUOTE ]
And just as open to debate as any other form. But if you want to have that as your basis, be prepared for discussions on the negative consequences of such a basis (disincentive to produce or meet needs, necessity of concentrated state power, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

I have visited a communist country many times. To put "everything belongs to the people" turned out to be a disaster, then you are suddenly without any apples to give to the child since nobody bothers to grow them. I also morally recognize that the person who has earned the apple or own it, is more entitled to it than the next guy, all other things equal.

[ConstantineX]

He disputes the "possession" part. Just because you have the apple in your hand, doesn't mean it's your possession. Or so he says. In essence we may simply be "granted" public property, much like the Chinese are doing right now to preserve the guise of communism.

Or so Arnfinn thinks.