|
|
|
|
#1
11-30-2007, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
The post I replied to (from goodsamaritan IIRC) suggested that rights didn't matter, he had $100, no longer has it, and wants it back. If getting it back is the important thing, and rights are unimportant, then he shouldn't have any problem getting it back in the easiest way possible. Dollars are fungible, and there's no rational reason to prefer one $100 bill over another. [/ QUOTE ] I already debunked this false dichotomy and yet you just keep repeating it. He may want the $100 back because he wants to live in society where people don't take $100 from each other by force. Not because there is some "natural right" to that $100, but merely because he knows such a society leads to more prosperous and safe existences for most people. Letting people go around taking $100 with no consequences will not lead to this type of society. Nor will taking $100 bills from sleeping old ladies to make up for the $100 taken from you lead to such society. It is mind boggling that for someone who pops off so much about "consistency" can't see the consistency in such action. When I first started posting here, I thought you were relatively intelligent but the more you post the more you disprove my assertion. Is this argument really so deep that you still fail to grasp it or are you intentionally being obtuse because you don't like that it challenges your axiom regarding property? ... An axiom which you often claim you don't purport but your posts show otherwise. 
|
|
#2
11-30-2007, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
He may want the $100 back because he wants to live in society where people don't take $100 from each other by force. Not because there is some "natural right" to that $100, but merely because he knows such a society leads to more prosperous and safe existences for most people. [/ QUOTE ] Well, we have to be a little more clear on what "wants" means in this context. I "want" no one to smoke cigarettes because I think that would make sociey "better" overall because I think they are filthy and disgusting. I also "want" no one to shoot me. There are two different kinds of "wants": 1) You want people to act a certain way but won't act to stop them if they disagree 2) You want people to act a certain way but will act to stop them if they disagree The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right. [ QUOTE ] It is mind boggling that for someone who pops off so much about "consistency" can't see the consistency in such action. When I first started posting here, I thought you were relatively intelligent but the more you post the more you disprove my assertion. [/ QUOTE ] Personal attacks are useless and undermine your position.
|
|
#3
11-30-2007, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right. [/ QUOTE ] This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult? [ QUOTE ] Personal attacks are useless and undermine your position. [/ QUOTE ] This is true. But again, they are just subjective value judgments in action.
|
|
#4
11-30-2007, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right. [/ QUOTE ] This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult? [/ QUOTE ] But why do you prefer to use force here? You could also use force to stop your neighbor from mowing his yard. Why didn't you use that as an example?
|
|
#5
11-30-2007, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right. [/ QUOTE ] This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult? [/ QUOTE ] But why do you prefer to use force here? You could also use force to stop your neighbor from mowing his yard. Why didn't you use that as an example? [/ QUOTE ] I prefer to use force here because I value a child's well being more than a blade of grass's well being. What's the problem?
|
|
#6
11-30-2007, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The distinction is important, because if someone says they don't believe in property "rights" but will act to stop someone from taking their property then that's contradictory. If you believe that "people will just be generally better off" if you stop them from stealing, you also need to feel that you have a "right" to stop them in order to take action. This "right" can be interpretted as a property right. [/ QUOTE ] This is totally false. The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult? [/ QUOTE ] But why do you prefer to use force here? You could also use force to stop your neighbor from mowing his yard. Why didn't you use that as an example? [/ QUOTE ] Read again. [/ QUOTE ] You're not getting the point of my question. What makes one of these a case where you're willing to use force and the other not one? I'm guessing (hoping) there is a principle underlying this decision making process and you're not just arbitrarily picking on a case-by-case basis as you would when (eg) selecting what type of cheese to put on your burger each day.
|
|
#7
11-30-2007, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing (hoping) there is a principle underlying this decision making process and you're not just arbitrarily picking on a case-by-case basis as you would when (eg) selecting what type of cheese to put on your burger each day. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, I believe that all hamburgers have a natural right to be topped with cheddar cheese, so bad example.
|
|
#8
11-30-2007, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
You're not getting the point of my question. What makes one of these a case where you're willing to use force and the other not one? [/ QUOTE ] I said already: my own values. What makes you like blue and not red shoes? [ QUOTE ] I'm guessing (hoping) there is a principle underlying this decision making process [/ QUOTE ] There is a principle as I've already explained. It is my belief that the world is better off if people behaved as such. That's the principle I am using for my life. You may not share the same principle in yours and that is fine. [ QUOTE ] ... and you're not just arbitrarily picking on a case-by-case basis as you would when (eg) selecting what type of cheese to put on your burger each day. [/ QUOTE ] Why can't I pick and choose my values? Why can't I decide that I believe activity X to be so egregious that I will use force and that I won't do so for activity Y. Is your solution to the fact that life includes arbitrary choices to arbitrarily establish some notion of "rights"? How is that any better? Use REASON dude. Stop pretending there is some non-arbitrary answer here.
|
|
#9
11-30-2007, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand this assertion of yours at all. Why, in your "personal preferences" regarding the extent of the use of force, would you choose to stop the child from being abused? Because you just "really don't like" child abuse?
|
|
#10
11-30-2007, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand this assertion of yours at all. Why, in your "personal preferences" regarding the extent of the use of force, would you choose to stop the child from being abused? Because you just "really don't like" child abuse? [/ QUOTE ] Ummmmm, Yes. Again, what aren't you understanding here? Do you think I need a "natural right" to justify my use of force? I don't.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
