Argh property rights debate

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying:

"I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me."

and pvn is saying:

"I will choose to act to stop the violation of rights, where rights are defined by the members of society around me."

pvn's appeal to the status of property rights as "natural" is part of his attempt to get the members of his society include them in their rules. Even if he believes the rights are natural, his application of his belief is going to be the same as your hypothetical - he will use his judgement based on his expectations of the reactions of people around him.

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[BluffTHIS!]

OK BigLaw so let's add in your last response to clarify and we get:

1) adverse possession is a valid method of property acquisition conditioned on being:
-a) actual possession
-b) open/publicly known
-c) exclusive
-d) for a given time period
-e) held adversely against all other claims
-f) abandonment is defined as "the failure to assert one’s ownership rights against a squatter or other invader of the property within a reasonable time"

2) there is a time period (reasonble time) one must possess same to justify same;
-a) that time period is short for objects/whatever goods you can take with you
-b) that time period is longer for land
-c)The time period has to be long enough for owners or potential owners to assert their ownership, but short enough that owners cannot sit on their rights indefinitely. It is a balance between protecting the owner’s security and the new possessor’s developed interest in the property.
-d) the time periods for both adverse possession and reasonable assertion of ownership begins with adverse possession.

3) you have the right to "police" that adverse possession as did the "first takers" of wilderness or whatever.

4) there is a limit on how much property one can adversely possess and retain which is determined by the conditions justifying adverse possession and due to the fact that one can only ACTUALLY possess and use a relatively small piece of property exclusively to others’ use AND continuously for a reasonable period (farmer can only plow so many acres). However you can sell any excess at any time.



Alright. Notice that in #4 I didn't distinguish as you did between "theory" and "practice". The idea here is to discuss the theory, and not a results dependent analysis. The theory determines what is a right or wrong practice. Would you agree with that and my formulation of #5?

Now let me ask some additional questions:

V) What is the justification for your different time periods for portable articles and land? Is it value, which thus would mean high value portable articles should enjoy greater time protection as well?

VI) Who determines what "reasonable" is even?

VII) In #2d, where the time clock starts with adverse possession, doesn't this mean when I see anyone leave their house and drive away I can go sit in their house and start the clock, being willing of course to leave if the owner returns soon to reassert his claim?

VIII) Are violent means, as in those minimally necessary to get the job done, valid means for assertion and policing of prior ownership, whether that of the earlier owner during the reasonable period or a later squatter, when persuasion fails?

IX) Regarding #4, and the practical amount of land one can actually use, is that conditioned on how much an individual can use, or is it permissible to hire enough employees to work it and thus assert ownership?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying:

"I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me."

and pvn is saying:

"I will choose to act to stop the violation of rights, where rights are defined by the members of society around me."

pvn's appeal to the status of property rights as "natural" is part of his attempt to get the members of his society include them in their rules. Even if he believes the rights are natural, his application of his belief is going to be the same as your hypothetical - he will use his judgement based on his expectations of the reactions of people around him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already mentioned this once today, but I haven't asserted any natural rights here.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying:

"I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me."

and pvn is saying:

"I will choose to act to stop the violation of rights, where rights are defined by the members of society around me."

pvn's appeal to the status of property rights as "natural" is part of his attempt to get the members of his society include them in their rules. Even if he believes the rights are natural, his application of his belief is going to be the same as your hypothetical - he will use his judgement based on his expectations of the reactions of people around him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already mentioned this once today, but I haven't asserted any natural rights here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, sorry. I was responding under the assumption that you were taking the ACist line that property rights are a natural extension of the right to self ownership. It seemed to me that Kaj was taking exception with the designation of property rights as "natural", and was arguing with you, so I assumed you had said that. I'm sorry I attributed statements to you that you didn't actually make.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't see the distinction between what you are proposing and declaring that the child has a "right" to not be harmed. It seems to me that you are saying:

"I will choose to act to stop violations that I think are really bad, where really bad will be determined by my own subjective preferences but the validity of my actions will be indirectly judged by the members of society around me."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.

[Kaj]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between my acting based on my subjective value system (and acknowledging my action is based on preference) and my acting because I believe I have a "right" to act as such, then I can't help you. I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. And it isn't just semantics, it is the essence of human behavior we're talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think there's a difference between saying "I will act to stop something if I think it's really bad" and "I will act to stop something if I think it's violating someone's rights", other than semantics? What the heck is a right other something that we think is really important to protect?

[mosdef]

[ 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 ]

Actually, when you say you would use violence to stop someone else from abusing a child you are saying that it's not fine for some people to not share the same principles. This is the distinction you are not making in your "counterexamples" about blue and red shoes but that is essential to the concept of "rights" vs. "subjecive preferences" that you are claiming does not exist.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Use REASON dude. Stop pretending there is some non-arbitrary answer here.

[/ QUOTE ]


pvn is the one using reason here Kaj. Reason leads one to some consistent set of first principles from which one derives further principles that determines the rightness/wrongness of one's actions, even if all others wouldn't agree on the axioms.

If you disagree, and everyone is just acting according to impulse as a situation arises, then you can *never* claim the actions of another are wrong in any discrete case. You are just acting similarly to the Diceman, but where the random electrons in your head determine your actions at any instant. In fact, how would you even be able to determine that someone was mentally ill with your totally subjective standards?