Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:14 AM
goodsamaritan goodsamaritan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,465
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but he could get angry and pop you in the face then what are you gonna do huh huh huh huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being facetious, but that is essentially what I'm saying. How do rights matter unless they are enforceable?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:17 AM
tomdemaine tomdemaine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: buying up the roads around your house
Posts: 4,835
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are trying to get at here but it sounds pretty vacuous. The important part isnt that he gets upset, the important part is that he reacts in such a way that demonstrates that HE SURE FEELS LIKE THATS HIS WALLET

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is: whether he believes he has a "right" to the wallet or whether he actually has a "right" to that wallet is irrelevant; all that matters is either his ability to convince you that the wallet is his or his ability to take control of the wallet via force.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:17 AM
foal foal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,019
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

We live in a society where we need money and property rights to get by. Believing that the system should be changed does not equate to not caring if someone takes your wallet. Just as ACers pay taxes and utilize public services. We have to work within the system we've got, as much as we may dislike it.
So I don't think "give me your wallet, then" is a valid counter-argument.

I do think "all property is theft" is a silly position, although no sillier than natural rights. Both suffer from their absolutism and attempt to objectively define intangible moral ideas. So if I was big on property rights, my line of attack would be to go after the "all property is theft" thing. By that logic, not only is property theft, but anything that denies anyone else the use of anything is theft. E.g. eating an apple is theft, even if you don't claim to own it. What if someone else wanted to eat that? Then I would argue that concepts such as property rights are a matter of preference and social norm and I'd give some examples of why a lack of property rights would be unpleasant in a socialist society though, not "give me your wallet, now".
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:21 AM
tomdemaine tomdemaine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: buying up the roads around your house
Posts: 4,835
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
We live in a society where we need money and property rights to get by. Believing that the system should be changed does not equate to not caring if someone takes your wallet. Just as ACers pay taxes and utilize public services. We have to work within the system we've got, as much as we may dislike it.
So I don't think "give me your wallet, then" is a valid counter-argument.

I do think "all property is theft" is a silly position, although no sillier than natural rights. Both suffer from their absolutism and attempt to objectively define intangible moral ideas. So if I was big on property rights, my line of attack would be to go after the "all property is theft" thing. By that logic, not only is property theft, but anything that denies anyone else the use of anything is theft. E.g. eating an apple is theft, even if you don't claim to own it. What if someone else wanted to eat that? Then I would argue that concepts such as property rights are a matter of preference and social norm and I'd give some examples of why a lack of property rights would be unpleasant in a socialist society though, not "give me your wallet, now".

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me your wallet is enough to prove that people who don't think property exists are either saying stuff they don't really believe for their own purposes or batshit insane. The grey area null zone crap we can deal with in the other 1000 threads on the topic but lets say once and for all that "property rights don't exist" is a self detonating argument.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:23 AM
tomdemaine tomdemaine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: buying up the roads around your house
Posts: 4,835
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but he could get angry and pop you in the face then what are you gonna do huh huh huh huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being facetious, but that is essentially what I'm saying. How do rights matter unless they are enforceable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets start with do they exist or don't they. Admit that you believe in the existence of property rights before we move on to how and if they can be enforced.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:23 AM
goodsamaritan goodsamaritan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,465
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're talking about me.

If someone takes my money, I try to get it back. That may entail beating the [censored] out of the other guy, telling him that he's a bad boy, going to the police, or whatever. The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:26 AM
goodsamaritan goodsamaritan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,465
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but he could get angry and pop you in the face then what are you gonna do huh huh huh huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're being facetious, but that is essentially what I'm saying. How do rights matter unless they are enforceable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets start with do they exist or don't they. Admit that you believe in the existence of property rights before we move on to how and if they can be enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how you define right. I will say that rights, as they are defined by many people in this forum either explicitly or implicitly, don't exist.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:33 AM
tomdemaine tomdemaine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: buying up the roads around your house
Posts: 4,835
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We're not talking about him we're talking about you. You say that property is a myth how would you feel if someone stronger or more agile or smarter than you stole your money? You would have no legitimate right to be upset right cos that's just they way things happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we're talking about me.

If someone takes my money, I try to get it back. That may entail beating the [censored] out of the other guy, telling him that he's a bad boy, going to the police, or whatever. The point is that whether I have a "right" to that money has no bearing on if or how I try to get that money back. I try to get it back because I want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's right that the strong steal from the weak and you're only entitled to that which you can use force to take and defend. That sounds pretty sociopathic to me. At least it's consistent.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:36 AM
BigLawMonies BigLawMonies is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 22
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]
We live in a society where we need money and property rights to get by. Believing that the system should be changed does not equate to not caring if someone takes your wallet. Just as ACers pay taxes and utilize public services. We have to work within the system we've got, as much as we may dislike it.
So I don't think "give me your wallet, then" is a valid counter-argument.

I do think "all property is theft" is a silly position, although no sillier than natural rights. Both suffer from their absolutism and attempt to objectively define intangible moral ideas. So if I was big on property rights, my line of attack would be to go after the "all property is theft" thing. By that logic, not only is property theft, but anything that denies anyone else the use of anything is theft. E.g. eating an apple is theft, even if you don't claim to own it. What if someone else wanted to eat that? Then I would argue that concepts such as property rights are a matter of preference and social norm and I'd give some examples of why a lack of property rights would be unpleasant in a socialist society though, not "give me your wallet, now".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay! Thanks for being responsive to the OP
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:38 AM
NickMPK NickMPK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,626
Default Re: Argh property rights debate

[ QUOTE ]

Give me your wallet is enough to prove that people who don't think property exists are either saying stuff they don't really believe for their own purposes or batshit insane. The grey area null zone crap we can deal with in the other 1000 threads on the topic but lets say once and for all that "property rights don't exist" is a self detonating argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that someone gets upset when you ask for their wallet has nothing to do with rights. If I steal your wallet, and then you ask for it back, I am not going to willingly give it you, despite the fact that I have no reasonably property claim to it. The reason that I don't give it back is because I feel I am better off with the wallet than without it. It is a utility-based decision and not a rights-based one. And it is the same decision process I go through if you demand something that I have a more legitimate legal claim to.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.