|
|
#51
11-30-2007, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back. You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket. Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up. 
|
|
#52
11-30-2007, 11:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Same question to you, but without the big guy stealing "your" wallet first. You just see a sleeping old lady with $100 hanging out of her pocket. Are you taking it?
|
|
#53
11-30-2007, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back. You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket. Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up. [/ QUOTE ] PVN this is another stupid attempt to show that property rights in fact exist. It fails miserably like every other time. The only thing you demonstrate here is that one might rather live in a world where people don't take $100 bills from others with force or deception. This says nothing about whether one believes that one's property is a "natural right". Preference != right. The fact that folks like you and TomD fail to acknowledge this point after we've gone round this circle a zillion times shows that you are either intentionally obtuse or just plain stupid. Neither helps your credibility in philosophical debates.
|
|
#54
11-30-2007, 11:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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 let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back. You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket. Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up. [/ QUOTE ] PVN this is another stupid attempt to show that property rights in fact exist. [/ QUOTE ] Nope. I'm just pointing out that "I try to get it back because I want it back" is ignoring a whole lot of other factors. You're missing $100. You want it back. Here's a way to get $100 with no risk. Why wouldn't you take it if that's all that mattered?
|
|
#55
11-30-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ 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 let's say $100 was taken from you. You try to get it back, but they guy who took it is big and has more guns. You figure out that it's probably better long term to live a little longer and give up on the $100. But you still want the $100 back. You see a little old lady sleeping in a wheelchair. A $100 bill is poking out of her pocket. Do you take it? Nobody will see you. She's sawing logs, it would take something along the lines of a jet engine right behind her to wake her up. [/ QUOTE ] PVN this is another stupid attempt to show that property rights in fact exist. [/ QUOTE ] Nope. I'm just pointing out that "I try to get it back because I want it back" is ignoring a whole lot of other factors. You're missing $100. You want it back. Here's a way to get $100 with no risk. Why wouldn't you take it if that's all that mattered? [/ QUOTE ] Because nobody said that's all that matters, dumb [censored]. Edit: You, tom, and the like resemble backwards fundamentalist Christians asserting that without God there is no basis to respect other people. Same rationale as without natural property rights there is no basis for people to respect property. And like those fundamentalists, it is appearing pointless to reason with you folks. And the sad thing is that a "natural" basis for property rights isn't even necessary to your belief system.
|
|
#56
11-30-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ask them to give you their wallets and see what they think about personal property then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just take their wallets. If they say anything about it then they believe in property no matter what fancy worded crap they spout. [/ QUOTE ] No, ask them to move their property off from where you want to walk, as your inalienable birth right and see how they try to fit their piece of land into their back pocket! If they can't move it they can't own it! [/ QUOTE ]  + 
|
|
#57
11-30-2007, 11:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is sociopathic when people claim they don't have a moral obligation to pay taxes. Does that mean they don't actually believe what they say they believe? [/ QUOTE ] How do you figure this? If I say I don't have a moral obligation to give "my" wallet to a mugger, do you think that if I get mugged and give my wallet up I don't believe what I say? I don't have a moral obligation to eat a cheeseburger. I did, however, eat a cheeseburger last night. Contradiction?
|
|
#58
11-30-2007, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
b. The first owners converted common objects or potentially other-owned objects into personal property. They took objects in the use of all or to others and made them their own. This conversion without compensation of other community stakeholders is theft. [/ QUOTE ] The trick here is in the conflation of "common objects" with "potentially other-owned objects". Saying that owning something is "bad" or "undesirable" because someone else could own that thing makes as much sense as saying that killing Mr. X is bad because someone else could have potentially killed him. Now, specifically why that conflation is bad: Taking "ownership" of something that is "owned" by some group of people is "bad". I will no doubt agree with this. But to make this argument you have to accept that the group owned the thing that is being stolen. Property can't be theft without property already existing! Taking ownership of something that is unowned cannot be objectionable. If nobody owns it, what objection can they have? If they DO have an objection, they must have an ownership interest (or at least *believe* that they do - and if you can explain how you can believe that you have an ownership interest without believing in property, then we can go a little further).
|
|
#59
11-30-2007, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Answers [/ QUOTE ] Are you assuming I never read L. von Mises before? I suggest you read some more recent economists, any of the notable ones, or those with a peer acceptance, which excludes those of the pseudo-School of Austrian Economics will do. You are really living behind the times. [/ QUOTE ] [ ] excessive smileys [ ] excessive exclamation points [ ] usa sucks [ ] bush sucks [x] excessive commas [x] didn't read the linked article before commenting on it C-, but at least you're improving.
|
|
#60
11-30-2007, 12:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argh property rights debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout. [/ QUOTE ] gg [/ QUOTE ] This argument only works if you totally ignore the fact that governments wildly distort and often outright monopolize the markets for many of these services.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
