Defining freedom

[MediumTex]

kshartle wrote:

That sounds like slavery to the collective to me.

Why should you sacrifice? Man isn't a sacrificial animal as Rand used to say.

What is the virtue in sacrifice? If sacrificing for others is virtuous, then their reciept of your sacrifice makes them unvirtuous. This can't be correct, it's a contradiction.

Who is Rand?  Are you referring to the chain smoking "philosopher" that mentored Alan Greenspan?   

For some reason when I saw this response - a scene from the movie Rudy came to mind. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8c6j-LS-ZI

As I recall, that was a very young Vince Vaughn in that scene, right?

So you're saying that Vince Vaughn reminds you of Ayn Rand, possibly because of Rand's preoccupation with money and Vaughn's character's preoccupation with saying the word "money" in his later film Swingers.

Did I interpret your reference correctly?

[brick-house]

Medium Tex wrote: 

As I recall, that was a very young Vince Vaughn in that scene, right?

So you're saying that Vince Vaughn reminds you of Ayn Rand, possibly because of Rand's preoccupation with money and Vaughn's character's preoccupation with saying the word "money" in his later film Swingers.

Did I interpret your reference correctly

Nothing to do with Vince Vaughn, even though that is a pretty cool idea. 

It has to do with the whole Rand "philosophy" that took over the Republican Party and the Federal Reserve.  The philosophy demeans workers (nurses, paramedics,police, firefighters, cops, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, soldiers, etc.) and glorifies the all knowing market.  For some reason, I view that scene like Rudy is the working/productive class and Ohara (Vaugh's character) is the Atlas propped up by his name/pedigree not his talent/energy/hunger. 

IMHO if Atlas shrugs, he gets knocked on his butt, demoted to the third team, and a hungrier player takes his place.  Atlas's are produced from the masses.  The masses/society produce Atlas's when there is law and order (which includes regulation), functioning capital markets, dedication to science, and access to education.  William Bernstein's - The Birth of Plenty is a pretty good read on the subject. 

Another movie that I enjoy (I am obviously low brow...) that has this attitude is Caddyshack.  It is no wonder the Democrats are building a generational majority, they appeal to workers and producers.  It seems like today's Republican party is made up of traveling salesman who listen to a lot of talk radio driving between sales calls. 

No meaning to this Caddyshack scene (that I know of) - just think it is funny. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X48G7Y0VWW4

[Libertarian666]

Even assuming that anybody gave a damn about what a "property registration company" said about anything, what you'd end up with is a war between followers of Property Registration Company A, with one set of beliefs about property, and those of Property Registration Company B, with another set, which would decide which definition of property that society would go with.  I'm not really seeing how this is any different from the property registration company we have now, the government.

You would have nothing of the kind, because that would be very expensive for the property registration companies, which would not be able to tax their users, unlike governments. It would be far more profitable for them to have arrangements among themselves for arbitration by neutral third parties when necessary.

Of course this sensible approach is not available when you have a dispute with a government, which has its own employees "arbitrate" disputes that you have with it. That is the ineradicable inherent flaw in government.

Ah, so there's another layer: the Property Registration Arbiter.  Okay....  We'll have a war between followers of different Property Registration Arbiters, which will become our new government.

We will have no such thing. War is only profitable if you are a government or a war profiteer getting money from a government.

Hope that helps.

[Kshartle]

Some intrinsic value that might demand some duty of care on the part of humans... What makes it immoral to torture them vs no different than chopping down a tree.

I don't think that Kshartle believes that a "duty to care" exists even for humans. That's probably not the right way to put it.

Scratch that.  Moral duty not to harm in any measure or in any circumstance.

Destroying your property is wrong. It is not being a steward of your property. Property is that which you control and are responsible for. Obviously putting your dog to sleep because it's suffering is fine and dandy. Murdering it because you don't want to care of it is a waste of it's life. You could sell it or give it away. That would not destroy it's value.

Obviously you have no right to destroy someone else's property.

Obviously torturing an animal for your sick pleasure is wrong.

We've gone over all this points in detail in other threads. You were a significant part of them. If the topic is of interest maybe we could go back to those threads and build off it rather than re-create the wheel right?

[moda0306]

I don't think that Kshartle believes that a "duty to care" exists even for humans. That's probably not the right way to put it.

Scratch that.  Moral duty not to harm in any measure or in any circumstance.

Destroying your property is wrong. It is not being a steward of your property. Property is that which you control and are responsible for. Obviously putting your dog to sleep because it's suffering is fine and dandy. Murdering it because you don't want to care of it is a waste of it's life. You could sell it or give it away. That would not destroy it's value.

Obviously you have no right to destroy someone else's property.

Obviously torturing an animal for your sick pleasure is wrong.

We've gone over all this points in detail in other threads. You were a significant part of them. If the topic is of interest maybe we could go back to those threads and build off it rather than re-create the wheel right?

Why is destroying your own property "wrong?"  So what if I want to... it's MY property?

What if an animal is nobody's property?  Is it ok to torture it then?  Is it ok to take an animal from nature (think an orca whale) and make it your property?

We've gone over this, and you've stated certain things are "right" and "wrong" with little reason as to why.  I figured it'd be a good thing to come back to.

[Pointedstick]

Destroying your property is wrong. It is not being a steward of your property. Property is that which you control and are responsible for. Obviously putting your dog to sleep because it's suffering is fine and dandy. Murdering it because you don't want to care of it is a waste of it's life. You could sell it or give it away. That would not destroy it's value.

Obviously you have no right to destroy someone else's property.

Obviously torturing an animal for your sick pleasure is wrong.

We've gone over all this points in detail in other threads. You were a significant part of them. If the topic is of interest maybe we could go back to those threads and build off it rather than re-create the wheel right?

Yes, it's obvious. However, "It's obvious" has no place in the description and defense of a moral principle. If you want to follow and advocate a moral principle, you can't fall back on "It's obvious so let's not waste time on it" whenever you're asked a question that's challenging to your moral principle, unless you're willing to admit that your moral principle is not universally applicable and that one can derive moral conclusions from alternative points of view.

[Kshartle]

Why is destroying your own property "wrong?"  So what if I want to... it's MY property?

What if an animal is nobody's property?  Is it ok to torture it then?  Is it ok to take an animal from nature (think an orca whale) and make it your property?

We've gone over this, and you've stated certain things are "right" and "wrong" with little reason as to why.  I figured it'd be a good thing to come back to.

Desroying your property is wrong because stewardship and responsibility for is a key component of ownership. The consequence of the wrong action is you are poorer and we are all poorer. Destoying value makes humankind worse off. This is not a case of argument from effects. Its not wrong because we are worse off but we are worse off because it's wrong.

If you own something you are the steward of it. Being capable of destroying it for no purpose does not make that acceptable behavior. It might be that no one has the right to stop you from burning your home down, but doing it is still wrong. You are now a bad property owner because you haven't looked after your property. It's also why if your dog bites the neighbor you are responsible. You have been a bad steward. If you aren't able to care for property that has value you should sell it or give it to other humans who can make use of the value.

It's kind of a tricky concept to articulate. It's very clear to me but I'm stuggling with a way to convey the understanding. Discussing property rights, their existance and all that entails is really tough. I think you have to first understand that you own yourself and have a right to yourself. Once you get that foundation, all the other things you know are true but you can't put your finger on why (you call it a gut feeling), become very clear.

Tech or l82 might be able to slice through my mess and clearly explain with a lot fewer words if they're up for it.

[Kshartle]

Destroying your property is wrong. It is not being a steward of your property. Property is that which you control and are responsible for. Obviously putting your dog to sleep because it's suffering is fine and dandy. Murdering it because you don't want to care of it is a waste of it's life. You could sell it or give it away. That would not destroy it's value.

Obviously you have no right to destroy someone else's property.

Obviously torturing an animal for your sick pleasure is wrong.

We've gone over all this points in detail in other threads. You were a significant part of them. If the topic is of interest maybe we could go back to those threads and build off it rather than re-create the wheel right?

Yes, it's obvious. However, "It's obvious" has no place in the description and defense of a moral principle. If you want to follow and advocate a moral principle, you can't fall back on "It's obvious so let's not waste time on it" whenever you're asked a question that's challenging to your moral principle, unless you're willing to admit that your moral principle is not universally applicable and that one can derive moral conclusions from alternative points of view.

Yes but I've explained all the reasons in other threads man. At legnth. In detail. So if anyone really is interested, go back there and ask questions related to all those explanations. I'm happy to discuss it. Property rights and what they mean are important stuff.

Imagine if you explain something in detail and rather than point out where I disagree or where I think you're wrong I just keep asking you the same question like you've never even covered it. The least I could do is read what you wrote on the subject in our prior converstion and start there rather than expect you to go over it all again.

Do you agree that this stuff is obvious? If so, why? I've explained it all before but I'm curious to hear your opinion.

[doodle]

What if I enjoy destroying things? Am I forced to limit my enjoyment of my own private property in order to serve the greater good? That sounds a bit like communism, Kshartle

[Pointedstick]

Desroying your property is wrong because stewardship and responsibility for is a key component of ownership. The consequence of the wrong action is you are poorer and we are all poorer. Destoying value makes humankind worse off. This is not a case of argument from effects. Its not wrong because we are worse off but we are worse off because it's wrong.

If you own something you are the steward of it. Being capable of destroying it for no purpose does not make that acceptable behavior. It might be that no one has the right to stop you from burning your home down, but doing it is still wrong. You are now a bad property owner because you haven't looked after your property. It's also why if your dog bites the neighbor you are responsible. You have been a bad steward. If you aren't able to care for property that has value you should sell it or give it to other humans who can make use of the value.

It's kind of a tricky concept to articulate. It's very clear to me but I'm stuggling with a way to convey the understanding. Discussing property rights, their existance and all that entails is really tough. I think you have to first understand that you own yourself and have a right to yourself. Once you get that foundation, all the other things you know are true but you can't put your finger on why (you call it a gut feeling), become very clear.

Tech or l82 might be able to slice through my mess and clearly explain with a lot fewer words if they're up for it.

I get what you're saying, Kshartle, and I think you're right. Property entails stewardship. When you lay a claim on something, you are implicitly signing a social contract that says, "I will steward, protect, and make beneficial use of this thing that I am making mine and excluding from anyone else's ability to lay claim on or make use of without my permission."

Imagine a human society that had private property but no concept of stewardship. It would be a dump and would probably collapse. Stewardship and property as concepts are intimately linked in the fabric of human social interactions. It's why we all know that the guy who neglects his house and keeps broken-down cars in the front yard is a jackass even though we also acknowledge his right to do it! It's because he's at least bending that implicit social contract, and that's selfish. He's trying to get all the benefit of excluding things from others' use without expending the effort to take care of those things and prevent them from metaphorically stinking up the joint.

[doodle]

Desroying your property is wrong because stewardship and responsibility for is a key component of ownership. The consequence of the wrong action is you are poorer and we are all poorer. Destoying value makes humankind worse off. This is not a case of argument from effects. Its not wrong because we are worse off but we are worse off because it's wrong.

If you own something you are the steward of it. Being capable of destroying it for no purpose does not make that acceptable behavior. It might be that no one has the right to stop you from burning your home down, but doing it is still wrong. You are now a bad property owner because you haven't looked after your property. It's also why if your dog bites the neighbor you are responsible. You have been a bad steward. If you aren't able to care for property that has value you should sell it or give it to other humans who can make use of the value.

It's kind of a tricky concept to articulate. It's very clear to me but I'm stuggling with a way to convey the understanding. Discussing property rights, their existance and all that entails is really tough. I think you have to first understand that you own yourself and have a right to yourself. Once you get that foundation, all the other things you know are true but you can't put your finger on why (you call it a gut feeling), become very clear.

Tech or l82 might be able to slice through my mess and clearly explain with a lot fewer words if they're up for it.

I get what you're saying, Kshartle, and I think you're right. Property entails stewardship. When you lay a claim on something, you are implicitly signing a social contract that says, "I will steward, protect, and make beneficial use of this thing that I am making mine and excluding from anyone else's ability to lay claim on or make use of without my permission."

Imagine a human society that had private property but no concept of stewardship. It would be a dump and would probably collapse. Stewardship and property as concepts are intimately linked in the fabric of human social interactions. It's why we all know that the guy who neglects his house and keeps broken-down cars in the front yard is a jackass even though we also acknowledge his right to do it! It's because he's at least bending that implicit social contract, and that's selfish. He's trying to get all the benefit of excluding things from others' use without expending the effort to take care of those things and prevent them from metaphorically stinking up the joint.

Where is the freedom in that?

This all sounds very oppressive to me...

[Pointedstick]

What if I enjoy destroying things? Am I forced to limit my enjoyment of my own private property in order to serve the greater good? That sounds a bit like communism, Kshartle

This is actually a fascinating point. The answer is yes, and it's only of the big reasons why I feel liberal-leaning people tend not to really like property as a concept. This is of course just a huge crazy generalization, but I think liberal types actually like destroying things and lack the responsibility to avoid neglecting the things they don't want to destroy, and therefore chafe at the implicit social contract that they must refrain from neglect or destruction if they want to own things. It's because they want the perception of freedom that comes from unattachment, and stewarding property feels like a burden that reduces their feeling of freedom.

[Kshartle]

BTW - the statement, "Obviously you have no right to destroy someone else's property." is not an attempt to gloss over the reasons why it's wrong and not support the assertion.

The statment itself is sufficient to prove it's point. This is why it's important to start with making sure we have the same definition for words when trying to have a productive conversation.

If you understand that the words "someone else's property" means the thing which you intend to destroy is the value and property that is owned by another person......then you cannot have a right to it. It doesn't belong to you. So obviously the action is wrong.

You just need to read the statement to prove that it's true, as long as you understand what those words mean.

Take it in reverse "Obviously it's right to destroy someone else's property". Do you see why the sentence falls apart? It's self contradicting. We don't need to go any further, although we can. If the property belongs to someone else then you can't have any rights to it, or there is no such thing as property. The word property would have no meaning. Since it does have meaning, the statement cannot be correct and my first one is.

And it proves itself, I don't even have to work at it.

Does that all make sense?

[Pointedstick]

Where is the freedom in that?

This all sounds very oppressive to me...

It must not feel like freedom at all if you like destroying things and if taking care of objects feels like a chore.

Then again, if that's the way you feel, civilization really isn't for you.

[doodle]

BTW - the statement, "Obviously you have no right to destroy someone else's property." is not an attempt to gloss over the reasons why it's wrong and not support the assertion.

The statment itself is sufficient to prove it's point. This is why it's important to start with making sure we have the same definition for words when trying to have a productive conversation.

If you understand that the words "someone else's property" means the thing which you intend to destroy is the value and property that is owned by another person......then you cannot have a right to it. It doesn't belong to you. So obviously the action is wrong.

You just need to read the statement to prove that it's true, as long as you understand what those words mean.

Take it in reverse "Obviously it's right to destroy someone else's property". Do you see why the sentence falls apart? It's self contradicting. We don't need to go any further, although we can. If the property belongs to someone else then you can't have any rights to it, or there is no such thing as property. The word property would have no meaning. Since it does have meaning, the statement cannot be correct and my first one is.

And it proves itself, I don't even have to work at it.

Does that all make sense?

Good luck proving "right" and "wrong" in an amoral universe. You are attempting to impose your personal morality on the universe....and I find that very oppressive

[moda0306]

But you didn't answer the question about killing wild animals that aren't your property... Is that wrong?  Also because of "stewardship?"  So basically an animals only moral status is in the fact that someone else might value it as property, and you're making them "poorer" by killing it?


This whole "stewardship" thing sounds like a bunch of cacophony from the standpoint of anarcho-capitalism.  Now we're in a whole new realm of subjectivity.

Not only do I have to respect YOUR arbitrary claim to property, but I have to respect your arbitrary definition of what proper "stewardship" is of my property, lest you come "protect" it from my actions?

And this is all just morally self-evident, is it?  Just easily wrapped up in obvious moral truths that nobody could reasonably disagree with, but, of course, if they do, we just "cooperate" our way to an agreement?

What if I think that razing a forest isn't proper "stewardship?"  What if you don't think my letting my grass grow long is proper "stewardship?"

I'm not saying the concept is bunk... in fact, I think stewardship is huge piece of "property," because I really don't think humans can make moral claims to property with a completely straight face.  I think saying that you have some DUTY to use/treat that property in a reasonable way is not only ok, but to be expected... however, this is super subjective stuff.

Again, K, it isn't that we think your ideas are asinine... they're sometimes very reasonable positions to have... it's the fact that you build in almost zero room for disagreement in your moral/economic theories that is so dumbfounding.

[moda0306]

Where is the freedom in that?

This all sounds very oppressive to me...

It must not feel like freedom at all if you like destroying things and if taking care of objects feels like a chore.

Then again, if that's the way you feel, civilization really isn't for you.

Well, if you REALLY hate government, civilization probably isn't for you, either.

[Kshartle]

Where is the freedom in that?

This all sounds very oppressive to me...

It must not feel like freedom at all if you like destroying things and if taking care of objects feels like a chore.

Then again, if that's the way you feel, civilization really isn't for you.

No one is forcing anyone to have property. Other people will glady take anything of value you want to give away.

If you can't find someone to take care of your pet I suppose you can quiety snuff it's life out behind closed doors. That will be wrong to do and you will be a bad pet owner. Please don't invite me over ever. If you think it's oppresive that you have to care for your pets......just pretend it's a poor person and you're wonderful King Obama. Pretend it voted for you.

[Kshartle]

BTW - the statement, "Obviously you have no right to destroy someone else's property." is not an attempt to gloss over the reasons why it's wrong and not support the assertion.

The statment itself is sufficient to prove it's point. This is why it's important to start with making sure we have the same definition for words when trying to have a productive conversation.

If you understand that the words "someone else's property" means the thing which you intend to destroy is the value and property that is owned by another person......then you cannot have a right to it. It doesn't belong to you. So obviously the action is wrong.

You just need to read the statement to prove that it's true, as long as you understand what those words mean.

Take it in reverse "Obviously it's right to destroy someone else's property". Do you see why the sentence falls apart? It's self contradicting. We don't need to go any further, although we can. If the property belongs to someone else then you can't have any rights to it, or there is no such thing as property. The word property would have no meaning. Since it does have meaning, the statement cannot be correct and my first one is.

And it proves itself, I don't even have to work at it.

Does that all make sense?

Good luck proving "right" and "wrong" in an amoral universe. You are attempting to impose your personal morality on the universe....and I find that very oppressive

What are you talking about? Did you even read what I wrote or is that just your canned response to everything?

Maybe rather than just type a canned response to things I write you can actually examine them critically. If you think I'm wrong please point out where. Please try to add something. Help me out.

Imposing my personal morality on the universe? How can I impose anything on the universe? That is sentence bereft of meaning. It's a bunch of words strung together that don't mean anything. 

[Kshartle]

Where is the freedom in that?

This all sounds very oppressive to me...

It must not feel like freedom at all if you like destroying things and if taking care of objects feels like a chore.

Then again, if that's the way you feel, civilization really isn't for you.

Well, if you REALLY hate government, civilization probably isn't for you, either.

If you really hate murder and rape, maybe humans aren't for you. Do you see how silly that statement is moda? It's just a slightly more obvious version of yours.

[doodle]

Where is the freedom in that?

This all sounds very oppressive to me...

It must not feel like freedom at all if you like destroying things and if taking care of objects feels like a chore.

Then again, if that's the way you feel, civilization really isn't for you.

No one is forcing anyone to have property. Other people will glady take anything of value you want to give away.

If you can't find someone to take care of your pet I suppose you can quiety snuff it's life out behind closed doors. That will be wrong to do and you will be a bad pet owner. Please don't invite me over ever. If you think it's oppresive that you have to care for your pets......just pretend it's a poor person and you're wonderful King Obama. Pretend it voted for you.

Define value? Is a living tree valuable or does it only have value once it is converted into someone's hardwood floor. Seems that there is some disagreement as to value happening in the Amazon right now between logging companies and farmers and native Indians. In fact, it seems to me that value is a pretty personal thing....one persons valuable dog might be another persons pest. Do Mosquitos have value? Is killing them wrong in the same way that killing a dog is?

[moda0306]

K,

You essentially think you have identified the "One Moral Truth," and you continue to point out arbitrary details of it that one could easily disagree with (ie, ability to "own" naturally occurring value provided by nature, having a "stewardship" standard on that property).  You essentially are asking the entire universe to comply with your moral code.  You say "don't use violence," and then proceed to define to us exactly what violence is, and scoff at disagreement.

Where is the freedom in that?

This all sounds very oppressive to me...

It must not feel like freedom at all if you like destroying things and if taking care of objects feels like a chore.

Then again, if that's the way you feel, civilization really isn't for you.

No one is forcing anyone to have property. Other people will glady take anything of value you want to give away.

If you can't find someone to take care of your pet I suppose you can quiety snuff it's life out behind closed doors. That will be wrong to do and you will be a bad pet owner. Please don't invite me over ever. If you think it's oppresive that you have to care for your pets......just pretend it's a poor person and you're wonderful King Obama. Pretend it voted for you.

If doing so is "wrong," can I stop you from doing so?  If someone is torturing his puppies in his front lawn, can I forcibly stop him?  If someone is operating a miserable factory cattle farm, can I forcibly invade that barn and set the cows free?

What is one to do if they witness someone not being a good steward?

[moda0306]

It must not feel like freedom at all if you like destroying things and if taking care of objects feels like a chore.

Then again, if that's the way you feel, civilization really isn't for you.

Well, if you REALLY hate government, civilization probably isn't for you, either.

If you really hate murder and rape, maybe humans aren't for you. Do you see how silly that statement is moda? It's just a slightly more obvious version of yours.

This depends on your prediction on how instrumental governments have been in building civilization.  We'd obviously disagree on this, but I think PS might actually agree with me.

We can save that for another day, though.  We're still trying to figure out how you want us to be good stewards of our property, and what you're allowed to do to us if we are not.

[Pointedstick]

Define value? Is a living tree valuable or does it only have value once it is converted into someone's hardwood floor. Seems that there is some disagreement as to value happening in the Amazon right now between logging companies and farmers and native Indians. In fact, it seems to me that value is a pretty personal thing....one persons valuable dog might be another persons pest. Do Mosquitos have value? Is killing them wrong in the same way that killing a dog is?

Wow, it's LITERALLY the law of the jungle! It's a good thing they have a government to help the farmers and loggers and indians negotiate their predicament peacefully… Oh wait.

[doodle]

BTW - the statement, "Obviously you have no right to destroy someone else's property." is not an attempt to gloss over the reasons why it's wrong and not support the assertion.

The statment itself is sufficient to prove it's point. This is why it's important to start with making sure we have the same definition for words when trying to have a productive conversation.

If you understand that the words "someone else's property" means the thing which you intend to destroy is the value and property that is owned by another person......then you cannot have a right to it. It doesn't belong to you. So obviously the action is wrong.

You just need to read the statement to prove that it's true, as long as you understand what those words mean.

Take it in reverse "Obviously it's right to destroy someone else's property". Do you see why the sentence falls apart? It's self contradicting. We don't need to go any further, although we can. If the property belongs to someone else then you can't have any rights to it, or there is no such thing as property. The word property would have no meaning. Since it does have meaning, the statement cannot be correct and my first one is.

And it proves itself, I don't even have to work at it.

Does that all make sense?

Good luck proving "right" and "wrong" in an amoral universe. You are attempting to impose your personal morality on the universe....and I find that very oppressive

What are you talking about? Did you even read what I wrote or is that just your canned response to everything?

Maybe rather than just type a canned response to things I write you can actually examine them critically. If you think I'm wrong please point out where. Please try to add something. Help me out.

Imposing my personal morality on the universe? How can I impose anything on the universe? That is sentence bereft of meaning. It's a bunch of words strung together that don't mean anything. 

You keep throwing around the words "right" and "wrong"....as far as I'm concerned you are just attempting to impose your own personal concepts of morality on an amoral universe. Right and wrong don't exist...the universe only knows natural and unnatural....and by definition, anything that is possible is natural and anything that is impossible is unnatural. The world functioned just fine for billions of years without "human morality" and the natural order flourished.