Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote: 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.

It feels subjective because the foundation isn't there. The foundation I think has to be built from the understanding of self-ownership. It's the most obvious and basic peice of property that EVERYONE has, their own body. Once that foundation is firmly in place....the subjectivity of these other things really falls away man. Trust me on this one please. All these questions get easier and easier to answer and comprehend. They are not mind benders. They are difficult to talk about when we have different foundations or when one person is lacking the essential foundation.

If you can't understand WHY a person owns themself you will never ever get why it's ok to kill some animals and not others, why it's ok to mow your lawn or not mow it bladdy blah.

I'm not trying to avoid your questions. Gosh isn't it obvious I seek out disscussions on complex topics like a heat seeking missle? It's that it's completely useless to spend on this time and effort explaining something to a person who is CONVINCED that it can't be explained. You are biased against any explanation because you don't believe one exists or that a human can actually understand this stuff correctly.

Gotta start by understanding that humans own themselves and what that really means. Your eyes will open and these other "gut feelings" you have about things will suddenly make a lot of sense. And you will of course agree 100% with every word I type from here on out. 

doodle wrote: 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 natural world functioned just fine for billions of years without "human morality" the natural order flourished.

You may be right, but I hope you can understand how such a position makes it impossible to have almost any substantive conversation on any subject. It's just a lame cop-out.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: 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 natural world functioned just fine for billions of years without "human morality" the natural order flourished.

You may be right, but I hope you can understand how such a position makes it impossible to have almost any substantive conversation on any subject. It's just a lame cop-out.

I have feelings about how things ought to be, but I realize they are arbitrary value judgements that are based upon my personal preferences. However, Kshartle is trying to set up his  judgements of how things should be as some sort of axiomatic universal truth that can be irrefutably proved. He criticizes the liberal left and their social engineering without recognizing that he too is trying to impose his own arbitrary will on the rest of the world in exactly the same manner

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: 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?

Value is the word used to describe the trait of something or someone having a use or being desired by another person, either extrinsic or intrinsic. Something or someone has value becase another person desires it, either for it's own sake or for what it can do.

Any individual mosquito has no value. No one owns them because no one can own them. I suppose it's possible that someone could have mosquitos in a lab or something for some purpose. In that case yes they would be someone else's property and it would be wrong to kill them.

Killing a mosquito is not like killing your dog.

Do you really not know this stuff or are you just trolling?  Do you really need someone to explain why it's ok to kill a mosquito?

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: 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 natural world functioned just fine for billions of years without "human morality" the natural order flourished.

You may be right, but I hope you can understand how such a position makes it impossible to have almost any substantive conversation on any subject. It's just a lame cop-out.

He is definately not right. He doesn't understand that he owns himself and what that means. He can't understand this other stuff unless he's goes back to what he knew as a child, that he belongs to himself. It's why he cried when a bully pushed him on the playground.

Something has messed with a lot of people's minds and confused them on the obvious reality. They know in their gut what is right and wrong still but they pretend to not know why. They pretend it's all just some big coincidence we all know stealing and murder are wrong.

They are concindence theorists.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: 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.

It feels subjective because the foundation isn't there. The foundation I think has to be built from the understanding of self-ownership. It's the most obvious and basic peice of property that EVERYONE has, their own body. Once that foundation is firmly in place....the subjectivity of these other things really falls away man. Trust me on this one please. All these questions get easier and easier to answer and comprehend. They are not mind benders. They are difficult to talk about when we have different foundations or when one person is lacking the essential foundation.

If you can't understand WHY a person owns themself you will never ever get why it's ok to kill some animals and not others, why it's ok to mow your lawn or not mow it bladdy blah.

I'm not trying to avoid your questions. Gosh isn't it obvious I seek out disscussions on complex topics like a heat seeking missle? It's that it's completely useless to spend on this time and effort explaining something to a person who is CONVINCED that it can't be explained. You are biased against any explanation because you don't believe one exists or that a human can actually understand this stuff correctly.

Gotta start by understanding that humans own themselves and what that really means. Your eyes will open and these other "gut feelings" you have about things will suddenly make a lot of sense. And you will of course agree 100% with every word I type from here on out. 

I do understand that we "own ourselves" in a given moral framework.  To me, though, I don't think it's "wrong" to torture a whale, simply because it could have been someone's property. It's wrong to torture the whale because the whale can FEEL what you are doing, and it's extremely scared and in pain.  Just like we would be if we were being tortured.

Further, even I 100% agreed with self-ownership, which might just be valid, we are in a moral dilemma then... all pitted against each other, essentially, on a deserted island called Earth.  "Property" is something that certain moral philosophies attach to self-ownership to allow it to exist functionally in this world, but essentially, like "government," it is essentially a system of control one places on others around them, backed by the threat of force.  We can't behave morally perfectly, so we have to establish devices that limit immoral acts.  Property (mainly, the establishment of common resources as "private property") is one of those things.  Government is another.

So, please, as best as you can, please tell me how Self-Ownership extends to animals around us, and "killing some animals is worse than killing others," and, if property truly exists as an extension of your SOVEREIGN self,  you can impose a duty of your definition of "stewardship" on people.  If it's "tough to articulate," maybe it's because, like most people, you kind of just feel morality in your gut, and can't really prove it logically.



K,

No we don't "know this stuff."  Nobody "knows" anything about morality because most of us are humble enough to admit we don't have all the answers.  So if the mosquitos are in a lab, and are useful insofar that infecting them with a disease will teach the lab tech something about that disease, I'm assuming it's ok to infect them with a disease? 

So why would it be any different for a dog?  What if we could learn a lot about a flesh-eating bacteria by infecting 1,000 dogs with it (the only animal it would work on)?  Is there anything wrong with doing so?

No, we don't "know" these things... but you obviously do... so please enlighten us...

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: 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 natural world functioned just fine for billions of years without "human morality" the natural order flourished.

You may be right, but I hope you can understand how such a position makes it impossible to have almost any substantive conversation on any subject. It's just a lame cop-out.

I have feelings about how things ought to be, but I realize they are arbitrary value judgements that are based upon my personal preferences. However, Kshartle is trying to set up his  judgements of how things should be as some sort of axiomatic universal truth that can be irrefutably proved. He criticizes the liberal left and their social engineering without recognizing that he too is trying to impose his own arbitrary will on the rest of the world in exactly the same manner

Why do you think you have those feelings? Where do they come from and what are they based on? Do you think it's just all a big coincidence?

I'm not imposing anything. That's nonsensical rubbish. I'm explaining why you have those gut feelings. You think because you don't know other people can't know or just that this stuff doesn't exist.

Your argument against property rights and good and bad existing is literrally because you don't understand it. You don't get it, therefore anyone who says they do and attempts to explain MUST be wrong or trying to impose something on you.

This is the appeal to complexity fallacious argument. It's one of the most popular ones here. "I don't understand therefore it can't be understood and anyone who explains must be wrong no matter what their explanation is or the basis for it."

You have already decided. Your mind is turned off as soon as the topic is explored. You are reading with a jaundiced eye.

K,

We've given you plenty of chances to "prove" to us your moral code, and you've failed even to convince people who want to believe you're correct. 

If your code of property is backed by the enforcement of those that hold it (or some third party), then it is, truly, you "imposing your will" on us.

YOU are the one stating you know the One Moral Truth, and then stating we are being closed minded and obtuse.  You don't prove anything logically, then you attack us for logical fallacies.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?  Sure, EVERYONE knows murder and theft are wrong, but it's how you define the true core of those words that really gets down to it.  Is defending what you believe to be your property "murder?"  Is taking from someone who is not being a good steward "theft?"

Even if we all know that we "own ourselves," I don't see how you make such simple connections towards protecting property, demanding "stewardship," etc.  These are things you feel like you just know.  A lot of people who would acknowledge "self-ownership" could easily come to VERY different conclusions (and they do... see arguments of anarchists who greatly disagree with each other over "property").

If understanding self-ownership is the key to everything, then how come people who do understand (and strongly believe in it) completely disagree with each other on property "rights?"  How can that be, if appreciating "self-ownership" is the key to everything else?

moda0306 wrote: I do understand that we "own ourselves" in a given moral framework.  To me, though, I don't think it's "wrong" to torture a whale, simply because it could have been someone's property. It's wrong to torture the whale because the whale can FEEL what you are doing, and it's extremely scared and in pain.  Just like we would be if we were being tortured.

Further, even I 100% agreed with self-ownership, which might just be valid, we are in a moral dilemma then... all pitted against each other, essentially, on a deserted island called Earth. 

Why do you think we are pitted against each other? Who are you pitted against?

This is why you think the concept of property is theft.

Property is humans taking object in nature and using them or altering them to make them valuable to humans. It is vastly superior for us to coopertate to do this. That effect is not the proof of the validity of NAP but it is the result of it. Humans cooperating and not using agressive force against each other results in improved and happier lives for humans.

The creation of property and the existance of property have nothing to do with theft. Do you think you are stealing air from other people when you breathe? Wouldn't the moral thing then be for us all to kill ourselves? Do those last two questions point out how silly the notion that we are somehow stealing from others by living and working and owning things?

I know you have a bunch more questions for me. Answering them is a complete waste of time. You're not interested in the answers, or understanding the concepts. You've stated over and over that this stuff cannot be understood. You are defeated before you even try. It wouldn't matter what I wrote. I could write anything and your answer would still be the same as it was a year ago. "You can't be right because no one can know this stuff, it's impossible to understand or it doesn't exist".

Then you would have more questions about dogs and/or flesh eating bacteria. Same with the government stuff. PS can explain why welfare is a failure and you can get that, but then you default back to we need the goverment for some other problem. The foundation isn't there because you truly don't understand the concept of self-ownership. You can say you do but that's just words. You don't assign any meaning to the concept.

moda0306 wrote: K,

We've given you plenty of chances to "prove" to us your moral code, and you've failed even to convince people who want to believe you're correct. 

If your code of property is backed by the enforcement of those that hold it (or some third party), then it is, truly, you "imposing your will" on us.

YOU are the one stating you know the One Moral Truth, and then stating we are being closed minded and obtuse.  You don't prove anything logically, then you attack us for logical fallacies.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?  Sure, EVERYONE knows murder and theft are wrong, but it's how you define the true core of those words that really gets down to it.  Is defending what you believe to be your property "murder?"  Is taking from someone who is not being a good steward "theft?"

Even if we all know that we "own ourselves," I don't see how you make such simple connections towards protecting property, demanding "stewardship," etc.  These are things you feel like you just know.  A lot of people who would acknowledge "self-ownership" could easily come to VERY different conclusions (and they do... see arguments of anarchists who greatly disagree with each other over "property").

If understanding self-ownership is the key to everything, then how come people who do understand (and strongly believe in it) completely disagree with each other on property "rights?"  How can that be, if appreciating "self-ownership" is the key to everything else?

Moda are you familiar with the term "self-fullfilling prophecy"?

Your argument against what I write is always the same. It's the appeal to complexity. You don't understand it, therefore no one can understand it or it doesn't exist. Therefore anyone who claims to understand it and attempts to explain MUST be wrong.

That is your argument. It's a self-fullfilling prophecy. Of course I could never convince you about property rights because you don't believe anyone can understand them, therefore I must be wrong, therefore I will always fail to explain them. I cannot be right because it's impossible for anyone to be right...in your mind.

K,

Sharing things like air and every little thing is just part of the dilemma we've been left with.  I don't even really think "property is theft," it's just one way of thinking about things that was obviously self-defeating and a bit goofy to think about.  Sure, breathing air, swimming in a lake, or making weapons from wood might not affect each other much.  It's probably not wrong because if we own ourselves, and have intrinsic moral value, we should do what we need to survive, but making vast, massive claims against the world at the expense of those around us is quite a bit different.  You refuse to acknowledge how arbitrary it is.

I'd truly love to know why, if I truly have a right to control myself and my property, I don't have a right to do with them as I please?  Would you say that there's room for disagreement on the stewardship principal? 

I would also love to know why it's immoral to hurt animals unnecessarily?  If it's "bad stewardship," then what about animals that ARE NOT our individual property?

Lastly, to what degree does one have a right to enforce a duty of stewardship upon another?  Apparently, I can stop someone from committing suicide, right?  Can I stop someone from hurting animals?  Can I take someone's land if they're not mowing it properly and I am willing to?

If you don't want to answer these, fine, but I'm sure other people reading all this would love to read more about your position on this.  I mean, our entire moral center depends on properly interpreting the NAP!  We better get it right.

moda0306 wrote: If you don't want to answer these, fine, but I'm sure other people reading all this would love to read more about your position on this.  I mean, our entire moral center depends on properly interpreting the NAP!  We better get it right.

You don't need to bother about all that. If you understand the principle of self-ownership then NAP is obvious as well as what is morally right and wrong. Other people aren't as confused about these topics as you think. I'm embarassed to have wasted so much time discussing them with you. I should have stopped when I realized you don't comprehend what it means to own yourself and all that this implies.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: K,

We've given you plenty of chances to "prove" to us your moral code, and you've failed even to convince people who want to believe you're correct. 

If your code of property is backed by the enforcement of those that hold it (or some third party), then it is, truly, you "imposing your will" on us.

YOU are the one stating you know the One Moral Truth, and then stating we are being closed minded and obtuse.  You don't prove anything logically, then you attack us for logical fallacies.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?  Sure, EVERYONE knows murder and theft are wrong, but it's how you define the true core of those words that really gets down to it.  Is defending what you believe to be your property "murder?"  Is taking from someone who is not being a good steward "theft?"

Even if we all know that we "own ourselves," I don't see how you make such simple connections towards protecting property, demanding "stewardship," etc.  These are things you feel like you just know.  A lot of people who would acknowledge "self-ownership" could easily come to VERY different conclusions (and they do... see arguments of anarchists who greatly disagree with each other over "property").

If understanding self-ownership is the key to everything, then how come people who do understand (and strongly believe in it) completely disagree with each other on property "rights?"  How can that be, if appreciating "self-ownership" is the key to everything else?

Moda are you familiar with the term "self-fullfilling prophecy"?

Your argument against what I write is always the same. It's the appeal to complexity. You don't understand it, therefore no one can understand it or it doesn't exist. Therefore anyone who claims to understand it and attempts to explain MUST be wrong.

That is your argument. It's a self-fullfilling prophecy. Of course I could never convince you about property rights because you don't believe anyone can understand them, therefore I must be wrong, therefore I will always fail to explain them. I cannot be right because it's impossible for anyone to be right...in your mind.

There are people here that believe in property rights that you are not convincing.

Recently you have brought up the concept of stewardship... I'd be willing to bet that there are a LOT of anarchists that don't believe in stewardship.... your property is YOUR property, and you can do with it as you please.  I'm almost positive of this because I've seen arguments between anarchists on this.

I believe some property rights do exist as a natural extension of our intrinsic value.  I am just not 100% sure I have the right answer on how the line is drawn on these rights.  This isn't an appeal to complexity because this ISN'T AN ARGUMENT!!  I'm not making an argument when I say "I don't know."  I'm just being humble enough to admit something.  What I'm saying to you is that your supposed certainty is laugh-worthy.  Not because "I don't know," but because your "logic" has numerous holes in it.  It's when I ask questions about definitions that you start accusing me of logical fallacies.  Well these definitions are important, and my examples help me give you a basis upon which to try to clarify these things for me.  "Stewardship" has become a sort of catch-all now for anytime our moral compass leads us towards something that NAP might not.  However, this is horribly subjective and adds a whole new area to start understanding definitions and moral actions.  Further, it's not entirely logical.  If I have the moral right to something because I control it, if I control it to some end, by logical conclusion, didn't it do more to benefit me?  Since I wouldn't have done it anyway?

If anyone is working from a position of self-fulfilling prophecy, it's the one with the prophecy!!!  You, K! You're the one who has the One Moral Truth that is somehow so simple, but yet so "hard to explain."  I'm just trying to identify a logical chain from premise to conclusion, and all I see is you dancing around it because you don't really understand true logic.  You don't understand Premise, Premise, Premise; Conclusion.  You don't understand a valid conclusion following sound premises.

So you've convinced yourself of some logical chain that almost none of us can really pin down. I actually don't really understand, still, what I should do in many circumstances, much less understand why, given your moral code.  People who ALSO believe in the NAP have come to extremely DIFFERENT opinions than you regarding property, yet you still chug along like this is just a matter of us realizing that 2+2=4, and we just haven't figured it out yet.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: If you don't want to answer these, fine, but I'm sure other people reading all this would love to read more about your position on this.  I mean, our entire moral center depends on properly interpreting the NAP!  We better get it right.

You don't need to bother about all that. If you understand the principle of self-ownership then NAP is obvious as well as what is morally right and wrong. Other people aren't as confused about these topics as you think. I'm embarassed to have wasted so much time discussing them with you. I should have stopped when I realized you don't comprehend what it means to own yourself and all that this implies.

That's a pretty bad argument. It's not as obvious as you think it is, especially the details. For example, a local government that passes a law mandating care of residential property is actually using the law to enforce stewardship of property. Is this wrong because government is inherently violent, even though it's actually using its power to do something that (I believe) you think is actually good? If so, then is it equally bad when the government uses its powers of violence to prevent theft or fraud?

The general principle of what you're saying is obvious, yes. But what you never seem to understand is that all the details of how this principle applies to the sticky and messy realities of life is a lot more complicated and ambiguous that you think it is.

If you would only acknowledge this ambiguity, I think you would meet with about 1,000% more success in convincing people of your position compared to rigidly and inflexibly insisting that if they don't get it, it's because they're ignorant or stupid or misinformed.

Have you actually ever convinced anyone using this approach? I daresay I sure haven't seen it work on the forum.

moda0306 wrote: There are people here that believe in property rights that you are not convincing.

Not convincing them of what?

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: If you don't want to answer these, fine, but I'm sure other people reading all this would love to read more about your position on this.  I mean, our entire moral center depends on properly interpreting the NAP!  We better get it right.

You don't need to bother about all that. If you understand the principle of self-ownership then NAP is obvious as well as what is morally right and wrong. Other people aren't as confused about these topics as you think. I'm embarassed to have wasted so much time discussing them with you. I should have stopped when I realized you don't comprehend what it means to own yourself and all that this implies.

That's a pretty bad argument. It's not as obvious as you think it is, especially the details. For example, a local government that passes a law mandating care of residential property is actually using the law to enforce stewardship of property. Is this wrong because government is inherently violent, even though it's actually using its power to do something that (I believe) you think is actually good? If so, then is it equally bad when the government uses its powers of violence to prevent theft or fraud?

The general principle of what you're saying is obvious, yes. But what you never seem to understand is that all the details of how this principle applies to the sticky and messy realities of life is a lot more complicated and ambiguous that you think it is.

If you would only acknowledge this ambiguity, I think you would meet with about 1,000% more success in convincing people of your position compared to rigidly and inflexibly insisting that if they don't get it, it's because they're ignorant or stupid or misinformed.

Have you actually ever convinced anyone using this approach? I daresay I sure haven't seen it work on the forum.

What is so ambiguous?

PS....if you own yourself then you also own the effects of your actions (there are other threads where this is all explained. If you disagree with that concept we can reopen them and I would appreciate if you explain where you disagree). One of the effects of your actions is your property. You own your property. Therefore no one has a claim on your property above you. Therefore no one has a right to steal your property. You can't have a law without a government and you can't have a government without the violation of property rights.

It's not obvious in the sense that you actually have to think about it. You have to connect maybe three dots at most to get it. It starts with the understanding that you own yourself. Everything flows from there.

Pointedstick wrote: Have you actually ever convinced anyone using this approach? I daresay I sure haven't seen it work on the forum.

Convinced anyone of what?

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: If you don't want to answer these, fine, but I'm sure other people reading all this would love to read more about your position on this.  I mean, our entire moral center depends on properly interpreting the NAP!  We better get it right.

You don't need to bother about all that. If you understand the principle of self-ownership then NAP is obvious as well as what is morally right and wrong. Other people aren't as confused about these topics as you think. I'm embarassed to have wasted so much time discussing them with you. I should have stopped when I realized you don't comprehend what it means to own yourself and all that this implies.

K,

Almost nobody seems to know "all that this implies."  So I guess I'd ask ANYONE out there, since I'm such a dunce, to please explain to me the answers to those questions, since it's so obvious to everyone on this board that Kshartle knows what he's talking about and is correct.

To all on-readers, I didn't realize that Kshartle had truly discovered the One Moral Truth, AND, since there's such universal agreement on all of this, philosophy classes around the world are cancelled, with professors declaring their life's work complete.

All anarchists and libertarians that believe in Self-ownership can now quit arguing with each other about what it means, because not only has Kshartle figured it out, it's just so damn obvious.

We can fold up our Bibles and abandon religion, because it's been logically proven exactly how we should behave and treat others, as well as when a violent reaction is warranted.

I must be a real dunce.  If someone would take the baton of freedom from Kshartle and help explain to me why animals shan't be harmed, when whether it matters if they're anyone's property or not, when it's ok to forcefully enforce a minimum level of stewardship, or if a third party will help in determining that, I'd love to hear it.

Thanks, K, for at least showing everyone else the light.  Hopefully, all the droves of readers that now believe in self-ownership, NAP, and every nuance of how to handle these connections you've presented in self-evident or logically provable ways will be able to help me understand.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: There are people here that believe in property rights that you are not convincing.

Not convincing them of what?

Your very specific, subjective, arbitrary view on property rights, stewardship, and what constitutes "aggression."

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: If you don't want to answer these, fine, but I'm sure other people reading all this would love to read more about your position on this.  I mean, our entire moral center depends on properly interpreting the NAP!  We better get it right.

You don't need to bother about all that. If you understand the principle of self-ownership then NAP is obvious as well as what is morally right and wrong. Other people aren't as confused about these topics as you think. I'm embarassed to have wasted so much time discussing them with you. I should have stopped when I realized you don't comprehend what it means to own yourself and all that this implies.

K,

Almost nobody seems to know "all that this implies."  So I guess I'd ask ANYONE out there, since I'm such a dunce, to please explain to me the answers to those questions, since it's so obvious to everyone on this board that Kshartle knows what he's talking about and is correct.

To all on-readers, I didn't realize that Kshartle had truly discovered the One Moral Truth, AND, since there's such universal agreement on all of this, philosophy classes around the world are cancelled, with professors declaring their life's work complete.

All anarchists and libertarians that believe in Self-ownership can now quit arguing with each other about what it means, because not only has Kshartle figured it out, it's just so damn obvious.

We can fold up our Bibles and abandon religion, because it's been logically proven exactly how we should behave and treat others, as well as when a violent reaction is warranted.

I must be a real dunce.  If someone would take the baton of freedom from Kshartle and help explain to me why animals shan't be harmed, when whether it matters if they're anyone's property or not, when it's ok to forcefully enforce a minimum level of stewardship, or if a third party will help in determining that, I'd love to hear it.

Thanks, K, for at least showing everyone else the light.  Hopefully, all the droves of readers that now believe in self-ownership, NAP, and every nuance of how to handle these connections you've presented in self-evident or logically provable ways will be able to help me understand.

Do you not believe that you own yourself? If you do....do you actually think means something?

Moda, why is it wrong for someone to murder you or put you in chains? You believe it's wrong don't you? Why do you think that is?

Others explaining it might work, but I think if you discover it by working it out for yourself you'll actually beleive it. If you start from a place where you think this stuff is unexplainable no one will ever be able to overcome the defalut self-fulling prophecy of the appeal to complexity argument.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: There are people here that believe in property rights that you are not convincing.

Not convincing them of what?

Your very specific, subjective, arbitrary view on property rights, stewardship, and what constitutes "aggression."

What do you think my position is on that stuff Moda? Feel free to be brief. I would very much like to hear what you think my position is on that stuff and really appreciate the feedback.

I think you mean objective. You keep saying this stuff is subjective and I'm arguing that it's objective. You are projecting your argument onto me.

If you're calling it subjective just because it's what I think then if I think 2+2=4 would you call that subjective also?

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Not convincing them of what?

Your very specific, subjective, arbitrary view on property rights, stewardship, and what constitutes "aggression."

What do you think my position is on that stuff Moda? Feel free to be brief. I would very much like to hear what you think my position is on that stuff and really appreciate the feedback.

We own ourselves and our actions, and therefore property, and nobody has a right to that property but us, so any attempt to control a person or his/her property is immoral. 

Mixed in there is some arbitrary basis on what constitutes as "your property," what kind of stewardship is implied, why people who are mentally ill but will never recover have rights, why animals don't have rights but are property that we should be good stewards of, some position on when the use of force to defend ourselves and our property is warranted, and what good stewardship implies upon the morality of actions taken towards others.

A lot of stuff in that last paragraph is where we can't seem to nail you down on anything concrete.  Further, even the phrase, "we own the affects of our actions" is pretty vague.  My actions affect a lot of things that I wouldn't consider "my property."

I think you mean objective. You keep saying this stuff is subjective and I'm arguing that it's objective. You are projecting your argument onto me.

If you're calling it subjective just because it's what I think then if I think 2+2=4 would you call that subjective also

No, I mean subjective.  Different unique positions that you, individually hold, but you make them sound like just a matter of simple logic.  Like, as you say, 2+2=4.  But they're not.  It's not objectively obvious that a duty of stewardship exists with our property, even if it were objectively obvious what our property truly consists of and knowing, in detail, why.

moda0306 wrote: We own ourselves and our actions, and therefore property, and nobody has a right to that property but us, so any attempt to control a person or his/her property is immoral. 

Do you believe that stuff is true? Do we actually disagree on this, or are you just put off when I say I am 100% convinced of it?

moda0306 wrote: Mixed in there is some arbitrary basis on what constitutes as "your property," what kind of stewardship is implied, why people who are mentally ill but will never recover have rights, why animals don't have rights but are property that we should be good stewards of, some position on when the use of force to defend ourselves and our property is warranted, and what good stewardship implies upon the morality of actions taken towards others.

We've gone over all this stuff at length. I haven't just glossed over it. I've written a ton on it. A ton on every one of those topics. You've always been free to point out where you think I'm wrong. Instead I just keep getting back that it's complicated and I'm over simplifying so I must be wrong. Is a self-fulfilling argument. You reapeat that I'm wrong or you aren't conviced and your proof is that you aren't convinced and don't understand. I can't be right on this stuff until you agree and your non-agreement is the justification for why I'm wrong. It's a never-ending loop. 

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Mixed in there is some arbitrary basis on what constitutes as "your property," what kind of stewardship is implied, why people who are mentally ill but will never recover have rights, why animals don't have rights but are property that we should be good stewards of, some position on when the use of force to defend ourselves and our property is warranted, and what good stewardship implies upon the morality of actions taken towards others.

We've gone over all this stuff at length. I haven't just glossed over it. I've written a ton on it. A ton on every one of those topics.

And none of it makes any sense, IMHO. Whenever those topics are brought up, you usually start by claiming that everybody knows the answer and it's so obvious that we should skip it. When pressed on this, you will sometimes clumsily attempt to defend this position, and then when the contradictions, inconsistencies, and other issues in your arguments are pointed out, you dismiss them out of hand.

This does indeed constitute going over these things again and again, but only because IMHO you can't seem to make a self-consistent argument on these points or admit that the argument you do make is totally inconsistent and based on a different set of moral principles than NAP/self-ownership.