Is it time for revolution?

#401
#401
hog88 said:
Truthfully I don't think I understand P18. My interpretation is that I have some responsibility to the previous owner.
Click to expand...

P18 is merely about harm. We can replace the property bit with any general event, such as event x. The relevant part is merely how to explain harm. If it were possible that another event, say event y, which was mutually exclusive to event x, would occur and leave me better off than event x would, then the occurrence of event x, at the expense of event y, leaves me worse off. I don't understand how an event that makes me worse off cannot be said to have harmed me, whether I am aware of this harm or not.
 
#402
#402
therealUT said:
P18 is merely about harm. We can replace the property bit with any general event, such as event x. The relevant part is merely how to explain harm. If it were possible that another event, say event y, which was mutually exclusive to event x, would occur and leave me better off than event x would, then the occurrence of event x, at the expense of event y, leaves me worse off. I don't understand how an event that makes me worse off cannot be said to have harmed me, whether I am aware of this harm or not.
Click to expand...

I'll just respond in simple terms.

If we are a party to a legal and agreed upon transaction I'm of no obligation to you beyond that of what we agreed to. If in the process of or due to this transaction you entered into voluntarily and you experience harm, it's none of my concern or responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#403
#403
hog88 said:
I'll just respond in simple terms.

If we are a party to a legal and agreed upon transaction I'm of no obligation to you beyond that of what we agreed to. If in the process of or due to this transaction you entered into voluntarily and you experience harm, it's none of my concern or responsibility.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this. But, it's irrelevant to the argument I've given.
 
#405
#405
hog88 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Because we are discussing the absolute foundation of property rights. It's either first acquisition, might, or ideal and unanimous societal agreement. It would be absolutely irrational for any individual to consent to a system that would leave him worse off. Thus, the only agreed to standard of such a right would be that in which rights were tied to not leaving anyone worse off.

Again, this is the Lockean proviso and, as such, the notion of property rights that were understood by the framers of the Constitution.

The only other justification available involves invoking the divine and the magical.
 
#407
#407
therealUT said:
Because we are discussing the absolute foundation of property rights. It's either first acquisition, might, or ideal and unanimous societal agreement. It would be absolutely irrational for any individual to consent to a system that would leave him worse off. Thus, the only agreed to standard of such a right would be that in which rights were tied to not leaving anyone worse off.

Again, this is the Lockean proviso and, as such, the notion of property rights that were understood by the framers of the Constitution.

The only other justification available involves invoking the divine and the magical.
Click to expand...

That is an impossible standard. Worse off is too broad and wide of a term to be legally used.
 
#408
#408
Vol8188 said:
Idk how I feel about that. I see the risk, but I've never trusted the government.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't be mandatory, however, if you know parents that don't vaccinate their children you should verbally abuse and shame said parents every chance you get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#409
#409
therealUT said:
They shouldn't be mandatory, however, if you know parents that don't vaccinate their children you should verbally abuse and shame said parents every chance you get.
Click to expand...

Should we verbally abuse and shame drug users as well?

(Provided they are legal-for this argument)
 
#410
#410
hog88 said:
That is an impossible standard. Worse off is too broad and wide of a term to be legally used.
Click to expand...

It's the only standard that works if you take rights seriously. And, if you take rights seriously, then you place real rights above legal rights.

Any other standard places your right at the whim of others, be it some stronger individuals, a government, or simply a majority in any collective. Tying rights to something you have control over (you have control over making your land efficient) gives you a claim against the interference of others.

By taxing your land, the government ensures that your ownership goes to benefit others and the government provides for your security against the encroachment of others.

What you don't have any right to is to merely sit on resources for your own enjoyment. Not even the "father of capitalism" was willing to grant such a prospect, nor was the largest intellectual influence on the founders ready to grant such a prospect.

Surely you would think that an individual who owned all the land on earth and opted to leave it idle, while everyone else scrambled, is morally repugnant, even if such an individual purchased all that land. One cannot claim on any principle that such and individual is doing something wrong, yet an individual who merely did that with 99% of the land was not.

By taking small steps, we can carry that 99% to 98%...1%.
 
#412
#412
therealUT said:
It's the only standard that works if you take rights seriously. And, if you take rights seriously, then you place real rights above legal rights.

Any other standard places your right at the whim of others, be it some stronger individuals, a government, or simply a majority in any collective. Tying rights to something you have control over (you have control over making your land efficient) gives you a claim against the interference of others.

By taxing your land, the government ensures that your ownership goes to benefit others and the government provides for your security against the encroachment of others.

What you don't have any right to is to merely sit on resources for your own enjoyment. Not even the "father of capitalism" was willing to grant such a prospect, nor was the largest intellectual influence on the founders ready to grant such a prospect.

Surely you would think that an individual who owned all the land on earth and opted to leave it idle, while everyone else scrambled, is morally repugnant, even if such an individual purchased all that land. One cannot claim on any principle that such and individual is doing something wrong, yet an individual who merely did that with 99% of the land was not.

By taking small steps, we can carry that 99% to 98%...1%.
Click to expand...

We don't have a shortage of land here, we have no need to make every single acre "efficient".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#415
#415
therealUT said:
It's the only standard that works if you take rights seriously. And, if you take rights seriously, then you place real rights above legal rights.

Any other standard places your right at the whim of others, be it some stronger individuals, a government, or simply a majority in any collective. Tying rights to something you have control over (you have control over making your land efficient) gives you a claim against the interference of others.

By taxing your land, the government ensures that your ownership goes to benefit others and the government provides for your security against the encroachment of others.

What you don't have any right to is to merely sit on resources for your own enjoyment. Not even the "father of capitalism" was willing to grant such a prospect, nor was the largest intellectual influence on the founders ready to grant such a prospect.

Surely you would think that an individual who owned all the land on earth and opted to leave it idle, while everyone else scrambled, is morally repugnant, even if such an individual purchased all that land. One cannot claim on any principle that such and individual is doing something wrong, yet an individual who merely did that with 99% of the land was not.

By taking small steps, we can carry that 99% to 98%...1%.
Click to expand...

Here is where you go off the rails.

Of course I'm not a philosopher but there isn't a difference between real rights and legal ones except in a persons mind. My real and legal right is to do with my land as I see fit within the confines of the law. I have not one single obligation to anyone else to make that land productive or beneficial to others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#416
#416
hog88 said:
Here is where you go off the rails.

Of course I'm not a philosopher but there isn't a difference between real rights and legal ones except in a persons mind. My real and legal right is to do with my land as I see fit within the confines of the law. I have not one single obligation to anyone else to make that land productive or beneficial to others.
Click to expand...

If no difference, then the government can pass a law and take your land for any reason whatsoever. And, you cannot complain that your rights have been violated. True story.
 
#417
#417
therealUT said:
If no difference, then the government can pass a law and take your land for any reason whatsoever. And, you cannot complain that your rights have been violated. True story.
Click to expand...

It is a true story. That is reality, the government can do exactly that. However if they did, I could complain and revolt.
 
#424
#424
Vol8188 said:
I'm waiting for the explanation here?
Click to expand...

Lol


Let one of your students come in jacked up on meth and go to whipping your ass.

Or a stoner trying to roll a joint going down the highway and cause a crash.

Or bubba eats some bath salts and try's to eat your wife's face.


Then get back to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top