Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

A Misapplication of Property Rights

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

it's just a metaphor for VHF signals

You can't make arguments by metaphor. All it can do is make it easier to understand your argument, but not demonstrate its validity.

If you are talking about transmitted signals, there is nothing to trip over. Simple as that. With your thought experiment, all you altered is visibility. It still has the same physical dimensions, physical impact on the world, and physical impact on people. The signals you're talking about don't do anything measurably adverse to your body. Intense enough radioactivity can cause harm to your body in a measurable way.

It's possible that signals can affect the way equipment operates, but then any potential violation would involve equipment that is your property. It's not because the signals would violate your airspace or whatever you want to call it. If you had no equipment affected by those signals, then there is no way your property rights could be violated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

How so? He hasn't met your criteria for trespassing. And nobody will trip over the "invisible sign," because it's just a metaphor for VHF signals. And the "special glasses" are a TV.

Why is the invisible sign considered trespassing, but the invisible signals are not?

Radio waves are not invisible signs.  You took a physical, material object that people could touch and hold and wave around and look at and then made it hypothetically invisible.  But making it invisible didn't make it intangible.  Radio waves are intangible and your invisible sign is not so your hypothetical fails.  

You could have used Pokemon Go as a better example, but now I'm doing your work.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Grames said:

Radio waves are intangible and your invisible sign is not so your hypothetical fails.

I never said that the invisible sign was tangible. You did. I said it was undetectable without the special glasses. Is tangibility also part of your standard for violating property rights? If the sign were intangible, then it wouldn't violate my property rights? Why does tangibility matter? Let's say I never touch the sign. Must I prove its tangibility before a court could find the socialist guilty of violating my rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I never said that the invisible sign was tangible. You did. 

You said it was a sign.  Being tangible is an attribute of such an object.  If you want to proceed with your silly hypothetical, call it something else to avoid me calling attention to all those other attributes you did not want to think about.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...