THE ENVIRONMENT

[dreadrocksean]

The issue of the ownership of waterways is pivotal to the issue of the environment. When an object is needed for survival by many, yet others can alter it or dispose of it under claims of ownership, a contradiction exists.

Let me know your thoughts.

Edited November 24, 2009 by dreadrocksean

[brian0918]

The issue of the ownership of waterways is pivotal to the issue of the environment. When an object is needed for survival by many, yet others can alter it or dispose of it under claims of ownership, a contradiction exists.

Let me know your thoughts.

There is no contradiction. A need does not create a claim.

As I said in my reply in the other post - your false premise is that the efficacy of an action determines whether that action is right. On the contrary, "whether or not something *can* be properly owned and managed in practice has no effect on whether or not it *should* be. What *should* happen is determined by the nature of property and individual rights, not the efficacy of the method. If people fail in their endeavors, then they fail, and the resources are destroyed or rendered unusable, etc. People will learn from their mistakes, and hopefully they will have some other resources to more properly manage to avoid making the same mistakes. If they do, they do, if they don't they don't. None of this is an argument for government ownership of resources. It is an argument for rationality."

[FeatherFall]

Would you consider adding a caveat or clarification, Brian? It sounds like you're saying that morality may dictate action toward an impossible goal. That can't be what you're saying, can it? Morality should proscribe actions that lead toward realistically achievable goals. Are you saying that just because something is possible doesn't mean it's moral?

Edited November 24, 2009 by FeatherFall

[Jake_Ellison]

The issue of the ownership of waterways is pivotal to the issue of the environment. When an object is needed for survival by many, yet others can alter it or dispose of it under claims of ownership, a contradiction exists.

Let me know your thoughts.

If I own a lake, and then some people come around and become dependent on it, that does not mean there's a contradiction at all. The lake is mine, and the people can take a hike.

If there is a lake, some people depend on it for their survival, and then I come along and claim that the lake is mine, again, there's no contradiction. I don't own the lake, so at best, I could enquire about who actually owns it, and how much would it cost to sell it to me.

So what's the contradiction, what happens if magically a lake, an owner, and some other people who depend on the lake, all appear out of nowhere, and now there is a conflict? There is no such thing.

If it's not magic, but a government which claims ownership of everything that isn't owned, and allows people to use it according to various arbitrary criteria, then yes there is a conflict, and there is no perfect solution. The inperfect solution is to come up with a way to transfer ownership from the government to the individuals who over the years began using the water resource (lake, river, it doesn'ty matter). The solutions include setting up corporations, selling stuff to the highest bidder and splitting the money among the people who will now give up any claim to the resource, etc.

It's not perfect, and the people at fault for that are the politicians who, over the decades, prevented individuals from properly claiming ownership of the previously unused resources, and therefor generating zero controversy or contradictions by becoming the owners. Socialism has consequences on its victims, and just like any other crime, the victims cannot be fully repaid.

[brian0918]

Would you consider adding a caveat or clarification, Brian? It sounds like you're saying that morality may dictate action toward an impossible goal. That can't be what you're saying, can it? Morality should proscribe actions that lead toward realistically achievable goals. Are you saying that just because something is possible doesn't mean it's moral?

You're dropping the context of what we're talking about. The fact that people don't necessarily act rationally to achieve goals does not affect whether they should be able to have those goals as options. Those are two separate moral questions.

He is asking whether it is moral to own waterways. That is separate from what you're asking, which is how to morally manage a waterway. So, morally, there should be no government ownership of waterways, and no restriction against private ownership. And on your issue: if someone *does* privately own a waterway, obviously they morally should have some goal in mind for that waterway, that goal should be rationally determined, and they should act rationally toward achieving that goal.

Edited November 24, 2009 by brian0918

[FeatherFall]

I wasn't asking about the proper way to manage a waterway, I was asking about this:

On the contrary, "whether or not something *can* be properly owned and managed in practice has no effect on whether or not it *should* be.

The sentence is a little confusing, it seemed to imply support for the notion that there is a separation between the moral and the practical. Had I read the other thread, there may have been less confusion (there may not have been; I still haven't ready the other thread). In any case, I think I understand what you are getting at.

[brian0918]

It implies nothing other than what it says. Making the implication you state requires dropping the context of the source of morality and practicality. The nature of man determines the moral, which determines the practical. So property rights do exist, and people should be free to own waterways. That people have the potential to act irrationally does not negate the existence of that freedom. People could always act irrationally in the future, always misusing their property. They should still be free to own it.

Edited November 24, 2009 by brian0918

[FeatherFall]

I'm not making an argument about waterway ownership. I recognize that private ownership is possible and preferable.

Making the implication you state requires dropping the context of the source of morality and practicality.

Right... My sentiments exactly; that's why I thought you might want to add a caveat or clarification.

Whether or not something *can* be properly owned and managed in practice has no effect on whether or not it *should* be.

Whether or not something can be owned and managed is monumentally important to whether or not it should be. The possibility of private ownership of the waterways (combined with things we know about human nature) provides the is to this thread's ought. If something can't be owned, one shouldn't try to own it. One should only attempt the possible.

[Black Wolf]

Owning waterways on the soil would be conceivable, but it would be very difficult to own oceans.

Still, privately owned waterways would be a nice idea. It could circumvent pollution.

[brian0918]

Whether or not something can be owned and managed is monumentally important to whether or not it should be. The possibility of private ownership of the waterways (combined with things we know about human nature) provides the is to this thread's ought. If something can't be owned, one shouldn't try to own it. One should only attempt the possible.

But this thread is arguing about whether or not someone should be permitted to own waterways. There is no permission to be granted. It is right to be able to own waterways, though it may not necessarily be right to own them, as you say. One should only act rationally, correct, but one should not be stopped by another from acting irrationally, which is what I thought this thread was about.

I see how my original statement is confusing. Stick "able to be" on the end of that.

Edited November 25, 2009 by brian0918

[FeatherFall]

it would be very difficult to own oceans.

A company could have a need for rights to shipping lanes, diving rights, areas in proximity to a particular coast, algae farms. Even large areas for waterborne super-structures.

[EC]

If not who would own them? This seems like a silly question. We would have the mess we have now if they weren't in an ideal society.

[Devils_Advocate]

Is water scarce? In other words, is it infinite? If not - and it isn't - then it must be economized. How are things best economized? Private ownership and distribution. Simple as that.

[VECT]

Is water scarce? In other words, is it infinite? If not - and it isn't - then it must be economized. How are things best economized? Private ownership and distribution. Simple as that.

You are making the mistake of arguing for Capitalism on altruistic ground.

and it [water] isn't [infinite] - then it must be economized

Economized, for who? Your argument is implying the public at large is the "who" and the standard is the collective well begin. So if the private owner of a waterway happens to be incompetent, and cannot serve the well being of the public better than if the government takes over and nationalize his waterway, then does it follow that the government have the right to do so?

Private ownership and distribution is right not because of any social statistical reasons (the net result could be good if the majority of private owners choose to be rational, or it could be bad if they choose to be irrationals), it is right because it's what human nature demands. In practical terms, it's the only system that motivates the rational and discourages the irrational by giving to each what they sowed.

Edited December 1, 2009 by VECT

[Jake_Ellison]

Economized, for who?

For the People, of course.

Your argument is implying the public at large is the "who" and the standard is the collective well begin.

Well, no. His argument, especially since he explicitely mentions private ownership, implies that people's individual rights are the standard. The government needs to come up with a legal framework for the ownership of water:

Why? For the reason he mentioned.

For whom? For the People.

Private ownership and distribution is right not because of any social statistical reasons (the net result could be good if the majority of private owners choose to be rational, or it could be bad if they choose to be irrationals), it is right because it's what human nature demands.

Would private ownership of the upper levels of the atmosphere be right then? If not, then what's the difference between it and water, except for what you deemed irrelevant "social statistical reasons".

[VECT]

Well, no. His argument, especially since he explicitely mentions private ownership, implies that people's individual rights are the standard.

You are wrong. Don't drop context and automatically assume any argument explicitly mentioning the word private ownership will somehow magically always have individual right as the standard; read his post again. The end, the standard, in his post, is not individual right, but the best economization (for the people/public). Private ownership is used in his argument as a means to THAT, not as a means to the end of implementing individual rights.

And that's committing the fallacy of arguing for Capitalism on altruist ground.

Would private ownership of the upper levels of the atmosphere be right then? If not, then what's the difference between it and water, except for what you deemed irrelevant "social statistical reasons".

Why wouldn't private ownership of the upper levels of the atmosphere be right? Just because you or anyone else's personal ability at political and governmental science isn't up to the par to think up a legal implementation of property right on difficult entities doesn't automatically invalidate property right on those entities.

As for what I deem irrelevant "social statistical reasons", they are irrelevant in my original context, which is the standard and justification for private ownership.

[Jake_Ellison]

You are wrong. Don't drop context and automatically assume any argument explicitly mentioning the word private ownership will somehow magically always have individual right as the standard; read his post again. The end, the standard, in his post, is not individual right, but the best economization (for the people/public). Private ownership is used in his argument as a means to THAT, not as a means to the end of implementing individual rights.

Two points:

1. Private ownership is defined in the context of individual rights, so I am right in assuming that "any argument explicitly mentioning the word private ownership will somehow magically always have individual right as the standard". The person dropping that context, in which private ownership is defined, and assuming that the speaker used it in some imaginary other context, is you.

2. Private ownership is a means to "the best". And you're wrong in saying that implementing individual rights is the ultimate end, it is not.

The best (which simply means "most good") means that which is moral. Private ownership is a means to THAT which is the best. Individual rights is also a means to THAT best Devil's Advocate is talking about.

You just made the mistake of interpreting "the best" to mean "the most efficient". That is your fault, not the speaker's, since the best does not mean "the most efficient", it means "the most good/moral".

Why wouldn't private ownership of the upper levels of the atmosphere be right? Just because you or anyone else's personal ability at political and governmental science isn't up to the par to think up a legal implementation of property right on difficult entities doesn't automatically invalidate property right on those entities.

As for what I deem irrelevant "social statistical reasons", they are irrelevant in my original context, which is the standard and justification for private ownership.

The justification of property rights is that they allow men the liberty to action, in furthering their own lives. The reason why private ownership of the stratosphere is not something the government should worry about at the present time is precisely because that justification doesn't apply.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[VECT]

Two points:

1. Private ownership is defined in the context of individual rights, so I am right in assuming that "any argument explicitly mentioning the word private ownership will somehow magically always have individual right as the standard". The person dropping that context, in which private ownership is defined, and assuming that the speaker used it in some imaginary other context, is you.

Does the fact that private ownership is defined within the context of individual right magically makes it impossible for people to physically use the term outside of its proper context? No.

Is Devils_Advocate's post an example of that? Yes.

You say I am the one dropping the proper context of private ownership, I am the one pointing out that private ownership is used in the wrong context in the other post. I don't assume the speaker used it in some imaginary other context, his own post explicitly and implicitly communicated that he is using it in a context other than the proper one. You are the one who somehow want to argue that Devils_Advocate's post does have the proper context for private ownership, by blanking out and dropping the entire context of his post.

2. Private ownership is a means to "the best". And you're wrong in saying that implementing individual rights is the ultimate end, it is not.

Really now, quote me. Don't put word in my mouth, I never said implementing individual rights is the ultimate end. What I said was private ownership is a means to the end of implementing individual rights (in a political context). Individual rights are then a means to the end of something else, which ends up to the ultimate end of an individual's life..etc.

The best (which simply means "most good") means that which is moral. Private ownership is a means to THAT which is the best. Individual rights is also a means to THAT best Devil's Advocate is talking about.

Ha! the "best/most good". You do realize the "best/most good" in Devil's Advocate's post is the people, the collective, not the individual; something you even stated in your own post.

So by the virtue of what you are saying right now, the good of the collective is the moral, private ownership is a means to THAT, which is the best for the collective and individual rights are also a means to THAT best Devil's Advocate is talking about, which is again, the collective.

That is what I was pointing out in his post, and that is what I am condemning as wrong. And if you are going to support that stand, you will be in the wrong with him.

You just made the mistake of interpreting "the best" to mean "the most efficient". That is your fault, not the speaker's, since the best does not mean "the most efficient", it means "the most good/moral".

I made no mistake, you are the one who is somehow making the mistake of interpreting that I interpreted Devils_Advocate's "the best" (or the actual best for that matter) to mean "the most efficient". What I interpreted, and what Devil's Advocate posted, is that his "the best" means "the best for THE COLLECTIVE", that private ownership is justified because it is the best for the collective good. And I am pointing out he is committing the fallacy of arguing for Capitalism on altruistic ground.

The justification of property rights is that they allow men the liberty to action, in furthering their own lives. The reason why private ownership of the stratosphere is not something the government should worry about at the present time is precisely because that justification doesn't apply.

The hell are you talking about? You do realize you brought up the example of stratosphere ownership as a counter example to invalidate the private ownership of waterways. So what, now are you trying to commit an equivocation saying stratosphere is not something the government should worry about at the present time, implying that...waterways ownership is not something government should worry about at the present time...? Just what exactly are you trying to say here?

Edited December 2, 2009 by VECT

[Jake_Ellison]

Ha! the "best/most good". You do realize the "best/most good" in Devil's Advocate's post is the people, the collective, not the individual; something you even stated in your own post.

Your reading skills are non existent. This is the post yopu are claiming is talking about what's best for the "collective":

Is water scarce? In other words, is it infinite? If not - and it isn't - then it must be economized. How are things best economized? Private ownership and distribution. Simple as that.

I explained what the terms "best" and "private ownership" mean. The first is defined in the context of Ethics, the other in the context of Objectivist Politics. That is the definition accepted in Objectivism, that is what we mean by them when we use them on this forum. If you don't believe that's what we mean, then feel free to believe that we mean whatever you want to believe.

The hell are you talking about? You do realize you brought up the example of stratosphere ownership as a counter example to invalidate the private ownership of waterways. So what, now are you trying to commit an equivocation saying stratosphere is not something the government should worry about at the present time, implying that...waterways ownership is not something government should worry about at the present time...?

No. I explained why rivers and lakes must be privately owned, and the atmosphere doesn't. If you don't understand, read it again. My post was very clear, I don't plan on restating it any time soon.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[brian0918]

VECT: What is "best", like what is "practical", is determined by what is moral. Other people live by a morality of utilitarianism or pragmatism, so their notion of what is best or practical is different from ours. Your claim that Devil's Advocate's use of "best" means "best for the collective" is dropping the context of the Objectivist moral system.

Edited December 2, 2009 by brian0918

[VECT]

Topic of the thread --- justifying private ownership for waterways

Justification offered:

Is water scarce? In other words, is it infinite? If not - and it isn't - then it must be economized[for the people]. How are things best economized[for the people]? Private ownership and distribution. Simple as that.

Translation:

Private ownership is justified for waterways because it is the method that can best economize a limited resource for the public and give the best result to the people, the collective.

Translation:

The system that can best economize a scarce resource for the public and produce the most social net gain in wealth justifies its existence. Private ownership can best economize a scarce resource in this case of waterways for the people, therefore it is justified.

My post:

That's wrong.

My reading skills are non-existent? So what is this, am I seeing different words on my monitor other than the ones appearing on yours Jake?

VECT: What is "best", like what is "practical", is determined by what is moral.

Yes, that's how the "best" SHOULD be defined. But the "should" doesn't magically prevent people to define it the wrong way in their argument, by mistake or intentional.

Other people live by a morality of utilitarianism or pragmatism, so their notion of what is best or practical is different from ours. Your claim that Devil's Advocate's use of "best" means "best for the collective" is dropping the context of the Objectivist moral system.

Been an Objectivist doesn't make you immune from making mistakes. Devil's Advocate made one in his post, I pointed it out, and somehow people want to deny that fact by the incredulous method of taking out the single term "private ownership" from his post and dropping every other word he's written. How's that for context dropping huh?

[brian0918]

Devil's Advocate made [a mistake] in his post, I pointed it out

Where? You contrived a mistake where there wasn't one. I would have called him on it if he had made one, but he didn't.

Actually, the whole thing is ambiguous - it can be read either way. So you would have to ask DA to clarify what he meant by his statement. Problem solved.

Edited December 2, 2009 by brian0918

[VECT]

There is a mistake if the implication of the [people] stands. Arguing for Capitalism on altruistic ground is a common mistake, one that I have committed myself in the past, so I know it well. You didn't call out on him because you missed it.

And sure, there is a small room to change the [people] to the [individual] in Devil's post, which is the reason I asked "Economized, for who?" in my very first post.

But guess what? Jake comes right below me and answers the [people] himself, then proceeds to drop context and result in the drama you see now.

Edited December 2, 2009 by VECT

[Jake_Ellison]

Private ownership is justified for waterways because it is the method that can best economize a limited resource for the public and give the best result to the people, the collective.

Again, your interpretation of the English language betrays your ignorance of its finer details. It is only your mistaken belief that "the People" means a single unit, the collective, in the sense philosophers like Marx defined "the collective". In reality, "the People" has been used to mean exactly the object of Political Science in general, the collection of individuals who occupy a given territory, for centuries before Marx.

If you knew for instance what this is from, I wouldn't have to explain what "the people" means:

"...It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I would suggest more questions, and less rush to correct people, if it's unclear know what the words used mean. Though that's not really an excuse, my posts gave enough explanation where an honest reader wouldn't make the mistake of thinking I'm a Marxist. You're not an honest reader, you're a troll looking to argue semantics. Look some place else.

[VECT]

For the People, of course.

It doesn't make a difference whether "the People" you wrote was meant to be the collective or a collection of individuals, because both terms denotes or includes entity other than oneself, that others' welfare or values have a claim on the resources he is economizing.

The "by the people, for the people" is valid when used in Lincoln's context because he's talking about the formation of a government, that the government should be an entity created by the collection of individuals, and be proper to every single one of them, proper to both an individual himself and every other individuals. What we are talking about is economizing limited resources, it's a completely separate context and if you use "by the people, for the people" in this context, it would translate to:

-Private ownership is justified because it is the method that can best economize a limited resource by the people for the people.

That would be by the people for themselves and every other individuals.

Private ownership is justified because it is the system that best allows an individual to economize a limited resource for himself (or individuals for themselves).

"Economized" is a verb that denotes an entity that acts and an entity that it acts upon. The entity that can fill the actor spot is the individual, or individuals/people. But the only entity that can fill the receiving side is either himself or themselves, any other term, like "the People" automatically includes someone other than an individual's self.

The only right answer you could have given to my question of "Economized, for who?" was "for himself" or "by the people for themselves". Although now I can see why you made that mistake as you did.